Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - GPA 2003-04-PA 2003-130 - Housing ElementCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 18 August 12, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Tamara J. Campbell AICP, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3238 tcampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2003 -04, PA 2003 -130 Negative Declaration and Adoption of Updated Housing Element APPLICANT NAME: City- initiated ISSUES: Certification of a proposed Negative Declaration and adoption of an updated and reformatted Housing Element. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing, certify the proposed Negative Declaration and adopt the attached Resolution approving the Housing Element. DISCUSSION: Background: California's Planning and Zoning Law requires cities to update their housing elements every five years. The Newport Beach Housing Element was last updated in 1992. Because of State budgetary limitations, funding for regional councils of government to update Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA's) was not available, and the Legislature extended deadlines for housing element updates. In the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, the deadline was June 30, 2000. Newport Beach was not able to meet this deadline due to other priorities and staff changes. When it became apparent that the City could not meet the State deadline with in -house staff, an outside consultant (Hogle- Ireland, Inc.) was retained to prepare the update. Their initial assignment was to complete a simple update of the existing element. However, as staff reviewed early drafts, it became apparent that a more comprehensive revision, including policy refinement, would make the element easier to use and implement. These revisions are discussed below. General Plan Amendment 2003 -04 PA2003 -130 Negative Declaration Updated Housing Element August 12, 2003 Page 2 The Planning Commission reviewed an earlier draft of the Housing Element in June 2001 and discussed its major provisions. The publically- noticed study session was intended to provide an opportunity for public comment and early Commission review. Minutes of that meeting are attached as Exhibit A. During the same month, City staff submitted the element to the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). Since June 2001, staff has worked with HCD staff to gain certification that our Housing Element complies with State law. In response to HCD comments, staff revised the element to include additional information and analysis. HCD was especially interested in information on sites that could accommodate Newport Beach's share of the regional housing need, including infill and redevelopment sites. Our work with HCD included a visit to Newport Beach by three HCD staff members, during which we showed them the sites identified in the Element, as well as the high density and quality of our existing housing stock. Finally, on May 8, 2003 the City received a letter from HCD indicating that the latest draft (March 23, 2003) met the statutory requirements and that compliance had been obtained. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit D. There are several conditions that HCD is attaching to the City's "certified" status. One is that the City play a proactive role in ensuring that buildout of the Bayview Landing project will provide a minimum of 120 housing units affordable to lower- income households. Another condition is that the City rezone the Avocado /MacArthur site to a designation that will allow development of 56 multi - family units within one year of certification of the Housing Element. One last condition set forth by HCD is that the City commit to providing the necessary development incentives that will encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing on the Banning Ranch site. The City will be required to report its progress to HCD by October 1 of each year. Both the Planning Commission and General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) have had the opportunity to review the proposed Housing Element. Minutes of the GPAC meeting on June 23, 2003 are attached as Exhibit B. On July 17, 2003, the Planning Commission voted 5 - 0 to recommend City Council approval of the proposed Housing Element with minor modifications (minutes attached as Exhibit C). These revisions have been included in the August 2003 draft Housing Element attached as Exhibit F. It is important to note that substantial changes to the Element at this point will require resubmittal to HCD for further review and could impact the City's current "certified" status. General Plan Amendment 2003 -04 PA2003 -130 Negative Declaration Updated Housing Element August 12, 2003 Page 3 Staff Analysis: As directed by HCD, the Element has been revised to include: 1) additional information pertaining to the development of land available for new housing construction, 2) an expanded analysis of governmental constraints, and 3) revised housing programs to strengthen the City's commitment to further its housing goals. Another major amendment was the result of annexing Newport Coast in January 2002. Annexation necessitated further revisions to the Element, including the addition of relevant census /demographic data and a description of housing conditions and opportunities. Of greater significance, a LAFCO condition of the annexation was that the City adopt the Newport Coast RHNA allocation of 95 low- income units and 850 above - moderate units. The new Housing Element reflects this allocation. Housing Needs The "Housing Needs" subsection includes the RHNA numbers for Newport Beach which are the City's housing development goals for the 1998 -2005 time period. (The goals are retrospective due to the hiatus in State. funding of the RHNA program.) Newport Beach's overall goal is 1,421 new housing units, with nearly 25 percent of these units for very low (86), low (148) and moderate (83) income households. In addition to acknowledging these goals, the Housing Needs subsection makes reference to the "special needs" population most in need of affordable housing, senior citizens. This sets the stage for the "Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development" subsection and "Housing" section that follow. Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development One of the State's strongest requirements for housing elements is to identify sufficient sites to accommodate the housing units identified in the RHNA. As a community that is nearly built out, this is a challenge for Newport Beach. Nonetheless, three sites have been identified that, together, could accommodate 582 housing units. With a density bonus of 25 %, a total of 727 units could be developed. Banning Ranch is shown to accommodate 406 dwelling units while the Avocado - MacArthur site is shown to accommodate 56 units. Bayview Landing is identified as being able to accommodate 120 dwelling units (150 with a density bonus). Lower Bayview Landing was recently approved by the City for 150 low- income senior housing units. The project is now before the Coastal Commission where issues pertaining to wetlands and landform alteration have been raised. The City is pursuing approval of the project. The potential for redevelopment or "infill" is greater than for new development, with 1,100 housing units possible. As the few remaining vacant sites in the City are developed, infill potential will become more important in the future. It will be essential to consider implications to the potential for future infill development when conducting the General Plan Amendment 2003 -04 PA2003 -130 Negative Declaration Updated Housing Element August 12, 2003 Page 4 General Plan Update. For example, if the City reduces residential density in any area, we will need to find other places to provide for additional housing opportunities. The Planning Commission and the General Plan Advisory Committee commented that there may be more potential affordable housing locations than staff identified in the draft Housing Element, in places like Newport Center and the Airport Area. Because allowing housing development in these areas would be a change in land use planning, and because they have been identified for special study in the General Plan update, a program was suggested that requires the City to explore housing (including single -room occupancy hotels) and mixed -use development opportunities. As a result of this suggestion, page 74 of the Housing Element includes a new Program 2.3.2 described below. Housing Plan The housing goals, policies and programs in the attached Housing Element have been substantially modified from the 1992 certified Housing Element. Some programs have been deleted (if found to be outdated or completed) while some programs have been added. Many goals, polices and programs have been rewritten for clarification and /or renumbered. The following is a list of the more significant changes made to the Housing Plan. A. In -lieu Fee Policy. Policy 2.2.1 has been added to formalize the City's recent practice of allowing a developer to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable housing units. Staff received direction from the Affordable Housing Task Force regarding when in -lieu fees should be collected. The policy specifies that when projects of ten or fewer units are proposed, the developer shall be required to pay the in -lieu fee. When projects include more than ten units, but fewer than fifty, the developer shall have the option of providing the units or paying the in -lieu fee(s). Projects with more than 50 units would be required to provide the affordable units, either on or off -site. B. Inclusionary Housing Policy. The provisions in the 1992 element have been simplified for easier reader comprehension and ease of staff administration. Policy 2.2.3 describes the City's inclusionary housing program as required by the California Coastal Act. C. Investigation of Additional Affordable Housing Opportunities. As described in the previous section, the Planning Commission and GPAC recommended the addition of a new policy that requires the City to explore potential affordable housing opportunities (including single -room occupancy hotels) during the General Plan Update process in specific geographic areas. Policy 2.3.2 reads: General Plan Amendment 2003 -04 PA2003 -130 Negative Declaration Updated Housing Element August 12, 2003 Page 5 "As part of the comprehensive General Plan Update, investigate the potential for housing (including single room occupancy hotels) and mixed use development in areas such as Newport Center, Santa Ana Heights, Bay Knolls and John Wayne Airport." D. Potential Reduction of Commercial Zoning. Policy 3.2.5 has been added to reflect the City's current economic feasibility study to explore a reduction of commercial zoning within some of its village commercial areas within the Coastal Zone to allow for additional residential development. The program indicates that the study will be used to evaluate sites for residential zoning located within the Coastal Zone as part of the General Plan Update projected for completion in 2005. E. Senate Bill 520. A new policy was added to reflect the requirements of a new Senate Bill that requires cities to analyze constraints as they may apply to housing intended for persons with disabilities. The language included in the Element was specifically requested by HCD and includes a mandatory deadline of December 2003. Environmental Review: Negative Declaration (attached as Exhibit E) posted for 30- day review period May 29, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Public Notice: Public Hearing Notice (1 /8t" page ad) published in Daily Pilot May 29, June 7 and July 26, 2003. In addition, all Homeowners Associations, all surrounding cities and all private and public- non - profits (as shown in Appendix 5) received public notice. Prepared by: Submitted by: v nCManager Tamara J amp nor Planner Sharon ZWo sista Attachments: EXHIBIT A - Planning Commission Minutes (June 21, 2001) EXHIBIT B - GPAC Minutes (June 23, 2003) EXHIBIT C — Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 2003 Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 EXHIBIT D - Letter of Conditional Certification from HCD (May 8, 2003) EXHIBIT F - Negative Declaration EXHIBIT G - Certified Housing Element (August, 2003) City Council Resolution 0 CJ EXHIBIT A . (PLANNING COMMISION MINUTES JUNE 21, 2003) I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 SUBJECT: Draft Housing Element Review and discussion of proposed draft Housing Element. Commissioner Tucker asked to hear testimony and then ask a few questions about the main issues in this area. Public comment was opened. James Quiag of Costa Mesa spoke as a member of the Sierra Club noting that the Club is adamantly opposed to any development on the Banning Ranch. He stated that he had talked to Ron Tibets from the County and that primarily that location is within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. The caveat being that the privately owned property, exclusive of the School district and Transit Authority, is a small piece of property. If that is the item that is being referenced to in the reading materials, they have alluded to 292 residential units going on that property. I guess the City of Newport has the right to do so. Otherwise, they overstep their jurisdiction. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker then asked staff for an overview of the issues. This meeting is held to receive public input, of which we have gotten very little, and to review a draft of the requested revisions. Tell us what we are supposed to be seeing. Ms. Wood noted that the Housing Element is the one Element of the General Plan that there are a number of state regulations on. There are guidelines that have been promulgated by the staff of the State Housing and Community Development Department that we need to comply with. We need to update the General Plan every five years and we need to have the State HCD certify the Element as complying with State Law. Those regulations require a lot of detail, a lot of information and so probably the first two- thirds of the Element are really just a lot of Census information, information on trends of development, how much housing development we have seen. We are using the 1990 `Census data because that is what everyone agreed to when the extension was done because of the State budget situation. We thought about using some of our new 2000 census data as it is starting to come in, but then we would have different sources and mismatched data. The really important things to see out of the data and analysis is to try to find out what Newport Beach's real housing needs are, especially in the special housing needs populations. We think that the information we have shows that our senior citizens are the ones we should be concentrating on the most. When we get into the quantified housing objectives. the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) those are the numbers that State Law requires that the Council of governments, which in our case is SCAG, to produce. They take into account employment projections, vacancy rates, amount of vacant land remaining, the _i INDEX • Item No. 1 Continued to date uncertain • • 1' c- City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 capacity of that remaining vacant land and they assign a certain new construction need for each community. That is broken down by income group and the idea is to make sure that the responsibility for providing housing for all income groups is shored among all communities within the State. The law requires that we use those numbers as our quantified objectives unless we wish to challenge them and develop our own, which is a very complicated process. We think these numbers are fair and reasonable for Newport Beach. Our staff has been involved in the regional population and employment projections for a long time so that we feel comfortable that these really do reflect what we expect to happen in Newport Beach. It would be important for the Commission to look at the sites that we have identified for future housing development. One of the other requirements is that you must identify sites that can accommodate all of the needs shown in your RHNA numbers. We have shown three sites including the Banning Ranch and the gentleman who spoke is correct that the majority of that site is still unincorporated County area. some of it is within the City limits, but it is within our Planning Area and we are supposed to plan for that area as part of our General Plan. We think it is appropriate to show that site. With those three sites, Banning Ranch, Avocado /MacArthur and Lower Beyview Landing we believe that we can accommodate the units that are projected for us. For the next update of the Element in five years. hopefully our need numbers will be lower because that • is the trend we are seeing as we are approaching build out. Whatever the need is, I think we are going to have more of a challenge to find sites for those units and we will probably be looking more at the infill and redevelopment area. Our estimate from a review of the development and General Plan potential is thct we have approximately 1,100 units that could be produced in that fashion. We would like the Commission to look at those three sites and fell us if you think that is the direction we should be going. The Housing Plan includes our goals, policies and programs to get there. Cities are not required to actually produce affordable housing, but we are supposed to edopt policies and programs thct will facilitate the development of housing as shown in our Regional Housing Needs Assessment. We have kept the same programs that the existing Housing Element has had. We have done some simplification to eliminate the sliding scale, but kept the overall goal that on average over the next five years, 20' of the units produced should be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. The biggest change is adding the option of contributing a fee in lieu of actually producing affordable housing for people who are developing market rate housing. This is something we have actually done for a couple of developments in the past, but it is not provided for in our Housing Element, We think it is a good option for us to provide, particularly for smaller developments. That will make it easier and more feasible for the developer and easier for City staff to monitor the affordable units that we have in the future. If you just have two or three units here and there, then the job becomes harder for u. But we did not want that option to be available to very large housing developers because then the City would be in the position of . holding a large of sum of in -lieu fees and be responsible for producing the 3 INDEX ,i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX • housing and that is not the business that we are in. The last change in policy was to require that affordable units have covenants that require the affordability be maintained for 30 years. In the earlier days of developing affordable housing in Newport Beach, some of those covenants were only ten years. With time and experience, they got longer so that our actual standard recently has been 30 years, but we wanted to write that into the Element. The consultants who prepared the Element for us from Hogle Ireland, Mike Thiele and Albert Armijo, are here to answer questions particularly on data sources. Commissioner Gifford asked about the Avocado /MacArthur site. It says here it would require a zone change to add multiple family residential use. But, to allow the proposed construction of 56 residential units, is there a particular parcel there or set of parcels that is being contemplated in this site? Ms. Wood answered that it is north of San Miguel, between Avocado and MacArthur. We do not mean the Newport Village site. Ms. Temple added that looking of the map following page 44, there is a depiction of the property in question that is now vacant. The building would be based on 20 units per acre, which is the standard multi - family density. • Commissioner McDaniel noted that he is a numbers person. He said that in looking at these documents with several different sources moving through this dato that sometimes the similar numbers are quoted differently. Continuing, he noted that he has tried to track that, and I think it is our duty to point out a few of these things. Page 5 - the chart states that there are 271 units per year added from 1990 to 2000. Looking at those numbers, I get 269.25. The figure for 1990 is a two -year number and you don't know which one to divide by. The data isn't bad, and the conclusions are close enough as for as I can see, but it does concern me when 1 look at other conclusions that someone might make at looking at these charts. Page 12, we talk about vacancy at 10,1 in 1980 and 11.5 in 1000; try to define what vacancy is, I am not sure we have a handle on that. In other words, when a person owns a piece of property here, but also has a piece of property in Lake Tahoe and spends 6 months here and 6 months there, is that really a vacancy or not? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I just don't think we have a good handle on that. I looked at things like page 17 where it talks about the population in Newport beach in the year 2000 as 76. 772 and then on the next page we show a population of 75,627. 1 guess I am not too worried about this, but I look at some of these things and realize that there are different sources that these numbers come from. I did not find that the conclusions were distorted becouse of some of these. I just think that there are probably other conclusions based on a data that you might want to look for and find. Commissioner Tucker then asked about the timing for providing for the housing that is identified as need housing, is that something that needs to be supposedly 4 • Y City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 in place over the next five years? Ms. Wood answered, yes. When we update again in five years, one of the things we have to do is report on our progress in implementing this Housing Element just as this one is talking about our progress in implementing the last. Of course, the more we have been able to accomplish, the closer we are to our goals, the better it looks to HCD when they're doing their certification review. There are no clear -cut consequences to the City if we do not meet our goals. HCD might comment that the programs are not adequate and ask that we be more creative or more specific in programs. If the Element is not certified, the City has the option of self - certifying. The council must make findings that the City believes that the Element does meet the requirements of the State Law despite what the HCD staff recommends. There is some risk in that because the City might be a more likely target for a lawsuit from an affordable housing advocacy group who thinks that because it is not certified by the State, it might not be adequate. We have been sued in the past and what we have done in the course of working through that litigation was to start to get more housing developed and improve the Housing Element. The State Law does not say that the City is required to produce affordable housing; the City is required to have a plan that facilitates that happening. Commissioner Tucker noted the three sites designated to take care of the need. • Banning Ranch obviously has some issues because we have srill not seen the project or an environmental document. Avocado /MacArthur area, which to me is going to need a lot of retaining walls to get the 56 units or some height. Bayview Landing, which is a nice piece of property, have we talked to any of the property owners about our goals for their property? Ms. Wood answered that the City is working with The Irvine Company, that owns the Lower Bayview Landing site and we are working to deve!op a project for seniors that is affordable on that site. That site is a very realistic site. The potential developer of Banning Ranch has just last week responded to the City's Request for Proposals for senior affordable housing projects. In our discussions with them in the early planning for the development, we have always talked about the potential for affordable housing as part of that development. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood explained that the procedure for helping the developers could happen in a number of ways. For a larger market rate housing development, we would require some percent of the total number of market rate units to be provided as affordable units. We are saying an average of 201 over the next five years. We might say we want 20` o of your total number of units to be affordable. The developer can produce those units as part of his project and that was done earlier in some of our apartment projects; some percent of those units were developed as affordable, side by side with the market rate ones. Or, they can develop an affordable project somewhere else in the City to meet that requirement. If it is a smaller project. they can opt to pay the in -lieu fee. Commissioner Tucker asked for a description on how the deal with the Lower INDEX ,e City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • June 21, 2001 INDEX Bayview Landing would work. The Irvine Company, I am assuming, has no other big housing developments in the City and has a piece of property and you have identified it as a location for affordable housing. How does that actually come into production as affordable senior housing? Ms. Wood answered in that case, it is the City's position that The Irvine Company has an obligation to produce approximately 120 affordable units because when we did the CIOSA Agreement they developed market rate housing without providing affordable units. In other cases, the developer might come to the City and request some of our in -lieu funds to assist with acquiring the Avocado /MacArthur site or they might go to the State and apply for tax credits to develop affordable housing, they might get low interest loans for affordable housing from the State Housing Finance Agency or they might obtain financing through the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department. Commissioner Tucker noted that we have collected a lot of money from the One Ford Road Project (a little over 2 million dollars). At what point do we have an obligation to spend some of that money? Ms. Wood answered the sooner the better and that was the reason the City issued the request for proposals for senior affordable housing. Commissioner Tucker, referring to page 48, noted the reference of the City • having identified areas with potential for redevelopment and /or intensification of under - utilized residential properties [in -fill). There is a Figure 4 that shows generally areas that might have some additional housing capacity. Are the properties that have been identified presently general planned for that intensification, or do we have to go through a General Plan Amendment? Ms. Temple answered that those numbers represent areas that are currently either general planed and zoned for mufti - family residential or for residential /commercial mixed use. The growth numbers, a total of approximately 1100 units, we find within the various multi - family residential areas scattered around Newport Beach and the commercial areas which include residential mixed use. They are all entitled currently and it would be a matter of building out to what the zoning would allow. Commissioner Agajanian referring to pages 70, 71 and 72 lists over the past five years where the City has allocated its affordable housing, or actually housing assistance money. I don't see anything that helps housing per se. I can see how we have helped some programs that do help some housing, but it seems to me that the bulk of the money was with the removal of architectural barriers in 1996- 1997 with $308,000 and neighborhood revitalization in 1997 - 1998 with $304,750 and public facilities in 1999 -2000 with $339,902. These contributions seem to be substantially administrative types of assistance. Is there anything we do to actually create the seed or push forward any kind of other affordable housing assistance? 6 • 1/ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Ms. Wood answered that in going further bock, the City did allocate the bulk of our Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to assisting the development of affordable housing projects. We assisted with purchase of the land and with the interest rates on a number of projects. Then there was a shift in the time period that is shown in this Element as we started to focus more on the removal of architectural barriers, making public facilities compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is an eligible use of these funds. We also started focusing on our revitalization effort for the Balboa Peninsula. The CDBG funds are not limited to housing. They must be used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. On the Peninsula is the only neighborhood in the City where we have a concentration of lower income households, so that we are able to use our CDBG funds on public improvements and revitalization strategy with greater latitude than we could in any other part of the City. The only other funds that the City has to assist with affordable housing is our in -lieu fund that was contributed to by the One Ford Road project and the Sail House project. Those cities that have redevelopment agencies are required to set aside 20` a of their funds to develop affordable housing. but without an agency we do not have that resource. One of the expenditures of the CDBG, the funding to the Fair Housing Council. is a requirement of the grant. Commissioner Agajanian asked when we seek the in -lieu fees, why is the City • leaning upon new development to help contribute towards affordable housing when the City itself outside of its CDBG money is not contributing anything for its existing needs? It seems that new development is the only source of monies outside of CDBG for housing, is that correct? Ms. Wood answered that is true locally, but that there are other County, State and Federal Programs that developers of affordable housing can access. The locus on new construction to satisfy the need is because of the way the State law is written. If we were to use some of our 2 million dollars of in -lieu fees to help rehabilitate housing units and then apply an affordability covenant on them for some period of time, that would not count towards satisfying our need as shown in the housing needs assessment numbers. Commissioner Agajanian referring to Goal 3, Policy 3.1 noted that, '....to mitigate potential governmental constraints to housing production and affordability by increasing the City of Newport Beach role in facilitating construction of moderate and upper income ownership housing...... Why are we supporting upper income housing? Is there any other group we can find that has any need here other than upper income seniors? Mrs. Wood answered because that is approximately half of our need. We probably do have some need for large families and single headed households I amilies, but our analysis from looking at the numbers was that the group that has the greatest need was the senior citizens. Continuing, Commissioner Agojonian referring to Housing Program 5.1.6, the 7 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • June 21, 2001 INDEX policy that reads, 'consistent with development standards in multiple- family and commercial areas, the City of Newport Beach shall continue to permit emergency shelters and transitional housing....' Does the current zoning allow this in multi family areas? Ms. Temple answered that for most transitional housing and emergency shelters, many of which are considered group homes, under the state law the City is preempted from controlling them in any case. The City does have a wide variety of group homes that are considered transitional housing, particularly in the Balboa Peninsula, West Newport area. There is a tremendous number of substance abuse recovery operations going on. We also have some troubled teen shelters scattered in commercial districts. The state law preempts the City from regulating them. Followina a brief discussion, it was decided that the words, multiple family, would be replaced by residential in that section to be consistent with the intent. Commissioner McDaniel asked what substcndard condition is and what 'he requirement is to deal with it? Ms. Wood noted that there is not a specific requirement to deal with that. If in the process of going through the analysis of all these needs you saw that you had a large number of substandard units, then perhaps one of your programs would be to focus your resources on rehabilitation as opposed to new construction or in • addition to new construction. As to the definition of a substandard unit, I would ask one of the consultants for that information. Albert Armijo of Hogle Ireland noted that there are various components to the definition of subs)andcrd units. One of them being, the State has chosen in the jurisdictions to focus on units that are more than 30 years old. The State has also chosen to examine complaints, for instance issues raised by renters, homeowners of things that are dilapidated with the building in which they are living or in a neiahborhood or something that )hey drive through on their way to work. The important thing to note is that there is not a strict definition of what makes c unit substandard. The State is involved with impressions, age and certainly any changes after a natural occurrence such as an earthquake. When we examined potential areas of the City, it was the older areas o; the City that are undergoing a lot of development, particularly in the peninsula area and Balboa island. Chairperson Selich noted that from reading this, the City has accumulated around 2.5 million dollars in housing money. One of things I am curious about is why are we focusing so much on building new projects rather then faking the money we have accumulated and creating some kind of endowment and using income off it to subsidize units to an affordable level, particularly since we have such a high percentage of rental units in town already. I Think there are something like 7,000 units and some 40' of the housing is rental units right now. Staff seemed to indicate that the State requires it because of the needs • 3 - City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 assessment, I wonder how that works. Is it a function of how you do your needs assessment? What happens if you have a City that is completely built out and there is no place to build any additional units? The only way you can provide any affordable housing is to co back and to deal with existing units. Ms. Wood answered that we do not do the needs assessment; we are given the numbers by SCAG through a method that is approved by State HCD. It is only the production of new units that counts against that need when you go to do your review of progress in the next Housing Element update. I know some cities that ore built out and have indicated that they would satisfy their new construction need by second units on existing lots. So, they were able to identify the correct number there, The State is essentially forcing cities to build new rentals even if they are built out. You could cis a city have a policy that you would take the in -lieu fees or redevelopment monies or whatever resources you had and use them to assist existing rental stock. You can demonstrate that you had assisted so many households over the course of the five years, but you still would not have produced units. We also need to remember that the Regional Ho- jsing Needs Assessment addresses not just the lower income group, but upper income groups. At Commissioner inquiry. Ms. Wood added the needs are based on population and employment projections. So as long as that continues to grow. the need in • t n he region will grow and that is distributed. I do not know how they distribute it by i ^orne. Commissioner Gifford noted that certain parts of the total need like the segment of middle to upper income, we do not have a real issue with if we would not meet that goal. If the assessment showed we had lowered the need. then in terms of the new construction to meet that goal, the goal could theoretically be zero. Is that correct? Ms. Wood answered that over time it could work out. Chairperson Selich asked if we could subsidize, how much would we have to subsidize per unit, say for the moment there were no restrictions? Ms. Temple added that the purpose of the Housing Element and the goal of the State is the production of housing, it is not necessarily the assistance of individuals. There are other programs that are designed to do rental subsidy and other forms of assistance to individuals who are in need of financial assistance. I think that if you look at the reason for a housing element, it is to assure that there is sufficient housing to sustain the State of California. Chairperson Selich noted that he understands but that he is focusing on the affordable component of the housing element and not the housing production aspect of it. Going back to my basic concern, is that we are focusing completely on finding new sites to build new housing. which is not easy to do just civen the sites that have been se!ected. We hove already got 7.000 rental units 9 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 in town that could be subsidized to provide the affordable housing. It seems like we are forcing a square peg in a round hole. Ms. Wood answered that we could come back with some analysis on this, and take a look at what the rent limits should be for the lower income categories that we should be serving and the average rents for the various size units and therefore how for we could get with our in -lieu fund of 2.5 million. We can also talk to the HCD staff about this as we work with them on the review of the draft. Albert Armijo stated that what we could do is compare the fair average market rent for various sizes of apartments to what the affordability or what an area -wide affordability index would be. We could see what the difference would be for the subsidization of those units. Chairperson Selich added just to give us an idea if we endowed 2.5 million dollars, how many units could be subsidize with that? He then asked staff when this would be coming back for review. Ms. Wood answered that it would be at least 45 days because that is the period of time HCD has to review the draft. It depends on what their comments are and how many revisions we need to make. Commissioner Gifford asked to also look at if we flex the range for in -lieu fees to be collected on new development. How much, based on what kind of new development you think is coming through could be added to that fund over the next five years? Commissioner McDaniel noted that the City is charged with having affordable housing, not to subsidize housing so that it now becomes affordable. I am concerned and I am worried that we may be usine funds that may or may not dry up of some point. Have we made the mark? Subsidized housing is a 30 -yecr project. Commissioner Gifford then asked about the annexation of Newport Coast and how that would relate to this issue. Ms. Wood answered that these numbers are above and beyond what occurs on the Coast. SUBJECT- Glabman Residence (PA2001 -063) 2315 Pacific Drive - Variance No. 2001 -002 • Modification Permit No. 2001 -060 INDEX Item No. 2 Use Permit No. 3684 Request for a variance to permit an addition to an existing single family residence I Continued to of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24 -foot height limit. 07/19/2001 ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a,. 10 • • 10 0 0 EXHIBIT B (GPAC - MINUTES JUNE 23, 2003) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, June 23, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Louise Greeley Phillip Lugar Phillip Bettencourt Tom Hyans Marie Marston Carol Boice Mike Ishikawa Catherine O'Hara Karlene Bradley Kim Jansma Charles Remley John Corrough Mike Johnson Larry Root Grace Dove Bill Kelly James Schmiesing Nancy Gardner Donald Krotee Jan Vandersloot Members Absent: Patrick Bartolic Bob Hendrickson John Saunders Gus Chabre Alex Kakavas Ed Siebel Laura Dietz Todd Knipp Jackie Sukiasian Florence Felton Lucille Kuehn Jennifer Wesoloski Ernest Hatchell Carl Ossipoff Ron Yeo Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Members of the Public Present: Allan Beek I. Call to Order Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. C� C� 0- II. Approval of Minutes is Mr. Lugar pointed out a correction to the minutes on Page 2, under III, last line in the fourth paragraph; the word "successful" should be changed to "accessible ". The minutes of the June 9"' meeting were approved with this correction. III. Discussion of the Draft Housing Element Tamara Campbell reviewed a Power Point presentation outlining the laws and requirements of Housing Elements. The presentation is attached. During and after the presentation the following questions were raised. Nancy Gardner asked about the RHNA numbers and if other considerations (such as land availability) were taken into account before assigning them. Patty Temple explained that land availability and cost have no impact on the allocation. Jan Vandersloot asked if it had to be open land or if we could incorporate existing apartments. Ms. Temple explained that RHNA numbers must be met with construction of new units; however it does not have to be on vacant sites, rezoning is an option. Sharon Wood added that the RHNA numbers include all income levels, so they are not just low income units. The City focuses on the low income units because it is difficult to meet that need. Charles Remley asked if rezoning was restricted to industrial /commercial areas or if housing areas could is be rezoned also. Ms. Temple said all areas could potentially be looked at. Tom Hyans asked for more explanation on how employment affects the RHNA numbers. Ms. Temple indicated the State's goal is to provide housing for everyone who lives and works here, if a city has a lot of growth projection in jobs then the city will be expected to provide housing for those people. Ms. Gardner asked about the penalties if a city did not meet the goals. Ms. Temple indicated litigation and possible loss of building permit authority. Woodie Tescher added that legislation is pending which would add substantial financial penalties to communities that don't meet the needs. John Corrough pointed out that it is important to get the State housing people to visit and see the landscape in the area to show them some areas on maps are not suitable for building. Ms. Temple indicated that we did have HCD visit and tour our City. Mr. Remley asked what would happen if our RHNA numbers were reduced, would some other area be increased? Ms. Wood indicated that if Orange County numbers were reduced, the numbers would be increased in another county, such as Riverside County. Mr. Vandersloot asked if this need for housing is taken into account by Council when looking at a jobs rich development like Newport Center . and requiring the developer to add affordable housing in the area. Ms. Wood 2 0 indicated that it is an accepted practice to place the responsibility for affordable • housing on residential developers instead of the commercial developers. In the case of Newport Center, the major residential developer in the area is also the developer of Newport Center so The Irvine Company was required to provide affordable units due to the residential building they were providing. Mr. Hyans asked if this policy had been affective in Newport Beach. Ms. Wood said yes it had been. Don Krotee asked if GPAC could suggest a policy requiring commercial developers to provide affordable housing. Ms. Wood said that would be possible and she had heard of in -lieu fees paid by commercial developers. Her preference would be to discuss this further during the General Plan Update process. Mr. Tescher indicated he would do some research and report back on what other communities have done. Mr. Hyans asked if there were any affordable housing units currently in the City because he had not noticed any, Ms. Wood indicated that was the plan; the units don't look any different, the rents are just lower. Ms. Campbell indicated there was a table in the Housing Element with the locations of the affordable units (page 15). Ms. Wood added there is a problem with some of the current units because covenants are expiring. Mr. Lugar asked about what happens after the covenant expires. Ms. Wood indicated that when updating the housing element all of this information is analyzed and the numbers end up reappearing in our RHNA numbers eventually. Kim Jansma asked about the resale price on • affordable units. Ms. Temple indicated that most of the City's units are rentals, however with the few "for sale" units we have, there are covenants restricting their resale price as well as requiring the purchaser to be income qualified. Ms. Gardner asked if there is anything that helps teachers and /or City employees live here? Ms. Temple indicated that most City employees and teachers would fall into the moderate income which would be 80 -120% of the County median income for a family of four. Ms. Wood indicated she just did a rental survey looking at market -rate rents for two bedroom units and most would meet the standard for moderate income households. Our focus, with the programs we are developing, is for units affordable to low and very low income households. Mr. Hyans asked about the amount of assistance government is required to provide to create these units. For example, the hotels create jobs and revenue for the City, however if the money is then going out toward affordable housing, the City is not seeing benefit from the business. Ms. Wood pointed out that the money used to help with the Lower Bayview project is not General Fund or tax dollars, the fund is entirely money paid by developers of market -rate housing. Ms. Gardner asked if Banning Ranch is identified as a future site for affordable housing and then the City buys the property, can the units be shifted to another location. Ms. Wood said yes, however we would have to find a site large enough • 3 0 •to accommodate the same number of units. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that the airport area had been discussed by this committee as an area that might work for affordable units. Ms. Wood added that during the General Plan Update process we could look at that area. Mr. Lugar asked if we had 5 years to build the units listed in this element. Ms. Wood explained we only have until 2005. Mr. Lugar asked if we have to build out all 1,400 units by then. Ms. Wood stated that more than half of the units are above market -rate units and the ongoing development of Newport Coast would take care of most of those. In addition, if the Lower Bayview project is successful there will be another 150 units and if we can do another project and /or use in -lieu funds to extend affordability on some existing units we would show a lot of progress. Mr. Corrough asked about Pages 46 -48, which indicate many of the pre- 1950's areas of the City are designated as "Residential Infill Sites ". Ms. Temple indicated the analysis is intended to show areas where current zoning would allow additional housing capability which would show the State we can meet our housing needs. Bill Kelly asked if the opposite is actually true where multi - family lots are being rezoned to R -2. Ms. Temple explained that we haven't done a lot of rezoning. Some adjustments were made after the 1988 General Plan Update to correct districts zoned R -3 but where the lot size only allowed one unit. Catherine O'Hara asked how the City could convince developers to extend the •covenants on affordable units. Ms. Wood indicated the City would pay them for the extension. Mr. Remley asked if that money would be from the in -lieu funds. He felt the money should be used to get additional units built. Ms. Wood pointed out that we would do some analysis to see if it made sense before we did it. • Mr. Vandersloot asked if the City had considered a program used by Huntington Beach where a developer could purchase an apartment house away from the new development and use it for the affordable units. Ms. Temple said our program could accommodate that concept. However Ms. Wood stated it would have some disadvantages because it would not be considered a new unit and would not count toward our RHNA. Ms. Gardner asked about Newport Coast and if that area counted toward the County's numbers or the City's. Ms. Wood indicated the RHNA numbers covering that area are incorporated into our housing element. Ms. O'Hara asked if there were any policies requiring developers of office or commercial buildings to contribute to housing requirements. Ms. Wood said there was nothing in place; however she would be open to talk about it. 4 `5 Mr. Corrough asked about government programs to encourage developers to • build below market housing. Ms. Wood indicated there is not as much money as there used to be, however money and programs are available. Louise Greeley asked if the in -lieu fees affected RHNA numbers. Ms. Wood explained that the number is only reduced when a unit is built. The in -lieu fees make sense on the smaller developments where under 10 units of affordable housing would be provided. Ms. Greeley asked if mixed -use areas would be appropriate for affordable housing. Ms. Temple said yes, and indicated that the 28th Street Marina was an example. Mr. Lugar asked how the City monitors the affordability. Ms. Temple answered that we send out annual questionnaires which are required to be completed and returned with documentation. Carol Boice asked if the in -lieu funds from One Ford Road were still available. Ms. Wood said we had all of those funds plus mone', coF cted from two other developers. Ms. Boice also asked how long thc- ULy can retain the funds. Ms. Wood didn't think there was a time limitation. Mr. Kelly asked how the in -lieu fee was calculated. Ms. Wood stated it has not been a formalized program and staff is still working on that along with an economist who specializes in affordable housing issues. Mr. Kelly asked if the City could force developers to build affordable housing instead of taking the in -lieu fees. Ms. Wood stated that if that were the case it would increase the monitoring burden on us and by • allowing in -lieu fees for the smaller developments it gives the City funds to use as incentives to larger affordable housing projects. Ms. Jansma asked if the One Ford Road development didn't want affordable units included because it would reduce the value of their project. Ms. Temple indicated she did not work on the project, however said the decision was made by the City Council to accept the in- lieu fees. Mr. Hyans asked if the City would consider rezoning areas where there are buildings not being used (PacBell building on the Peninsula) to allow for housing. Ms. Wood said that kind of idea is what we need to talk about during the General Plan Update, so we've got a more realistic list of sites for the next update of the Housing Element. Ms. Temple added that she and Ms. Wood had talked to 40 or 50 different groups regarding housing on Superior when the property was available but no one was interested in developing housing there. Mr. Johnson asked about trailer parks and if it was the most efficient way to use the land. Ms. Wood indicated she had referred people to the owners of the properties on Coast Highway however they have not met with success. Also, there is a whole body of State law surrounding the closure of a mobile home park. C� 5 �b • Mr. Lugar asked if we could add a requirement for residency in affordable units. Ms. Wood indicated we cannot do that, the only criteria that can be used is income. Ms. Gardner asked why we are focusing on a senior housing project if we are not supposed to give bonuses for people who live here and are we sure that seniors are in need of affordable housing. Ms. Wood indicated that seniors are one of the defined special needs groups in the State housing law and the census data backs up the fact that we have a large number of seniors that are at low and very low income levels and are overpaying for their housing. Mr. Hyans pointed out that it seems like the terminology "Senior Housing" and "Affordable Housing" are interchangeable in the document. Ms. Wood indicated that was not the intent and she would look into it. Once we get the Lower Bayview project done we will be focusing on a family project, which is also the message from HCD. Mr. Lugar asked about the in -lieu fees paid by the Cannery Lofts project. Ms. Temple pointed out that the project was designed as individual lots, each building will house one commercial and one residential unit, so in -lieu fees seemed to make sense with this project. Ms. Wood added that because this development is in the coastal zone, we had the developer do an economic feasibility study which showed affordable housing was not feasible because of • the very high property value. Ms. Boice asked about the Domingo Drive apartments and whether the affordability will be extended beyond 2005. Ms. Wood indicated that unless the owner agrees to extend it, the covenant expires and the City has no authority to force its continuance. Ms. Gardner asked about Page 52 where it refers to buildings higher than three stories. Ms. Wood indicated the point we were making is that for Newport Beach higher density, which often means going up, doesn't necessarily make for greater affordability like it does in other communities. Mr. Johnson asked if the word was out about the Lower Bayview project or if it was being quietly marketed locally. Ms. Wood explained that the word was probably out and by law you can't restrict those units to people who already live here, although the developer has indicated they will focus marketing efforts in Newport Beach to draw the greatest pool of applicants from this area. Ms. )ansma asked if the view would be blocked with the Lower Bayview project. Ms. Wood pointed out that the housing project and view park would be done simultaneously and the view will actually improve after the projects are complete. • 6 0 Ms. Boice asked about Appendix 2, and wanted to know why the Assistance • League of Newport-Mesa was not listed. Ms. Wood said we didn't know about it and asked Ms. Boice to provide some information to Tamara so it can be added. Ms. Greeley asked for a revision of the zoning for Banning Ranch, she feels it is out of date. Ms. Wood said this was a little premature at this time. Banning Ranch will be discussed during the upcoming studies, as well as when we get into alternative land use scenarios. Ms. Temple pointed out that language recommended by GPAC is being forwarded to the LCP Committee regarding Banning Ranch. Phillip Bettencourt asked to go on record that he would not be a participant in any action this Committee may take on the Banning Ranch due to his professional relationships. IV. Public Comments Allan Beek stated he thought the focus is wrongly being placed on supplying housing instead of population control. He feels a requirement for the affordable housing units should be employment in Newport Beach instead of only income level. • • 7 1� 0 0 • EXHIBIT C PC MINUTES 6/19/03,7/17/03 �A Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. F111 o k M Page 1 of 9 fle:1.'F: l_'SERS'PLN'Shared aim er`•2003PC'•0619.HT \1 07 07% --003 • 171 a� INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - All present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clausen, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation/Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Jull Ramirez, Department Assistant Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary SUBJECT: Minutes of June 5, 2003 ITEM NO. 1 Minutes Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser and voted on, to approve the minutes of June 5, 2003. Approved SUBJECT: General Plan initiation ITEM NO. 2 Initiation of amendments to the General Plan (GPI 2003 -004) and the Zoning Code Amendment (CA2003 -006) relating to the annexation of West Santa Ana Approved Heights. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve the Consent Calendar. Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 13.2003. SUBJECT: Senk Residence (PA2003 -091) ITEM NO. 3 fle:1.'F: l_'SERS'PLN'Shared aim er`•2003PC'•0619.HT \1 07 07% --003 • 171 a� Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 Page 2 of 9 207 Evening Canyon I PA2003 -091 •Appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2003 -038 for the construction Appeal was denied of a new, single - family dwelling with an entry trellis structure that will encroach 4 feet into the 15 -foot front yard setback and a second floor planter box to encroach 2 -feet 6- inches into the 15 -foot front yard setback. • Temple gave a visual presentation noting the following: • Original request was for an encroachment into the front yard setback for a trellis -type structure that would encroach 6 feet into the 15 foot front yard setback. • The Modifications Committee considered the request and detenmined findings for approval could be made if the structure was reduced to a encroachment of 4 feet 6 inches. (referenced the site plan) . The Modifications Committee determined that the modification was mi in nature and the trellis and planter were limited to the entry and not aci the entire width of the structure and that there is an increased setb between the residence and their neighbors. . The source of the appeal is representation from the Homeowners Association who say that encroachments are not allowed by their CC and R's. . The Modifications Committee makes their decision based on the findings the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and the presence of an objection by homeowners association relating to their CC and R's is not part of tl consideration. . CC and R's are private covenants and agreements between the propert owners and their association. The City should not be, and is not, involved i the enforcement of those covenants. • Continuing, she noted additional views of the existing residence and that it may be demolished and replaced. • At Commission inquiry, she noted that modifications for these types of designs have become quite common. The designs are usually centered around some enhancement on the front entry. The Committee looks at these proportionally and allow less encroachment into a 15 feet setback than they would consider if the setback was 30 feet as there is an interest in making sure that the buildings do not come very close to the sidewalk or streetscape. comment was opened. isAlex Villalpando, of CJ Lights, Architects, spoke representing the Senks. stated that the site plan shows a proposed basketball court and swimming pool. file: / -'F:\ USERS \PLN\ Shared \gin2er \2003PC \0619.HT1\4 07/07/2003 Y` Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 CRAFT Temple noted that a letter was received from Ms. Rudat, two letters from the e Cliffs Homeowners Association and one from the Emmons Company that ,ed information pertaining to the review of the project by the architectural mittee of the association. She distributed the letters for Commission review. +e Rudat, 254 Evening Canyon, spoke as a member of the board of directors Shore Cliffs Property Homeowners Association and noted the following: o The homeowners had been welcomed to the community and notified they must conform to the CC and R's when they purchased their home past year. o This modification for an encroachment is still a variance and should be required to meet the test of a variance. o Any modification or variance granted has far reaching affect. o The Association was founded in 1951 in support of the conditions and restrictions that were recorded with the County Recorder in 1946 as part of the development of this tract. o The restrictions established within this community need to be preserved especially within a community that has well established CC and R's that have been legally recorded by the Secretary of State. o The character of the community is at risk when the Modifications Committee grants an encroachment into the front yard setback to someone who wants to enlarge a kitchen. This granting is critical if it impairs the ocean view. Any encroachment sets the stage for significant changes in the neighborhood character due to the cumulative effect of such encroachments. Shore Cliffs does have a legally established set of CC and R's that iden a well established set back design that is specific for each lot. This disregarded by the Modifications Committee during their review. e Purchasers are given a copy of the CC and R's as part of the disclosure requirements. o During the review by the architectural committee was clear that this encroachment was not acceptable and did not conform with the setback for that lot and that the Senks would have to adjust their plans to conform with the setback and resubmit for review. o He noted that notices should be sent out to a 300 foot radius on these type of notification as noted in the Code. o He then discussed findings for a variance and concluded by asking that the modification be denied. filea�P: l'ti�RS' PI_ v' Shared'.uin?zr "_00= P�" 0619.HT \i Page 3 of 9 17J • C� 07x'07/200 � 0 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 DRAFT (Chairperson Kiser noted that the Commission is not dealing with a variance unde City Codes. The findings having to do with a variance are not the findings that th •City needs to make for minor encroachments such as in this application. Neithe the Modifications Committee or the Planning Commission will get into an analysi of the CC and R's. That is a private document that is recorded for the mutu2 benefit of the owners of the properties. They are not something that the Cit interprets. It is irrelevant to the Modifications Committee whether something ha been reviewed by an architectural committee and approved or not as it is not take into consideration. The City's decisions are independent of that. Commissioner Gifford noted that in one of the letters submitted by the Short Cliffs Homeowners Association there was reference made to a trellis and deck. Was that a mis- statement or could this turn into a deck? 4erring to the site plan, Ms. Temple answered that the design does not look as could become a deck as there is a door and the planter box is in the way. Alex Costa, 216 Evening Canyon Road asked if the vertical height was a matter could speak about tonight. He was answered that only the decision on encroachment is being discussed tonight. Mr. Costa noted that there are rules regulations within the community association. The 300 foot radius notificat should be adhered to reach more neighbors of the event. Commissioner Tucker asked how the encroachment affects his property. • Mr. Costa noted that next to this property there is a private gate that every re has a key to go down to Little Corona beach. Witnessing this encroac getting closer to the street doesn't fit. Gifford asked if someone mis- stated that this was a trellis Temple answered that it appears that reference in the letter is the rear trelli deck area. Villalpando clarified that the architect went through the modification has pulled the trellis back four feet as agreed. They eliminated the mns and he then offered exhibits for the Commissioners review. Kiser noted that there is a complete set of plans in the staff report. comment was closed. irperson Kiser noted his concern with the notification error in the Code anc this item should be continued to give the notice. Commissioner Tucker noted that the same modification notices have been g •for years. There was no intent to change it and would go ahead and act on item tonight. file: / /F:\ USERS \PLN \Shared \ginger \2003PC \061 9.HTM Page 4 of 9 07/07/2003 A3 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 DRAFT >erson Kiser then asked for a straw vote of whether to continue this item to for additional notification. Commissioner McDaniel noted that the homeowner associations are all aware o this and they have notified everybody that needed to be noticed about this issue. The association would have made it clear to anybody who needed to know an( supports acting on this meeting tonight. person Kiser noted that those disputing the Modifications Committ stand that if and when this comes back for a hearing, there is no right to absent either a City Ordinance, a deed restriction or an agreement betwe( wners for a view easement. We do not consider the CC and R's. lotion was made by Chairperson Kiser to continued this item to July 17th low for noticing to 300 feet. Toerge, Kiser and Gifford McDaniel. Selich and Tucker Motion failed. Commissioner Tucker noted that it is not unusual for Codes to be less restricti) than CC and R documents. This proposal fits within the nature of modificatioi that the City sees routinely. It is these types of structures that are involved. The is some discussion at the Council level as to whether they want to continue wi this same policy or not. We have a committee that handles these and doesn't see need to overrule their decision. was made by Commissioner Tucker to deny the appeal of lion Permit No. 2003 -038 and affirm the decision of the Modifical issioner McDaniel noted that if this was noticed to the rest of the City, not be anything that would change his vote. vote: Concur with the Modifications Committee - McDaniel, Ayes: 1 Toerge, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich and Tucker Noes:1 Kiser Absent:1 None Abstaind None BJECT: Legere General Plan Amendment (PA2003 -099) 813 East Balboa Boulevard uest for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program to change th I use designation on a single lot from Retail and Service Commercial to Tw lily Residential and a Code Amendment to change the zoning designation c subject property from Specific Plan No. 9 (RSC) to Specific Plan No. 8 (R -2). Page 5 of 9 ITEM NO.d PA2003 -099 tile:!'F.' USERS' PLN Shored \2inLzer?00= PC' 061 Q.H 1 N1 07/07/2003 • • lie a Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 c comment was opened. FT is comment was closed. on was made by Chairperson Kiser to recommend approval of the cations to the City Council by adopting the attached draft resolution for ral Plan Amendment 2003 -003, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. -002 and Code Amendment No. 2003 -005. Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Housing Element (PA2003 -130) accordance with the State of California General Plan and Zoning Laws, the ( Newport Beach has prepared a Draft Housing Element. The Element is date and re- format of the existing Housing Element and includes upd, !gional Housing Needs Assessment figures as mandated by State Law. Commissioner Selich noted that he would like to see this item continued to next meeting as he would like an opportunity to review this more thoroughly understand it better. • Commissioner McDaniel noted that if this is postponed, it will be a different gi of Commissioners and maybe they need to have an opportunity to look at it. nmissioner Tucker noted that he is ready to discuss this tonight and that he be in attendance the next two meetings. He then noted: • Meetings of June 2001 minutes were impressive and he appreciated the background information. • Is the formatting of this element the same as anticipated for the Plan, so that this fits in with the other plan? • Most of it is informational and then you get to the goals. It should have same formatting and look like the rest of the General Plan. Ms. Wood answered that the formatting of the proposed and existing Housir Element are different from the formatting of most of the other elements in tI General Plan. Some of the Housing Element formatting is driven by the thing that state law requires be covered and a desire to make it easy for the reviewers State Housing and Community Development Department, (HCD) to find tI things they are looking for. We will have to update this again in 2005 and at th point we could easily put it in whatever format we used for the General Plan as • whole. Referring to page 38: Commissioner Tucker asked for clarification on ma file: / /F:AUSERS \PLN\ Shared \¢inger \2003PC \0619.HTIA,I Page 6 of 9 ITEM NO. 5 PA2003 -130 Continued to 07/17/2003 07/07/200' Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 DAFT .elating to percentage of overpaying households enumerated in the 1990 Census t( ,urrent City population. Referring to page 8, he asked for clarification on Table 5 Sousing Tenure; page 68, Housing Program 1.13 - enforcement preventint )wners of rental housing from claiming depreciation, etc. and referring to page 69 1.1.5 - regarding replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zont ,vhen housing is occupied by low and or moderate income households within the )receding 12 months. s. Wood noted that these issues will be clarified in the Element and reported on the next meeting. Is. Clausen noted that the provisions of the tax code refers to a procedure °clare a property owner a slumlord. You can invoke provisions of that code ohibit them from making deductions. It is not meant to deny rights, but specifi procedure to enforce those provisions. on Kiser asked about substantial changes to the Element would tl to HCD for further review and could impact the City's status. Can the Planning Commission make any changes? Wood answered that the City is limited to changes that can be made and still stain the certification. If we eliminated any sites identified for future truction or reduce the density on any of those sites, or delete a program, or then the timing of a commitment where we said we would do something then I c HCD would have a concern with that. As mentioned, we have been given a litional certification. We wotild need to be very careful about any changes we e at this point. mmissioner Selich then noted his concern with review of this element if nothine r be done about it. One of his issues is with the Banning Ranch designation' expressed that he has other ideas within the City and would like to discuss :m. There are some opportunities in Newport Center other than the Avocado that we can be looking at to identify. The Planning Commission is supposed be part of the Housing Element and there is all this work that goes on that we presented with and we end up with our own analysis. We should be involved th this as it is very important. missioner Tucker noted that he doubts that the number of units allocated Avocado/Macarthur site by the draft Housing Element would actua ically fit on that site. Wood noted that if there are other sites to be identified to accommodate the number of units that is a change that could be submitted to HCD and that Id take more time to certify again. followed on: Potential site on Avocado and MacArthur; • Lower Bayview Landing; Page 7 of 9 file: 'F: USERS PLN`,S hared' inner' 00= FC'•0619.1ITM 07/07.200 • • • 2(9 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/200' ) Page 8 of 9 FD iT • Potential impact of not meeting requirements. • e Council submittal timing. • Possibility of potential risk to the City if not in certified status resulting in possibly not being able to issue permits for development in the City. Public comment was opened. comment was closed. on was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to July 17, 2003 Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted the City Council: adopted new Councilmanic Districts; approved a professional services agreement to prepare an E1R for the St. Andrew's Church project, and a professional services agreement and budget amendment for the General Plan Update and • the E1R; the item regarding City Council and Planning Commission calls for review was continued to June 24th. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that at the last meeting the Local Coastal Plan was reviewed, EDC has about 30 areas of concern and recommends that the City hire a legal expert who knows the laws and has expertise in these plans and expertise in lobbying and getting something through the Coastal Commission. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - a meeting is scheduled June 23rd to appoint two new members to the vacancies that have occurred. Ms. Wood added that technical studies have been reported, as well as the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan; Housing Element and biological and hazards study for the General Plan will be analyzed and discussed. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - Ms. Temple reported that comments are to be back from Coastal Commission on the 27th of June and several comments from EDC, EQAC, GPAC and several individual comments have been received as well. • e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. �1 fi le: / /F:\ USERS \PLN \Shared \ginget'?003PC10619.11 TM 07/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 Page 9 of 9 a BFI f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a agenda for action and staff report - none. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted the owner of Malarkey's is inactive in pursuing resolution of his violation and therefore, it has been placed in the overall amortizal program for the Balboa Sign overlay. The City has retained the firm of P to prepare a comprehensive sign code update which will include the m' analysis and a further report on the dedication of rights of way will presented at the next meeting. h. Project status - none. i. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker asked for excuse to dates of July 17th and August 7th; Commissioner Toerge asked for excuse for the meeting of July 17th. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Gifford gaveled the meeting to adjournment (ADJOURNMENT is her last official act of a distinguished eleven year career as a Planning -ommissioner. 7:50 a.m. PATRICIA L. TEMPLE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION I file:! F:',L SERS'PL.v'.Sharedlv_ineer \?00. PC.0619.HTN -1 0%x0%%2003 • • • �S Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/200' Page 1 of 5 SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach ITEM NO. 6 Housing Element (PA2003 -130) PA2003 -130 • In accordance with the State of California General Plan and Zoning Laws, the Recommended City of Newport Beach has prepared a Draft Housing Element. The Element to City Council is an update and re- format of the existing Housing Element and includes for Approval updated Regional Housing Needs Assessment figures as mandated by State Senior Planner Tamara Campbell noted that this item was continued from the last meeting in June and proceeded to bring the Commission up to date. Ms. Campbell commented that she received some comments and questions from Commissioner Selich and had some responses to several of his questions. In addition, Ms. Campbell said that staff gave a presentation to the General Plan Advisory Committee who also had some comments and questions, which she included in the staff report for review. Also, Ms. Campbell said that they received a letter from Mr. Basye, who is the vice president of AERA Energy, one of the owners of Banning Ranch, which she included in the staff report as well as the City's response to his comments. Ms. Campbell said, in response to Commissioner Selich's questions did research with the Center for Demographic Research at Cal State Fullerton. Specifically Commissioner Selich was interested in an • explanation for the demolition adjustment figure that we show on page 38 of the Housing Element. Dr. William Gayke, who is the senior staff member at the Center, explained that the demolition adjustment is primarily a replacement need calculation, which is derived from previous data on County wide trends and assumptions that a certain number of housing units will be lost either from conversion to another use, some will be demolished, some may be destroyed by disaster and some will be condemned. Ms. Campbell said that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) gives the County an estimate for what they perceive they think will be an estimated loss, then they ascribe a certain percent that is based on the total housing supply. If SCAG determines that two percent of the County's total housing is projected to be lost or in need of replacement, cities are handed down that two percent for their existing housing stock as their demolition adjustment. Ms. Campbell said that Commissioner Selich had a question on page 66 pertaining to the prescribed number of units to be conserved and the question was, "What does this conservation figure mean ?" Ms. Campbell said this was a very good question but that no one was able to answer it. Dr. William Gayke said that this was a highly iscontroversial number and the number is handed down by the State, but that it is not a part of the regional housing needs assessment. In other file: //F:\ USERS \PLN\ Shared\ ginger \2003PC \copy %20mn0717.htm 07/30/2003 P Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 cords, we have no real obligation to provide that as part of bligation. Dr. Gayke suggested if we wanted to do more research, ould contact the State and perhaps get more information there. Campbell noted that there were other editorial changes they will be .ing in the Response to Comments received from Commissioner )n and other miscellaneous typos we would like to refine. There is a program developed in response to Commissioner Selich's ;estion and comments received from the General Plan Advisory Imittee on page 2 of the staff report. Ms. Campbell said it is ,ram 2.3.2, to demonstrate that it is the City's intent to investigate ntial housing and mixed use development in areas such as Newport ter, Santa Ana Heights, Bay Knolls and the John Wayne Airport Is. Campbell referred to another question the Commission had, which ertained to Program 1.1.3 that referenced the City encouraging the tate Franchise Board to enforce some of the sections of its code, which revent rental housing owners from claiming depreciation, mortization, cost mortgage interest and property tax deductions on heir state income tax reports. Ms. Campbell said that they found out his only applies to substandard housing therefore we could clarify it in he Housing Element by adding the statement, "substandard housing." a the future, we may want to consider removing this since we do not ave a lot of substandard units in the community. Commissioner Eaton referred to the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7 of the minutes of the last commission meeting, Commissioner Tucker had some questions that he did not see answered in the current staff report. Ms. Wood responded to the first question raised by Commissioner Tucker, which was a concern with the map and staff will check it and if there is an error it will be corrected before it goes to the City Council. On page 68 is Program 1.1.3, which is the one Ms. Campbell talked about, a State law that applies to substandard housing. Ms. Wood referred to the question of the replacement of housing demolished within the coastal zone and said that complete research had not been done on that portion of State law for affordable housing in the coastal zone at that point and staff has continued to look into it since then. Ms. Wood commented that if a developer who removes housing units from the coastal zone needs to replace affordable housing within the coastal zone and the way that determination for affordable in that case is made is based on the income of the tenants and has nothing to do with the rent they are paying or any covenant limiting the rent, and if the question often comes up, "If I just did it to my tenants, then I don't have anybody who is low income and am I no longer responsible to meet this ?" Ms. Wood said that they have since discovered that the State law provides that if the unit is vacant for a file://F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\ginger\2003PC\copy%20mnO7l7.htm Page 2 of 5 07/30/2003 • CJ • • Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 • before the application for the demolition that it is assumed that household was lower income and therefore was not an affordable Hearing Opened Hearing Closed Commissioner Eaton commented on Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and noted there is no mention in the Housing Element about SRO housing. Almost every other city in Orange County has built an SRO. Commissioner Eaton said that SROs are very efficient in terms of regional housing needs assessment numbers because they can be built at very high density and are very small, efficiency units because they are typically transit oriented. Commissioner Eaton said they are built for minimal wage earners and can be built at a pretty high density without the normal required parking. Commissioner Eaton commented that Newport Beach could use an SRO in terms of being job rich. Commissioner Eaton expressed the desire to add in Program 2.3.2, the first sentence after, "...the potential of housing and mixed use development including an SRO, if feasible." Commissioner Eaton suggested that it might be feasible in the Airport Area. •Commissioner Eaton referred to the loss of housing committed now, and it has to do with Table 12 on page 15 of the Housing Element. As a former planner and a with a personal perspective on the Housing Element that is going to run out before the General Plan gets redone, Commissioner Eaton asked Ms. Wood if he was correct in thinking that before the next update of the Housing Element that we will wait for the regional housing needs assessment numbers? Ms. Wood responded that, if the General Plan Update is concluded before the regional housing needs assessment numbers come out and there are some changes to land use or identification of new sites that come out of that process, we probably would amend this element even if the State has not funded the regional housing needs. assessment process, and they may run late again. mmissioner Eaton asked if staff could suggest a little stror irding for Program 1.2.2, which is the one that deals with attempt maintain these units as moderate or low cost units on page 69 of )using Element. Commissioner Eaton expressed that he was hol City would take a little more proactive stance on that and actu )vide or attempt to provide some incentive to keep these units, wl provide diversity to the City. • Ms. Wood commented that with that program, it was not staffs intent that we would file a report somewhere and thought that some of the Page 3 of 5 31 file://F:\ USERS \PLN\ Shared\ ginger \2003PC \copy %20mn0717.htm 07/30/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 guage in this program came out of the Planning Commissions her study session on the Housing Element when we were asked to estigate the use of our in -lieu funds to extend the affordability enants on existing apartments in the City rather than trying to elop sites that are challenging. Ms. Wood said that while we still d to keep the sites in there and the City is not convinced that we get best bang for the buck in a subsidy program, it still may be sible, and it is our intention to take a serious look at using some of se in -lieu funds for extending affordability in a situation like this. 'ommissioner Selich asked if the SRO units count in the regional ousing needs assessment numbers? Ms. Wood responded that they do s far as she knows. Commissioner Selich commented that he thought ie SRO was a great idea. Commissioner Selich said he would support ie Housing Element although he does have some problems with it, and iat this item was continued primarily so that he could meet with staff nd discuss all of his concerns, but the City is backed into a corner as it as been Certified by HCD, and we are already behind getting it done nd affordable housing is a big issue in some circles. Therefore, ommissioner Selich expressed that not to approve the Housing lement would put the City at risk somewhat so he supports moving it n but not something that he considers an ideal Housing Element for ie City. Commissioner Selich reiterated that having something in on ROs would be a good addition to it because it might be a more realistic nd workable solution than some of the other things we have been rlking about as far as meeting the mandates that placed on the City y the State to meet housing needs by using one formula for all. The ity of Newport Beach suffers in how some of this is calculated, erived, and reached at in the report. Commissioner Selich reiterated iat he supports it and Commissioner Eaton's suggestion that we rclude the SROs. In response to query from Chairman McDaniel, Commissioner Selich also supports the Program wording for Program 1.1.2. Commissioner Eaton said for clarification that he did not recommend specific language but left it to staff so that it would be something they felt comfortable with. Mr. Eaton said in response to query that he would recommend at the beginning of 1.1.2, to add after "Investigative availability ... and recommend, if proved feasible," so that it is a little stronger and adds more commitment than we have in the existing family affordable housing that we should try to preserve. n was made by Commissioner Selich to recommend to the City it approval of General Plan Amendment 2003 -04, PA2003 -130, ve Declaration and adoption of the updated Housing Element ve of Commissioner Eaton's suggestions. fi l e://F: \USERS \PL N \Shared\ ginger \2003 P C \copy %20mn0717. htm Page 4 of 5 • LJ CJ 07/30/2003 3� Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Ayes:) Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich and Kiser Noes: None • I Absent:) Toerge and Tucker Abstain: None • is Page 5 of 5 file: //F:\ USERS \PLN\ Shared\ ginger \2003PC \copy %20mn0717.htm 07/30/2003 33 EXHIBIT D (Letter of Conditional Certification from HCD) • 3'� �T4TF ni !' 'i n1 Rlw�cc Tu na�ovmTer n�n�f)H(11'SI \C 4GP \rl" r'Lw n4 \'I[ r IDEPARTI IENT OF HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEl' ea Division of Housing Policy Development ` 1800 Third SottCL 5uitc 430 P. O. Bon 952053 4 Sac.me w. CA 94352.2053 hit' DE�Eyo m' 31M ]6' FAX; ;27-2643 — — c_n1 6v (9 — k A=NT May 8, 2003 Ms. Patricia Temple, Planning Director City of Newport Beach Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884 Dear'vls. Temple: PLANNING ID PAh I CITY C1= "^,''- ? =A H mx1 1 4 2003 P(�1 AM 7;8;9110;1 i112i1i2�3i415;6 RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Revised Draft Housing Element Thant: you for submitting revisions to Newport Beach's housing element. received for our review on April 1, 2003. In accordance with Government Code Section 65585(b), the Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) is required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality. A November 13, 2002 Visit to Newport Beach, along with a series of telephone conversations with Nis. Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner, helped facilitate the review. • We are pleased to find the revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements raised in the Department's August 17, 2001 letter. The element no,,v reflects stronger commitment on the City's part to facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower- income households. For example. the City will now play a proactive role ih ensuring that buildout of the Bayview Landing project will provide a minimum of 120 housing units affordable to lower - income households (Program 3.2.2). Further, Program 3.3.3 commits the City to initiating a rezone of the 3.5 -acre Avocado/Nlac.Arthur site to a desimiation that will allow development of 56 multifamily units. This rezone will be initiated within one year of certification of the housing element. Our finding of compliance is conditioned on the effective and timely,implementation of multifamily development and rezone strategies (Programs 3.2.2 and 3.23), along with the City's commitment to provide the necessary development incentives that will encourage and facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower income households on the Banning Ranch site. This 45.2 -acre site is zoned P -C (Planned Community) and can theoretically be developed at densities significantly less those described in calculating the potential unit capacity (i.e, 406 multifamily family units as described on page 41 of the element). While we acknowledge that development of the entire site is not necessary for the City to accommodate its RHNA for the 2000 -2005 planning period, it is critical that Newport Beach take the appropriate actions to ensure that a sufficient portion of the site (that is not subject to identified permit processing constraints as described in the element) is designated at densities that will encourage and facilitate development for lower - income households (commensurate with its remaining need of 58 units). Using its general plan implementation progress report, required •'pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, Newport Beach should report on actual buildout yields, including acreage, density, and affordability within Banning Ranch. The aforementioned statute requires the housing implementation component of the progress report to be submitted to this Department by October 1 of each year. �6 Ms. Patricia Temple, Planning Director Page 2 • If by November 2004, such reporting determines development has not proceeded with densities sufficient to accommodate housing affordable for lower- income households the element would no longer identify adequate sites and require amendment. The City would need to amend the element to identify alternative sites with minimum densities of no less than 26 dwelling units per acre (consistent with the Bayview Landing project), or otherwise demonstrate the adequacy of its site strateev. Newport Beach's housing element now reflects a stronger commitment to meet the housing needs of its lower- income residents through a variety of development strategies and programs. Effective implementation of these strategies will assist Newport Beach in overcoming the development challenges and obstacles that face many coastal communities in Orange County. The element will be in compliance with State law when adopted (with all revisions) and submitted to this Department for review pursuant to Government Code Section 65555(g). We appreciate the insight Ms. Campbell provided during the course of our review, and look forward to receiving Newport Beach's adopted housing element. If you have any additional questions, please contact Don Thomas, of our staff, at (916) 445 -5554. We are also pleased to report, as a result of the passage of Proposition 46, a historic increase in funds available, on a competitive basis, through the Department to assist in addressing housing and community development needs. Information on these programs, including Notices of Funding • Availability (NOFA), will be posted on the Department's website. For program information and funding availability, please consult our homepage at 1c1v1,ahcd.ca.eoi. In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and organizations listed below. Sincerely, Cathv E. C s ell Deputy Director cc: Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach Mark Slivers, Senate Committee on Housing & Community Development Suzanne Ambrose, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Nick Cammarota, California Building Industry Association Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing • John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions 3�° • Ms. Patricia Temple, Planning Director Page 3 Deanna Kitamura, Western Center on Law and Poverty S. Lynn Martinez, Western Center on Law and Poverty Alexander Abbe, Law Firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon Michael G. Colantuono, Colantuono, Levin & Rozell, APC Ilene J. Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. Ralph Kennedy, Orange County Housing Coalition Crystal Simms, Legal Aid Society of Orange County Jean Forbath, Orange County Human Relations Kenneth W. Babcock, Public Law Center Ellen Winterbottom, Attorney at Law Jonathan Lehrer - Graiwer, Attorney at Law Dara Schur, Protection & Advocacy, Inc. Greg Spiegel, Western Center on Law and Poverty David Becher, California Housing Council Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona Veronica Tam, Cotton, Bridges and Associates Lynne Fishel, Building Industry Association Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Govemments • Scott Darrell, Kennedy Commission Dara Kovel, Mercy Charities — Housing California Janet Falk, Mercy Housing California Maya Dunne, St. Joseph Health System Mark A. Gordon, Public Law Center Christine Diemer Iger, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips Won Chang, Attorney at Law, Davis and Company Jacob Lieb, Southern California Association of Governments Karen Warner, Karen Warner Associates John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions is 31 �evEWK'ORT O m r n • 3 r � +c�FOnr�r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 County Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach. CA 92658 -8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Public review period: May 29, 2003 — June 30, 2003 Name of Project: City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update (General Plan Amendment 2003- 04, PA2003 -130) Project Location: Citywide Project Description: The City of Newport Beach proposes an update of its Housing Element, in accordance with State Law, which provides citizens and public officials with an understanding of the housing needs of the community, establishes the City's strategy to preserve and enhance the community's residential character and to expand and preserve housing opportunities. The updated Housing Element includes a housing needs assessment, identifies resources and constraints that impact the provision of housing, provides an analysis of the effectiveness of the City's previous housing program, and sets forth goals and policies intended to assist the CiN in meeting the housing needs of the community. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environonent. �--�// A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is LJ attached 0 on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are sienificant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. Tamara J. Planner contact Date ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least onO impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. • Land Use Planning • Population & Housing • Geological Problems ❑ Water • Air Quality • Agricultural Resources • Transportation /Circulation • Biological Resources • Energy & Mineral Resources • Hazards • Noise DETERMINATION: ON THE BASIS OF THIS EVALUATION: • Public Services • Utilities & Service Systems • Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation SI}bniitted by: Vmara J. O'3gipbell, AICP Title: Senior Planner Date: 5122103 1 P CHECKLIST Page 2 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' on the environment, or "potentially significant unless mitigated " impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisi ns or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, noth further is required. ❑ SI}bniitted by: Vmara J. O'3gipbell, AICP Title: Senior Planner Date: 5122103 1 P CHECKLIST Page 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2003 -04: Housing Element Update 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tamara J. Campbell, AICP Senior Planner Planning Department (949) 644 -3238 4. Project Location: Newport Beach is located on the Pacific Coast within central Orange County. It is surrounded by the cities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Laguna Beach and unincorporated County lands. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Newport Beach (see above) • 6. General Plan Designation: Not applicable 7. Zoning: Not applicable 8. Description of Project: The California State Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a Housing Element as part of their General Plan that sets forth programs and policies that promoting the State's major housing goal of attaining a "decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian." Section 65302 (c) of the Government Code sets forth the specific components to be included within the Housing Element of each jurisdiction. The Newport Beach Housing Element update includes a housing needs assessment, identifies resources and constraints that impact the provision of housing in the City, provides an evaluation of the effectiveness of the City's previous housing program, and sets forth goals and policies intended to assist the City in meeting the housing needs of the community. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Newport Beach is surrounded by the cities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Laguna Beach and unincorporated County lands. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: State HCD — Statutory is Review Authority CHECKLIST 5, Page I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Lessthan Lessthan No impact significant significant significant impact impact with impact mitigation I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 character or quality of the site and its surroundings? C) Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Note: Adoption of the Housing Element does not result in any physical change to the environment. Existing zoning standards and CEQA will apply to, and regulate, future housing development. Therefore, this action has no impact on aesthetic /scenic resources. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 use, or a Williamson Act contract? • • CIECK iST 5 a Page 2 • • Issues and Supporting Data Sources C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? Note: Adoption of the Housing Element does not result in any physical change to the environment or conversion of any agricultural land to non- agricultural use. Ill. AIR QUALITY Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Note: Adoption of the Housing Element does not result in any physical change to the environment. No impact to air quality will occur as a result of this action. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant significant impact impact with impact mitigation ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST 1�.3 Page 3 / Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant significant impact impact with impact mitigation a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ ❑ ❑ Q directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ Q riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ Q protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ Q protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Note: The proposed adoption of the Housing Element will not impact or modify development regulations or City policies intended to preserve biological resources. Future development will be subject to further environmental review. No impact will result with approval of this proposal. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: CHECKLIST 5 Page 4 • • • Issues and Supporting Data Sources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Note: Adoption of the Housing Element will not result in any direct or indirect physical change to the environment. Existing policies related to cultural resources will still apply to future housing development. Therefore, no impact will occur. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially Less than significant significant Impact impact with mitigation f111111!'W ❑ ❑ Less than significant Impact No impact C 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 5 r Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than significant significant Impact impactwith mitigation C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Note: The action does not involve any direct or indirect physical alteration to the environment, nor increase people's exposure to geologic hazards such as fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction orcollapse. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Less than significant impact IN 0 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ No impact C • CHECKLIST h V Page 6 111 • • Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant significant impact impact with impact mitigation d) Be located on a site which is included on a ❑ ❑ ❑ p list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ❑ p or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? @ For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ p airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑ Q interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ p risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Note: The Housing Element Update will not involve specific development or the use of hazardous materials. Future development will be subject to hazardous materials regulations. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ p discharge requirements? CHECKLIST 51 Pape 7 Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially less than less than No impact significant significant significant impact impact with impact mitigation b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ p or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ p pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ p pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which ❑ ❑ ❑ p would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ❑ p quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ ❑ p hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ p structures which would impede or redirect floodflows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ p risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST 6V Page 8 • • • Issues and Supporting Data Sources Note: Since there will be no direct or indirect physical alteration to the environment, and any subsequent project will be subject to further CEQA review, this action will have no impact on water quality and water resources. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Note: The Housing Element Update will not result in any direct or indirect change to the environment. Any subsequent housing development will be subject to further site specific environmental review. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Less than significant significant impact impact with mitigation Less than significant impact No impact ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 CHECKLIST �a Page 9 1 Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant significant impact impact with impact mitigation Note: Adoption of the Housing Element does not alter any aspect of the physical environment. No impacts will occur. XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ ❑ p noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ ❑ excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ p noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase ❑ ❑ ❑ p in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ p airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Note: Adoption of the Housing Element will not generate any noise, groundbourne vibration or noise. No specific development is proposed; therefore, exposing people who are residing or working in the city to excessive noise will not be an impact, nor will people be exposed to ambient noise levels. Future housing development will be subject to compliance with City policies, building regulations and further site specific environmental review. CHECKLIST Page 10 bb • • Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant significant impact impact with impact mitigation XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ❑ p area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ p housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ p necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Note: The proposed Housing Element Update does not involve additional housing development in the City since there are no site specific projects proposed at this time. The project will not alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the City's population. The Housing Element is a policy document mandated by the State and is intended to address the City's future housing needs by encouraging housing that provides diversity in type and cost. The Element also provides for the preservation and improvement of the City's existing housing stock. The Housing Element will not displace housing in the City; therefore, no impact will occur. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ p adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ p CHECKLIST Page 11 Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially significant impact Police protection? ❑ Schools? ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ Note: The Housing Element update does not include specific development and no new physical alteration to existing facilities will be required. Therefore, there will not be any additional demand on the City's public services and no impact will result. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of ❑ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational ❑ facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Note: Adoption of the Housing Element will not increase the use of existing neighborhood facilities nor require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Such impacts on recreation facilities will be reviewed for compliance with City standards and policies at the time of future housing development. Therefore, there is no impact as a result of Housing Element adoption. XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at Less than Lessthan significant significant impact with impact mitigation 0 u n 0 M1 n No impact D D a 2 FS CHECKLIST Page 12 (� a1 • J • Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Lessthan No impact significant significant significant Impact Impact with impact mitigation b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Note: The Housing Element update will not generate traffic, as no new development is proposed at this time. Future housing development will be reviewed for compliance with the City's transportation and traffic standards and policies as well as for compliance with CEQA. There will be no impact to the environment as a result of Housing Element adoption. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? CHECKLIST Page 13 �o Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant significant impact impact with impact mitigation C) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ❑ ❑ ❑ p serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ p permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ p statutes and regulation related to solid waste? Note: Adoption of the Housing Element will not generate wastewater or a demand for water, nor will it increase the existing storm water runoff, as no specific development is proposed at this time. Therefore, no new water facilities, storm water drainage facilities or solid waste facilities will be needed. Furthermore, the update will not conflict with any federal, state or local statues and regulations related to solid waste. • CHECKLIST Page 14 to Potentially Less than Less than No impact • significant significant significant impact impact with impact mitigation XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF ❑ ❑ ❑ [� SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? Note: The Newport Beach Housing Element is a policy document that sets forth a strategy to meet the State's housing goal of attaining a decent home and suitable living environment for every resident. Adoption of the Element will not result in any direct or indirect physical alterations to the environment. • b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Note: The Newport Beach Housing Element is a policy document that sets forth a strategy to meet the State's housing goal of attaining a decent home and suitable living environment for every resident. Adoption of the Element will not result In any direct or indirect physical alterations to the environment. C) Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ ❑ [� which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Note: The Newport Beach Housing Element is a policy document that sets forth a strategy to meet the State's housing goal of attaining a decent home and suitable living environment for every resident. Adoption of the Element will not result in any direct or indirect physical alterations to the environment. CHECKLIST Page 15 SOURCE LIST • The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Specific Plan, District #8, Central Balboa. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. is is CHECKLIST I�p Page 17 tP " 0 E EXHIBIT F • (Certified Housing Element — August 2003) • Draft Housing Element EWA OPP 1y5 j August, 2003 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Year 2000 Housing Element is an update and revision of the 1992 Element, and consists of new technical data, revised goals, updated policies, and a series of programs and implementing measures. The Element is designed to facilitate attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and to foster the availability of housing affordable to all income levels to the extent possible given Newport Beach's constraints. Newport Beach is committed to achieving its housing goals and continues to encourage the development of additional housing units, wherever and whenever feasible. Since the 1992 Housing Element adoption, the City collected over $2,560,000 in affordable housing in -lieu fees. Use of these fees and the subsequent construction of new affordable units is a high priority of the City Council. To identify the most appropriate use of these funds and to facilitate development of new affordable housing, the City Council established an Affordable Housing Task Force to work with developers and landowners. The Task Force and staff continually investigate and research potential affordable housing opportunities. RHNA and City Responsibility The City has accepted, and is committed to meeting, its RHNA allocation of providing 476 housing units during the Housing Element planning period. Achieving the RHNA is expected through development of 3 specific sites: 1) Newport/Banning Ranch, 2) Avocado /MacArthur, •and 3) Bayview Landing. Additional opportunities also exist on infill sites as illustrated on Figure 4 in the document. With the annexation of Newport Coast, an additional commitment of providing 945 units is also part of our Housing Plan. The RHNA allocation for Newport Coast was accepted by the City through annexation negotiations with the County of Orange. The City will fulfill its obligation by implementing plans for Newport Coast approved by Orange County, and monitoring newly constructed affordable units that were permitted by the County prior to the annexation. Constraints and Opportunities The City is constricted in its effort to provide new housing opportunities due to many factors beyond its control. For example, the City is almost completely built out, with very little vacant land available for new housing construction. Not only does this situation provide limited opportunity for new construction but, because there are no new subdivisions anticipated, there are very few opportunities to apply inclusionary housing requirements. Furthermore, any remaining vacant parcels are extremely expensive due to the real estate market and the demand for coastal properties. Still another constraint is that the City does not have a Redevelopment Agency, which in turn means that Newport Beach does not have the resource of housing set -aside funds, nor the power to assemble property through eminent • domain. 3 -26 -03 Despite these constraints, the City will continue to research the most effective ways to spend • its $2.5 million dollars of in -lieu funds, and will continue to work with developers to construct new affordable housing units at the Banning Ranch, Bayview Landing and Avocado /MacArthur sites and to identify potential sites for infill or redevelopment with affordable housing. Focus of Housing Programs Following are the housing programs that Newport Beach believes will be the most effective in meeting the City's housing goals. These programs will be the focus of the City's housing efforts during the period of this Housing Element. 1) Actively encourage the development of affordable housing on the above- mentioned sites and will assist developers with the removal of site constraints. 2) Continue to research sites and developments that could include affordable housing, including Newport Coast and other annexation areas and infill and redevelopment opportunities. 3) Discuss the extension of affordability covenants with owners of existing affordable apartments. 4) Offer incentives to developers of affordable housing, including density bonuses, fee • waivers, expedited permit processing and the use of in -lieu fees. 5) Participate with regional agencies (Orange County) to develop affordable housing programs, including a joint powers agreement for a lease /purchase program, on a regional basis. • 2 • City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element (Revised Draft 8/04/03) General Plan Amendment No. GP2001 -001 Resolution No. Adopted • 4WPO,� ®Ajk a �, • City of Newport Beach Housing Element City Council Steven Bromberg, Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway, Mayor Pro Tern Gary Adams, Council Member John Heffernan, Council Member Dick Nichols, Council Member Gary L. Proctor, Council Member Don Webb, Council Member Planning Commission Steven Kiser, Chairman Earl McDaniel, Vice Chairman Edward Sellich, Commissioner Michael Toerge, Commissioner Larry Tucker, Commissioner Affordable Housing Task Force Mayor Steven Bromberg Mayor Pro Tern Tod Ridgeway Council Member Don Webb City Staff Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner Daniel Trimble, Program Administrator Robert Kain, Assistant Planner 0 • • L� • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 COMMUNITY HOUSING MARKET ANALYSES 5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS 5 HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS 17 POPULATION TRENDS 19 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 23 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS 28 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION GROUPS 29 HOUSING NEEDS 38 INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 40 ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES 50 NON - GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 51 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 53 HOUSING PLAN: GOALS, POLICIES, QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES, AND PROGRAMS 61 1992 HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW 62 HOUSING ELEMENT GENERAL REVIEW 63 HOUSING ELEMENT COASTAL ZONE REVIEW 65 YEAR 2000 -2005 HOUSING PLAN 66 APPENDIX APPENDIX 1: LIST OF CDBG PROJECTS (1996 -2001) 79 APPENDIX 2: SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS 82 APPENDIX 3: ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE HOMELESS 88 APPENDIX 4: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 94 APPENDIX 5: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NON - PROFITS 98 LIST OF TABLES • TABLE 1: NET ADDITIONAL AND TOTAL HOUSING UNITS, 1980 — 2000 5 TABLE 2: HOUSING UNIT MIX (2000) 6 TABLE 3: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BY AREA 6 TABLE 4: DENSITIES OF ATTACHED HOUSING 7 TABLE 5: HOUSING TENURE 8 TABLE 6: PERCENT OF RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS 8 TABLE 7: MAJOR RENTAL PROJECTS 9 TABLE 8: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION, 1990(5) — 2000 10 TABLE 9: NEWPORT BEACH — OVERALL HOUSING UNIT VACANCY RATE (1980 — 1990) 10 TABLE 10: CITY RENTAL APARTMENT VACANCY COMPARISON, 1991 —1996 11 TABLE 11: MOBILE HOME PARKS 13 • TABLE 12: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ASSISTED HOUSING ANALYSIS 15 TABLE 13: POPULATION TRENDS, 1980 — 2000 18 TABLE 14: HOUSING TRENDS, 1980 — 2000 18 TABLE 15: POPULATION GROWTH, ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH: 1910 — 2010 19 Table 16: PERSONS PER OCCUPIED UNIT (1970 — 2000) 20 Table 17: POPULATION BY AGE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH: 1970 — 1998 21 TABLE 18: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 1970 — 2000 21 TABLE 19: RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION 23 TABLE 20: RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION (NEWPORT COAST) 24 TABLE 21: HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD BY ETHNICITY— NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY, 1990 25 • • 11 • TABLE 22: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES (1980 - 1990) -ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH 25 TABLE 23: INCOME GROUP HOUSING EXPENDITURE, 1990 26 TABLE 24: EMPLOYMENT- NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY 28 TABLE 25: UCI OFF - CAMPUS HOUSING OFFICE HOUSING COSTS FOR NEWPORT BEACH - 2000 30 TABLE 26: PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 32 TABLE 27: PROJECTED REGIONAL DEMAND IN NEWPORT BEACH, 1998 - 2005 38 TABLE 28: TOTAL CONSTRUCTION NEED BY INCOME, 1998 - 2005 39 TABLE 28.5 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION NEED BY INCOME (NEWPORT COAST) 39 TABLE 29: UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL SITES 41 TABLE 30: "REPLACEMENT" AND "INFILL" HOUSING IN NEWPORT BEACH 47 TABLE 31: SUMMARY OF ZONING CODE PROVISIONS BY DISTRICT - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 55 TABLE 32: COMPARISON OF PERMIT FEES -NEARBY JURISDICTIONS - JANUARY,2000 59 TABLE 33: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES IN NEWPORT BEACH 59 INTRODUCTION Newport Beach General Plan California State General Plan guidelines indicate the role of a General Plan is to establish a document that will act as a 'constitution' for development, the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based. A General Plan is required to express community development goals and to embody public policy relative to the distribution of future land use, both public and private." State law also requires a General Plan to include seven specific elements: Land Use; Circulation; Conservation; Open Space; Noise; Safety; and Housing. In addition to these seven elements, the Newport Beach General Plan includes a Growth Management Element, a Harbor and Bay Element, and a Recreation component in the Open Space Element. The Newport Beach General Plan is a comprehensive statement of what Newport Beach conceives to be in its best interest. The General Plan expresses in graphic and narrative formats the organization of physical, economic, and social resources to create a healthy and functional living environment for City residents while managing future growth and change. Newport Beach Housing Element 0 The California State Legislature has identified that the major housing goal of the State is the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every California resident. In 1980, the Legislature added Article 10.6 to the Government Code and incorporated into law • specific Housing Element Guidelines promulgated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. This was the second revision to the original (June 17, 1971) Housing Element Guidelines. The 1980 revision was made in recognition of the significant role local planning programs played (and continue to play) in pursuit of the State goal and to assure local planning effectively implements State housing policy. The State Government Code specifies the Legislature's intent to ensure counties and cities are active participants in attaining the State housing goal and establishes specific components to be contained in a housing element. These components include the following: identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs, resources and constraints; a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for preservation, improvement and development of housing; identification of adequate sites for housing; and adequate provision for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The Newport Beach Housing Element has been composed in a consistent and mutually dependent relationship with other Elements of its General Plan. Furthermore, the Element is in conformance with Government Code Sections §65580 — §65589. The year 2000 updated Housing Element is a comprehensive statement of the City's housing policies and serves as a specific guide for implementation of these policies. The Element examines current housing needs, estimates future housing needs, and establishes goals, policies, and programs pertaining to those needs. Housing programs are responsive to current and future needs. They are also constructed within the context of available • community, State and federal economic and social resources, and realistic quantified housing • objectives. State housing goals are as follows: • Availability of housing is of vital statewide importance. Early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order. Early attainment of this goal requires cooperative participation of government with the private sector to expand housing opportunities and accommodate housing needs of Californians of all economic levels. Provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate - income households requires cooperation among all levels of government. Local and State governments have a responsibility to use powers vested in them to facilitate improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The Legislature recognizes in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has a responsibility to consider economic, environmental and fiscal factors, and community goals set forth in its general plan. Cities must cooperate with other local governments and the State in addressing regional housing needs. California State law requires that Housing Elements be updated at least every five (5) years. The City of Newport Beach has prepared the following updated Housing Element in • compliance with the established (extended) 2001 deadline for jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments region. Newport Coast Annexation On January 1 2002, the City incorporated over 7,700 acres of the land between its southern boundary and the City of Laguna Beach. The updated year 2000 Housing Element was drafted prior to the annexation of Newport Coast and therefore does not include a detailed analysis of the area's demographics or an inventory of vacant lands suitable for new affordable housing. Census data is not available for Newport Coast since it was developed after the 1990 Census. However, wherever possible, data pertaining to Newport Coast has been included in this Element. A more comprehensive update will be initiated at the time of the next Housing Element Update. It should be noted that information on the number of dwelling units, average household size and population as of January 2002 has been included. In addition, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment figures for Newport Coast have been included as well as a discussion of the proposed programs intended to achieve affordable housing goals for the area. • Data Sources Various sources of information have been consulted in preparing this Housing Element. The • 1990 U.S. Census provides the basis for population and household characteristics. Although the 2000 U.S. Census has been completed, at the time this element was prepared, the most pertinent demographic information had not yet been released to the public. Therefore, the 1990 Census remains the most comprehensive and widely accepted source of information on demographic characteristics. Furthermore, the 1990 U.S. Census must be used in this Housing Element to ensure consistency with Regional, State, and Federal housing plans. The following sources of information have been used to supplement and update information contained in the 1990 U.S. Census: • Population and demographic data from the State Department of Finance. • School enrollment information from the State Department of Education and the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Housing market information, such as home sales, rents and vacancies, as updated by City surveys and property tax assessor files. • Local and County public and nonprofit agency information on special needs populations, available services, and systemic failures. • Housing condition information provided by the City of Newport Beach. Orange County Progress Report (2000) demographic information. Organization of the Housing Element This Housing Element has been divided into two sections as follows: Community Housing Market Analyses This section presents the most current available information pertaining to the following seven subsections: housing stock conditions, household characteristics including over- paying, over - crowding, and; analysis and projection of population and employment; analysis of special population groups; analysis of housing need; inventory of land suitable for residential development; analysis of opportunities for energy conservation; non- governmental constraints to housing production; and governmental constraints to housing production. II. Housing Goals and Policies, Quantified Objectives, and Programs • This section has three primary functions: 1) to establish City housing goals and policies; 2) to quantify the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the five year period between January, 2000 and January, 2005; and 3) to present City housing programs, which represent a five -year schedule of actions to be implemented by the City to achieve goals, policies, and quantified objectives of the Housing Element. Government Code Section §65588 requires the review of the Housing Element as frequently as appropriate and to evaluate • effectiveness of housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to attainment of the State housing goal. Additionally, the City is required to evaluate effectiveness of the • Housing Element in attainment of community goals and objectives and its progress in implementation of its housing goals. This section provides the required review and evaluation of the 1989 -1994 Housing Element. Public Participation Opportunities for residents to recommend strategies for, and review and comment on the Newport Beach Housing Element have been an important component of Housing Element preparation. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on June 21, 2001 after reviewing a draft of the updated element. Notification of the study session was posted at various locations throughout the community and a '% page ad was placed in the local newspaper inviting the public to attend. In addition, copies of the Element were made available for review at various locations such as City Hall, the numerous libraries and the Newport Mesa Unified School District offices. Notification was also sent to individuals and interest groups listed in the appendix as well as Homeowner Associations and major known developers. A copy of the draft was sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development after comments from the Study Session were incorporated into the draft. After review and preliminary approval of the draft by HCD, the document will be circulated to the City's General Plan Update Committee and the General Plan Advisory Committee. Public hearings will be held before the Newport Beach Planning Commission and the Newport Beach City Council for final adoption. The City will then submit the approved Housing Element to HCD for certification. Prior to all public hearings, notification will once again be published in the local newspaper and will again be provided by mail to individuals and interest groups listed in the is appendix. In addition, the City will again send notice to Homeowner Associations and major known developers also identified in the appendix. Copies of the Draft will again be made available for public review at Newport Beach City Hall, all public libraries in the City and the Newport-Mesa Unified School District administrative office. The document will also be posted on the City's website. • Time Period Covered by the Housing Element This revised Housing Element covers the planning period between the years 2000 to 2005. Review and Update of the Housing Element The City of Newport Beach will review this Housing Element annually as part of its General Plan review to evaluate appropriateness of objectives, effectiveness of programs, and progress in implementation. The Housing Element will be revised again in 2005 in accordance with State law. 4 I. Community Housing Market Analyses Housing Stock Characteristics Residential Growth and Dwelling Unit Types Between 1980 and 2000, 6,551 housing units were added to the housing inventory in the City of Newport Beach. This indicates an average yearly increase in the housing stock of approximately 328 housing units. Since 1990, this rate of increase has slowed. Between 1990 and 2000, an average of 271 housing units per year were added to the housing stock. • • TABLE 1 NET ADDITIONAL AND TOTAL HOUSING UNITS, 1980 -2000 Year Total Housing Units at Beginning of Year Net Change in Housing Units 1980 31,016 1,233 1981 32,249 152 1982 32,401 109 1983 32,510 225 1984 32,735 108 1985 32,843 216 1986 33,059 306 1987 33,365 971 1988 34,336 312 1989 N/A 1990 34,861 525" 1991 35,275 414 1992 35,439 164 1993 35,527 88 1994 35,565 38 1995 35,598 33 1996 35,631 33 1997 35,978 347 1998 36,807 829 1999 37,044 237 2000 37,567 523 Sources: City of Newport Beach State Department of Finance, Population Research Unit " Two year growth change • • • E E Total number of housing units as of January 1, 2000, was estimated to be 37,567. Mix and number of housing of the City according to the Orange County Progress Report 2000 are shown on Table 2. Residential Densities Residential densities in many older neighborhoods in the City of Newport Beach are very high, according to City figures that were estimated by dividing residential acreage by current dwelling unit counts. TABLE 2 HOUSING UNIT MIX (2000) Housing Unit Type Number of Units Percent of Total 5ingle-Famity Detached 5,645 41.6% Single-Family Attached 02 16.2% Duplex to Fourplex 5,743 15.3% Multi-Family 3 24.3% Mobile ome 947 2.5% CITY TOTAL 37,567 100.0% Source: Orange County Progress Report 2000. Residential Densities Residential densities in many older neighborhoods in the City of Newport Beach are very high, according to City figures that were estimated by dividing residential acreage by current dwelling unit counts. TABLE 3 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BY AREA Estimated Density (D.U. /Acre) Balboa Peninsula 22.4 West Newport 19.3 Balboa Island 27.7 Old Corona del Mar 16.9 Lido Island 13.9 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. In addition, many attached housing projects in the City were developed to maximize land usage. Existing attached projects in the City and their densities are listed in Table 4. The trend toward higher density development within the City also is demonstrated by building permit data. Since 1980, multi - family permits issued have exceeded single - family permits issued in the City. This trend is opposite to the State trend, where single - family permits have exceeded multi - family permits in recent years. • L C� TABLE 4 DENSITIES OF ATTACHED HOUSING Project Gross Acreage Number of Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre Newport Crest 38.0 460 12.1 Versailles (Phase 1) 6.8 255 37.5 Lido Condominiums 1,1 54 49.1 621 Lido Park Drive 1.7 36 21.2 Caribe 1.3 48 36.9 The Towers 0.5 28 54.3 Rendezvous 0.75 24 32.0 Coronado 32.3 1,446 44.8 Mariners' Square 6.2 114 18.4 Park Newport 53.2 1,306 24.5 Promontory Point 32.8 520 15.8 Bayview Apartments 5.4 64 11.8 Bayport Apartments 5.3 104 19.6 Baywood Apartments 27.4 320 11.7 Newport Terrace 40.0 281 7 Granville 10.2 68 aypom pa a 20, Boma Canyon Apartments 57.70 1,052 8.2 The Colony 6.0 245 40. Source: ity o ewport 6eac anning Department. The trend toward higher density development within the City also is demonstrated by building permit data. Since 1980, multi - family permits issued have exceeded single - family permits issued in the City. This trend is opposite to the State trend, where single - family permits have exceeded multi - family permits in recent years. • L C� • Housing Tenure Tenure of housing in Newport Beach has varied as follows since 1980: E • TABLE 5 HOUSING TENURE Total ccupie —Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied 1980 27,820 14,888 (53.5 %) 12,932 (46.5 %) 1990 30,860 ,207 (55.8%) ,6 (44.2%) 2000 33,071 ,4 (55.7%) 4, (44.3%) Sources: 1980,1990, 2000 U.S. Census. Orange County The percentage of rental housing in Newport Beach is higher than the corresponding figure for Orange County. The latest data comparing rentals from the 1990 Census is as follows: TABLE 6 PERCENT OF RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS Percent of en a Housing Newport Beach 44.2% Costa Mesa 59.8% Huntington Beach 41.5% Laguna Beach 40.2% Orange County 39.9% Source: 1990 U.S. Census. Since 1960, (when only 36% of all occupied units were rented) the percentage of rental housing increased due to a sizeable amount of new rental construction. New construction subsided • substantially in the 1980's. Table 7 lists the major rental projects in Newport Beach. TABLE 7 MAJOR RENTAL PROJECTS Anchorage Apartments 39 The Balboa Bay Club 144 Baypoint Apartments 300 Bayport Apartments 104 Bayview Apartments 64 Baywood Apartments 320 The Beach House 226 Big Canyon 74 Bonita Canyon Apartments 1,052 Las Brisas 54 Mariners' Square 114 Mediterranean Newport Apartments 44 Newport Marina 64 Newport North 570 Newport Seaside Apartments 25 Newport Seacrest Apartments 65 Newport Villa 60 CoronadoApartments 1,446 Park Newport 1,306 Promontory Point 520 Seaview Lutheran Plaza 100 Sequoia Apartments 54 The Colony 245 The Terraces Domingo Drive 34 TOTAL: 23 projects 6,865 Units Source: Fhe City of Newport Beach Planning Department In addition, the City contains many rented duplex, triplex, and fourplex units in older neighborhoods. Areas where this type of rental housing is predominant include West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island And Corona del Mar. Since 1990, two major apartment projects were completed, one of which was an apartment project (Bonita Canyon Apartments) approved by the City of Irvine and constructed in the City of Newport Beach subsequent to a boundary change between the two cities. 9 • • Condominium Conversion Ordinance is In the mid- 1990s, the City of Newport Beach adopted a new ordinance to ease restrictions on condominium conversions. Easing restrictions on condominium conversions was intended to promote the availability of first -time home buyer opportunities and to promote the rehabilitation and preservation of smaller, more affordable housing units. Many rental units in certain areas of the community were overcrowded and deteriorating due to absentee owners and the renting of units on a weekly basis. Health and safety issues were also a concern given quality of life impacts resulting from excessive noise, pollution and traffic in areas where weekly vacation rentals were prevalent. is • The total number of condominium conversions approved since 1995 is 167 units. The following table identifies the number of conversions each year between 1995 – 2000. TABLES CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION, 1995 -2000 Residential Units onnvertetl- 1995 37 1996 28 1997 20 1998 30 1999 30 2000 22 otal 167 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Vacancy Rates The overall housing unit vacancy rate of the City of Newport Beach varied between 1980 and 1990 as shown in Table 9. TABLES NEWPORT BEACH OVERALL HOUSING UNT VACANCY RATE (1980 –1990) Vacancies as a o of all acancies for sale as a Vacancies for rent as a o housing Stock o of all ousing Stock of all housing Stock 3.8% 6.1% 1.5 0 .8% 4.3%- ources: U.S. Census 1980, 1990 Orange County Progress Report, 2000 IM The discrepancy between overall vacancy rates and vacancy rates among available units may be due to the large number of seasonal units and second homes in Newport Beach. According to • the 1990 U.S. Census, 1,207 of 4,001 vacant units were identified as "seasonal use." To assist in administration of its condominium conversion ordinance, the City has conducted rental vacancy surveys since 1979. From 1991 -1996, this survey included only apartment vacancies. Results of the most recent surveys and the 2000 Census are provided on Table 10. TABLE 10 CITY RENTAL APARTMENT VACANCY COMPARISON Percent of Rental Units Vacant 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 2000 IOIAL 4. % 4.6% 2. 0 4.3% 8% 4.4% 8.0 0 ource: Uty Ot NeWPOrt Beach Planning Department, 2000 U.S. Census Housing Condition There has not been a comprehensive survey of housing conditions in Newport Beach since the 1976 Special Census for Newport Beach. That survey indicated only 1.3% of all housing units were deficient. Three neighborhoods in the city contained concentrations of substandard housing. 5.1% of all housing units on Balboa Peninsula were in substandard condition, while 2.5% and 2.6% of all units on Balboa Island and in Newport Heights respectively, were in substandard condition. Deficient units in this regard are defined as deteriorated, dilapidated units, • as well as those units inadequate in original construction, or which were under extensive repair. The estimated number of substandard units will not be available to the City until the findings of the 2000 Census are published. However, it is the consensus of City staff that the condition of housing in Newport Beach is considered to be very good. During 2000, through its ongoing code enforcement program, the City Building Department identified only four properties in need of repair. Extremely high property values and the lack of code enforcement cases indicate that property owners within Newport Beach are, for the most part, conscientious about maintaining their properties. Substandard housing does not appear to be a problem for the community at this point in time. Illegal Dwelling Units Illegal or "bootleg" dwelling units have historically been a problem in Newport Beach, experienced most often in the older, beach - oriented areas of West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island and Corona del Mar. These units are found in two typical forms: the "splitting" of a single dwelling unit into two separate occupancies, and the conversion of garages to living space. These units usually have a higher number of health and safety code violations than legal units, due to conversion without proper building permits and inspections. Illegal units continue to be a problem today, but are less prevalent than in the past, due to increased year round owner occupancy in these areas, and inspections which occur when properties are sold. While it is difficult to estimate the number of illegal units, code enforcement personnel estimate that as much as five percent of the City's housing stock may • be in the form of illegal units. While not considered to be safe and adequate housing, these is units do provide living arrangements that tend to be considered more affordable than legal units. Accessory Dwelling Units The City's Zoning Code includes provisions for "granny units" (accessory, age- restricted units) which may be approved by the Planning Commission in single and multi - family areas. Since adoption of the City's "accessory dwelling unit" provisions, 18 age- restricted units have been authorized and twelve constructed. Since the approval process defined by the Zoning Code allows for little discretion to deny these requests, the Housing Element includes a program to make this a staff -level approval in the future. Mobile Homes There are presently 972 mobile home spaces in ten (10) mobile home parks in Newport Beach. Nine of these parks contain 774 spaces occupied by permanent residents. The remaining homes are occupied by persons who use the units for vacations and weekend visits to the area. In total, the ten parks house 1,211 permanent residents. Space rents range from $500 to $3,000 (see Table 11). The character of the City's ten mobile home parks varies. Three of the parks are located on or close to Newport Harbor. These three parks appeal to retirees and a substantial number of spaces in these parks are occupied by permanent residents. Space rents depend on location of the space in relationship to the Bay and the size of the mobile home. One of these parks, • Bayside Village, is occupied primarily by retired persons, a large portion of whom have occupied their mobile homes for 20 years or more. It should be noted that recently, many mobile homes in Cannery Village have been replaced with manufactured housing that is not affordable to low- income and moderate - income individuals and families. • The State HCD is responsible for issuing permits for mobile home parks. The City of Newport Beach has notified the State that mobile home units affordable to low- and /or moderate - income households have been converted, or are in the process of converting to, market rate status and thereby may lose their affordable status. To date, the State has taken no action regarding this continuing loss of affordable housing. Four mobile home parks are located either in West Newport on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway, in the West Newport Triangle area. Space rents in these parks range upward from $500 per month. Many of these mobile homes are older, having been in parks since their development in the 1950s or 1960s. It should be noted that one mobile home park, the Beach and Bay Mobile Home Park at 7204 W. Coast Highway, appears to be in substantial physical decline and could be subject to redevelopment or replacement within this planning period. 12 13 0 • • TABLE 11 MOBILE HOME PARKS of Spaces Occupied Total # of by # of Mobile Home Park # of # of Spaces/ Permanent Permanent Rent/ (Site Address) Spaces Acres Acre Residents Residents Month ($) Bayside Village 300 East Coast Highway 343 24.66 13.91 264 448 $1,100 -3,000 Beach and Bay Current 7204 W. Coast information Highway 47 1.41 33.33 45 77 unavailable Cannery village 700 Lido Park Drive (replaced with manufactured homes 34 1.40 24.29 33 61 $1,500 -3,000 Ebb Tide 1560 Placentia Avenue 77 4.16 18.51 76 109 $500-630 Flamingo Current 7000 W. Coast information Highway 20 0.31 64.52 20 30 unavailable Harbor Current 1535 Superior information Avenue 40 1.92 20.83 38 48 unavailable Lido 710 Lido Park Drive 214 12.40 17.26 214 323 $900 -1,300 Manna Par 1770 W. Balboa Blvd. 58 4.94 11.74 22 44 $865 -1,550 Newport Terrace 824 W. 15th St. 56 4.27 13.11 53 71 $625 Seachffe Mobile Park 890 West 151h Street 117 N/A N/A N/A N/A $755 — 1,250 TOTAL(S): 10 972 774 1,211 $500 -3,000 13 0 • • Source: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department. • Assisted Housing Stock Table 12 identifies developments by project name and address, type of governmental assistance received, earliest potential date of change from low- income uses to non low- income uses and total number of elderly and non - elderly units that could be lost from City housing stock during 2000 — 2005. In 1997, the Newport North Apartments converted from affordable status to market rate status, which caused the loss of affordability of fifty (50) units. Most of the assisted units shown on Table 13 will not be lost until after 2005. The only units identified as being a potential loss to market rate rents during the tenure of this Housing Element are the 100 (all one - bedroom) units in the Seaview Lutheran Plaza Assisted Living Apartment complex. However, this project was approved through a Use Permit process and a condition of approval mandates that all of these units be for low- income elderly occupants, the segment of the special needs population most in need of affordable housing. It is important to note that the Seaview Lutheran project was approved by the City of Newport Beach as an affordable senior citizen housing facility only; that is, Seaview Lutheran may not be converted to any other form of use without explicit approval (a new Use Permit or an amendment to the existing Use Permit) of the City of Newport Beach. Furthermore, Caring Housing Ministries, the Lutheran Church managing entity of Seaview Lutheran Plaza, has indicated it has • no intention of converting the 100 low- income units to market rate units. • No other inclusionary housing units have expiring long -term use restrictions during the tenure of this Housing Element. The City has had policies in effect since the mid- 1980's requiring the provision of affordable housing in association with all new residential developments where more than 4 units are proposed. Most were provided within new or existing apartment projects. In some cases, an in- lieu fee was assessed when the provision of housing was not feasible due to the small size of the development. The City also facilitated the teaming of market rate and affordable housing developers to produce required affordable housing. Over the last twenty years, this program has resulted in the provision of 620 affordable units. 14 15 0 • • TABLE 12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ASSISTED (AND AFFORDABLE) HOUSING SUMMARY Project Name/ Location I ype of Assistance Earliest Possible Potential Units Received Date of Change To Be Lost Domingo Drive Apartments Secton (2 851 Domingo Drive Very Low Income Newport Harbor Apartments — Section 8 2020 (26) 1538 Placentia Low Income Newport Harbor 11 Apartments Section 2 Low - Income 13aywood City nc usionary 2010- 46 Low-Income) Housing 2011 Requirement Newport Seacrest Section 8 2016 Apartments Low Income 843 151h Street Newport Seashore Section 8 2018 (1 5) Apartments Low Income 849 West 15th Street Newport Seaside Section 8 2019 (25) Apartment Very Low Income 1544 Placentia eaview Lutheran Plaza Section 202 (loan expiration in ery ow (Seniors only) 2002)" Income elderly 2800 Pacific View Drive Villa del Este Section ners ip 2021 401 Seaward Road Moderate Income Villa Siena Section 8 ownership 2021 (3) 2101 15th Street Low Income Source: City of ewport Beach Pfa nning Department The Section 202 loan for this project expires in 2002, however, these units are not at risk of converting to market rates due to City imposed conditional use restrictions. 15 0 • • • Summary As of the writing of this Housing Element, the City is almost completely built out with very limited opportunity for any type of new development. This means that residential building activity consists principally of remodeling and /or the total reconstruction of existing housing units. In many cases, these projects result in a reduction in the number of rental single - family dwelling units as residential reconstruction typically results in owner occupancy. E The housing stock within the City of Newport Beach is comprised of a mix of housing types that cater to a wide spectrum of owners and renters. The City has housing densities and rental opportunities that are greater than that which can be found in the County as a whole. In addition, the housing stock is well maintained with very few housing units being classified as deficient. Vacancy rates in the city are adequate to accommodate changes in demand for housing within the city. nri Housing Unit Projections Ultimate residential capacity within the City of Newport Beach has been noted in Orange Count • Progress Report 90nn to be 41,782 dwelling units within the City limits. The recently annexed Newport Coast will have an ultimate residential build -out of 5,150 units. These projections are based on the City General Plan, the City traffic model, the County of Orange, and projections made by the Center for Demographic Research as part of its Orange Crninty Progress Report 2000. This number will change subsequent to the anticipated annexations of Bay Knolls and Santa Ana Heights in 2003. Ultimate residential capacity provides the most accurate means to population projections within the City. To project population, the following assumptions have been made: Household size was 2.25 persons per household by 2000, according to the Ors County Prngress Report ?nn n. As housing costs continue to rise, an increasing number of units may be occupied by unrelated persons who share housing expenses. Additionally, younger, childless couples within the City eventually will have children, thus providing some natural population increase and partly offsetting the historical decline in household size. 2. Vacancy rates will decline as a result of demand for housing and increased price of housing in Orange County. The California State Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit indicated in Orange County Progress Report 20o the vacancy rate within the City of Newport Beach was 11.48 %, which may be indicative of a highly seasonal population (vacationers and students). An overall vacancy rate of 10% through the year 2010 has been projected. This 10% vacancy rate includes seasonal and migratory units • not available for occupancy. The comparable overall vacancy rate in 1980 was 12.9 %. 3. The Orange County Progress Report assumes that Newport Beach will reach its ultimate residential build -out by 2010, however some Newport Beach officials disagree. Population growth will be affected significantly by the assumption regarding average household size. The Center for Demographic Research has estimated the City of Newport Beach year 2000 population was 75,600. With the addition of Newport Coast, population estimates increase by an additional 7,000. The Department of Finance estimated the population in 2000 to be 76,772. Department of Finance data for Newport Coast is not available. is 17 • The following tables were created to demonstrate housing and population trends based on past State Department of Finance estimates. These estimates are supplemented with housing unit and population projections based on estimates of actual construction. Projections are for the period covered by this Housing Element, 2000 - 2005. TABLE 13 POPULATION TRENDS, 1980 -2000 Total ousehold Population opt u at on Group Quarters 980 65,283 64,972 311 66,817 66,284 533 -1990 66,643 65,941 702 68,920 68,199 721 75,627 6 72 2005 82,4 2.297 Sources: State Department of inane, opulation Research Unit, 2000. *1992 Housing Element, City of Newport Beach. "Orange County Progress Report, 2000 877 • It should be noted that the Orange County Progress Report 2000 estimated the total number of households in the City of Newport Beach to be 30,860 (of which 17,207 were owner occupied and 13,653 were renter occupied). The discrepancy in numbers from that provided by the Census of Population and Housing may be considered to be caused by different definitions of "household" used by the Census and the existence of vacant units. TABLE 14 HOUSING TRENDS, 1980 -2000 Dwelling Unit Type Total Inge Mobile of Units Family 2 to 4 5 or > Homes Occupied Units Percent Vacant Pop! Household 1980` 31,016 17,490 7,149 5,762 615 28,282 8.81% 2.297 1985' 32,843 19,078 5,836 7,052 877 29,605 9.86% 2.239 34,861 20,767 5,355 7,792 947 30,860 11.48% 2.252 35,598 20,776 5,637 8,238 947 31,512 11.48% 37,567 21,747 5,743 9,130 947 33,255 11.48% 52 39,320 ources: State Department of inane, Population Research Unit, 2000. *1992 Housing Element, City of Newport Beach. "Orange County Progress Report, 2000. • 18 Population Trends • The decades between 1950 and 1970 were years of spectacular growth for Orange County. In 1950, just over 216,000 persons lived in the County. By 1970, the population had grown to over 1.4 million. During this time period, the majority of new development occurred in northern Orange County. Since 1970, Orange County's growth rate has declined substantially, although it still exceeds the State growth rate. In the 1970s, as vacant land became more scarce, growth shifted southerly with the appearance of new cities, such as Irvine, Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel. During the 1980s, the southern portion of Orange County experienced between a four to five percent annual growth rate. Orange County as a whole had a 17.3% growth rate between 1990 and 2000, according to California State Department of Finance estimates. The City rate of population growth exceeded the County rate of population growth through 1950. However, since 1950 the City's proportionate gain in population has been substantially less than that of the County. Annexations of the West Newport Triangle in 1980, a portion of Santa Ana Heights in 1987, and construction of large housing developments helped to increase City population 6.5% between 1980 and 1990. Construction of housing developments contributed to an increase of City population of 15.2% between 1990 and 2000. The City growth rate was projected to decline by 2000 and beyond as vacant land becomes increasingly scarce. Population increases after 2000 generally were anticipated to be accommodated through intensification of land uses and annexation of the Newport Coast and Santa Ana Heights areas. Past and future populations of both Orange County and Newport Beach are presented below. Newport Beach population will continue to constitute a decreasing percentage of the County population. • Supply of vacant land to support new residential development in the City of Newport Beach has • diminished rapidly. Immigration, still a strong factor in population growth in Orange County, is a 101 TABLE 15 POPULATION GROWTH ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH: 1910 -2010 Orange County Newport Beach City Population as Po ulation Growth Rate Population Growth Rate a percentage of County Population 1910 34,436 445 1.3% 1920 61,375 78.2% 894 101% 1.5% 1930 118,674 93.4% 2,203 146.4% 1.8% 1940 130,760 10.2% 4,438 101.4% 3.4% 1950 216,224 65.4% 12,120 173.1% 5.6% 1960 703,925 225.6% 26,565 119.2% 3.8% 1970 1,420,386 101.8% 49,442 86.1% 3.5% 1980 1,932,709 36.1% 62,556 26.5% 3.2% 1990 2,410,556 24.7% 66,643 6.5% 2.8% 2000" 2,828,400 17.3% 76,772 15.2% 2.7% 2010' 3,168,942 12.0% 83,737 9.1% 2.6% 2020 3,673,046 13.8% 88,676 5.6% 2.4% Sources: U.S. Census of Population and Housing and California Department of Finance. Projected 2000 - 2010 Data - Orange County Progress Report (2000). • Supply of vacant land to support new residential development in the City of Newport Beach has • diminished rapidly. Immigration, still a strong factor in population growth in Orange County, is a 101 small contributor to population growth in Newport Beach. Projected data for Orange County is provides additional evidence vacant land throughout the County is diminishing. County population is projected to increase by 13.8% between 2010 and 2020. The City of Newport Beach population is projected to increase only 5.6% during that time period, representing a slowing of growth by almost 40 %. • • The California State Department of Finance estimated the vacancy rate to be 5.7% for Orange County in 2000. This relatively high rate of vacant units was attributed to use of many housing units as second homes for persons who had seasonal business or recreational ties to the area. Overall vacancy of year -round units at the time of the 1990 U.S. Census was 8 %. Use of units as second homes between 1970 and 1990 did not explain the reduction in population growth relative to increase in number of households. This trend instead was attributable to a sizeable reduction in average size of City households. Average household size in 1970 was 2.6; the 1980 Census reported an average household size of 2.2. Between 1980 and 1990, this rate increased to 2.3 persons per unit. Decreases in household sizes are occurring in most communities in California. The decrease in average persons per household between 1970 and 1980 and the increase in average persons per household between 1980 and 2000 are shown below. This trend is consistent with the trend in Orange County. TABLE 16 PERSONS PER OCCUPIED UNIT (1970 - 2000) 1970 1980 1990 2000 Newport Beach 2.6 .2 1T 2.25 Orange County 3.2 2.7 3.1 3. Sources: 1990 U.S. Census. Orange County Progress Report 2000 Various factors that contributed to this phenomenon include the following: • Rental housing in most urban areas was occupied by households for which the average size was smaller than owner - occupied housing. • Many predominantly owner - occupied neighborhoods in the City were originally populated by child- rearing families. These families matured; children grew and left home. As a result, certain neighborhoods now have sizeable numbers of childless couples in the "empty nest" stage of life, causing a general reduction in neighborhood population. • Following a national trend, many young couples postponed starting a family or elected not to have children. Childless couples, supported by two professional salaries, may have been able to afford housing in Newport Beach. Young, childless households became common in many neighborhoods where child- rearing families had been predominant, contributing to neighborhood population reductions. • Many retired persons moved to Newport Beach before 1980. In summary, reduction in household size in Newport Beach between 1970 and 1980 had been the result of increased numbers of persons 65 years of age and older and reduced numbers of • child- rearing households and child population in the City. This trend is documented by Table 17 ( "Population By Age, City of Newport Beach 1970- 1998 "). Table 18 further indicates a general aging of the population of the City between 1990 and 1998. However, it also shows an increase in "under 5' and "5 -13" age categories, which in part may explain the slight increase in numbers of persons per household. TABLE 17 POPULATION BY AGE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, 1970 -1998 TABLE 18 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 1970 -2000 Age Under 5 5- 65+ 1970 2,343 6,434 3,199 1 18,602 4,859 % of Total 4.7% 13% 7.7% 27.1% 37.6% 9.8/0 1,835 4,270 19,169 24,934 6,240 % of otal 2.9% 10.3% 6.8% 30.5% 39.6% 9.9% 3 5,135 3,843 19,342 25,285 .2 % oa 2.70 8.20 6.1% 30.90 4 11.7% 1990 2,578 4,115 2,197 19,573 27, 8,194 (-11.7%) % oa 3.9% 62% 3,3% 29.40 4.80 T5.5% 1998 3,304 5,74 0 -17,316 33,868 % of o a 4.6% 7.90/6- '23.0 0 0 882 902 ( +2.3 o) Information not available Sources: 1970, 1980,1990 U.S. Census and 1976 Special census for Orange County Progress Report, 1999 and 2000. Newport Beach. 200 (+ Percentages may not add to o due toindependent roun ing. Subtotal These figures correspond tot the age group 15 - 34. 1,102 (+6.1%) In addition, public school enrollment in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District increased at a rate significantly greater than population growth after 1990, as indicated on Table 18. 21 • • TABLE 18 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 1970 -2000 19.70 o 1980 ( change) 0 change) 0 2000 change) -Fru-b rc 0 8 5,681 4,495 (-20.9%) 4,157 (-T5%) 5,87 8 (+41.4%) 0 12 3,299 3, (+5.4%) ,37 (-35.9%)- _9,2_ 6 (+42.4% Subtotal ,980 8,194 (-11.7%) 6,528 (-2U%) 4(+41.8) rnra e 0 882 902 ( +2.3 o) Information not available 0 V 157 200 (+ Subtotal 1,102 (+6.1%) TOTAL 10,019 9,296 Sources: " Newport-Mesa Unified Sc oo istnct. City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 21 • • Summary • The aging trend of the population in Newport Beach points to the need to focus on addressing the housing needs for senior citizens. As outlined in the Goals section, the City of Newport Beach will specifically focus on this growing segment of the population. E E 22 Household QbaractPristics Ethnicity • The following information is based on the most recent information (2000 Census of Population and Housing) available for the City of Newport Beach, as supplemented with information from Oranges Cnunty Progress Report The City of Newport Beach was more diverse racially and ethnically in 2000 than in 1990. Persons who classified themselves as white in 1990 comprised 92.5% of the City population. Those classifying themselves as Hispanic in 1990 comprised 4% of the City population; in 2000 that increased to 6.2 %. The percentage of the City population who identified themselves as black in 1990 was .2 %; in 2000 this increased to .5 %. Table 19 shows the 1990 and 2000 racial and ethnic composition of Newport Beach. Comparative figures for Orange County are also provided. 23 C� • TABLE 19 RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSMON City of Newport Beach County of Orange Race and Ethnici Number Percent Number Percent White 1990 61,693 92.5% 1,557,956 64.6% 2000 64,583 92.2% 1,844,652 64.8% Black 1990 152 0.2% 38,825 .6% 2000 371 .5% 47,649 1.7% Asian/Pacific Islander 1990 1912 2.9% 244,407 10.1% 2000 2,804 4.0% 386,785 116% Hispanic 1990 2,671 4.0% 556,957 23.1% 2000 3,301 4.7% 875,579 30.8% Other 1990 215 0.3% 12,411 0.5% 2000 792 1.1% 421,208 14.8% Total 1990 66,643 100% 2,410,556 100% 2000 70,032 100% 2,846,289 100% Sources: Orange County Progress Report 2006, Center for Demographic Research. U.S. Census -2000. Numbers are rounded to nearest decimal place and may not add up to 1001/9 23 C� • 0 • • 24 TABLE 20 RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION NEWPORT COAST Newport Coast County of Orange Race an Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent White 2000 2,085 78.1% 1,844,652 64.8% Black 2000 7 0.3% 47,649 1.7% Asian/Pacific Islander 2000 483 18.1% 386,785 13.6% Hispanic 2000 112 4.2% 875,579 30.8% Other 2000 8 0.3 421,208 14.8% Total 2000 2,671 100% 2,846,289 100% Sources: Orange County Progress Report 2000. Center for Demographic Research. U.S. Census -2000. Numbers are rounded to nearest decimal place and may not add up to 100% 24 Table 21 shows 1990 Census ethnic data for the City of Newport Beach and the County of • Orange by head of household. Household Incomes An important component of housing affordability is household income. Upper income households have substantial discretionary income to spend on housing; low- and moderate - income households are more limited in terms of housing they can afford. Median household income in Newport Beach traditionally has been greater than that of Orange County. In 1980, City median household income was 20.7% higher than County household median income. In 1990, City median household income had become 31.5% higher than County household median income. TABLE 22 MEDIAN HOU5F-HQLD INCOMES — ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH Orange County Newport Beach a of oun y 1980 + 2 6 . o 0 45,922 $60,374 (+31.5%) ource: U.S. Gensus, 1980, –1990. 25 • • TABLE 21 HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD BY ETHNICITY NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY, 1990 Newport ueac range County Heads of Household Percentage Heads of Household Percentage Non-Minority White 29,075 94.21% 700,126 67.00% ack 0.170/6— 45,961 474 6 American Indian, Eskimo & Aleut 120 0.39% 4,556 0.44% scan Pack Islander 609 1.97% 65,129 6.23% Other 21 0.08% 110,167 10.54% Spanish Origin 981 3.18% 119,081 11.40% White (818) (71,670) Black 54 merncan Indian (10) (908) Other 45 44,7 TOIAL 30,860 1,045, 02 Persons of panis origins own separately. Source: U.S-. Census Bureau 1990. Household Incomes An important component of housing affordability is household income. Upper income households have substantial discretionary income to spend on housing; low- and moderate - income households are more limited in terms of housing they can afford. Median household income in Newport Beach traditionally has been greater than that of Orange County. In 1980, City median household income was 20.7% higher than County household median income. In 1990, City median household income had become 31.5% higher than County household median income. TABLE 22 MEDIAN HOU5F-HQLD INCOMES — ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH Orange County Newport Beach a of oun y 1980 + 2 6 . o 0 45,922 $60,374 (+31.5%) ource: U.S. Gensus, 1980, –1990. 25 • • Housing Affordability • Housing affordability is best assessed by analyzing level of payment in comparison to ability to pay. In 1990, the majority of housing in the City of Newport Beach was priced over $200,000. Median value of housing in the City was $500,000, according to the 1990 Census of Population and Housing. The most recent survey data of amount of income spent on housing in Newport Beach comes from the 1990 U.S. Census. For renters, 39% of households paying rent spent 30% or more of their income on rent. For homeowners, 34% of households paying a mortgage spent 30% or more of their monthly income on mortgage payments. Currently, lenders are allowing households to pay between 29% and 35% of their gross income for housing. Table 23 shows income spent on housing by income group, expressed according to rent/mortgage as a percentage of income for households in the City of Newport Beach. J Cost of contract rental housing in the City of Newport Beach is higher than the cost of rental housing in the County of Orange. Contract rent is monthly rent agreed to or contracted for, regardless of furnishings, utilities, fees, meals, or other included services. Median contract rent in Orange County was $728 in 1990. Median monthly rent in the City was $967 in 1990. In its 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment, the Southern California Association of Governments calculated that of 4,431 lower- income households, paid more than 30% of their income for housing. According to SCAG estimates, 2,625 very low- income households and 1,806 low- income households paid more than 30% of their income for housing. In 1990, 2,583 very low- income and 4,071 low- income households paid more than 30% of their income for • housing. "Low Income' households are those households with annual incomes between 80 — 0 TABLE 23 INCOME GROUP HOUSING EXPENDITURE, 1990 Rent/Mortgage as a o of ncome <20% 21-24% 26-29% 30-34% o+ (very oW Renters 0 19 19 14 7 Owners 15 5 9 27 3 ery ow Renters 21 41 47— 35 1183 ners 162 29 57 7 247 ery ow Renters 103 139 460 338 1 Owners 568 104 57 94 5 ow Renters 339 584 625 343 6 Owners 645 74 ill 71 4b/ (moderate and Above Moderate) Renters 3662 1205 777 280 0 Owners 5223 1196 1037 922 2130 TOTAL en ers 4125 1988 1922 1010 41 ners 6613 1408 ources: U.Zi. uenSuS, 990; Southern California Association of Governments Cost of contract rental housing in the City of Newport Beach is higher than the cost of rental housing in the County of Orange. Contract rent is monthly rent agreed to or contracted for, regardless of furnishings, utilities, fees, meals, or other included services. Median contract rent in Orange County was $728 in 1990. Median monthly rent in the City was $967 in 1990. In its 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment, the Southern California Association of Governments calculated that of 4,431 lower- income households, paid more than 30% of their income for housing. According to SCAG estimates, 2,625 very low- income households and 1,806 low- income households paid more than 30% of their income for housing. In 1990, 2,583 very low- income and 4,071 low- income households paid more than 30% of their income for • housing. "Low Income' households are those households with annual incomes between 80 — 0 100 percent of the County median household income. "Very Low Income" households are those households with annual incomes of 50 — 80 percent of the County median household income. • State and federal standards for housing overpayment are based on an income -to- housing cost ratio of 30% and higher. Households paying more than 30% of their incomes for housing have less income remaining for other living necessities. Upper income households generally are capable of paying a larger share of their incomes for housing; therefore, estimates of housing overpayment generally focus on lower income groups. To distinguish between renter and owner housing overpayment is important because, while homeowners may over extend themselves financially to purchase a home, the owner always maintains the option of selling the home. Renters are limited to the rental market and generally are required to pay the rent established in that market. The number of higher- income households paying more than 30% of their income for housing is an indication of unique standards of housing affordability in Newport Beach. In addition, a higher allocation of income toward housing was perceived as justified because of investment qualities of housing in the City. Also, higher expenditures on housing may be justified when tax advantages are considered and incomes are expected to increase while housing expenses remain fixed. Overcrowding Overcrowded households are those in which the ratio of persons /room exceeds one (1). The substantial reduction in the average household size in the City of Newport Beach in the last third of the twentieth century indicates the majority of City households are not overcrowded in terms of persons per dwelling unit. The 1990 U.S. Census figure and the estimate by the California State Department of Finance for the year 2000 remain at 2.3 persons per dwelling unit. These figures • are well below State and regional averages. The 1980 U.S. Census indicated that in Newport Beach 84 (0.6 %) owner - occupied units and 212 (1.6 %) renter - occupied units included more than 1.01 persons per room. In 1990, these figures were 66 (0.4 %) for owner - occupied units and 406 (2.8 %) of renter - occupied units. County of Orange figures for 1990 show 5.2% overcrowding among owner - occupied units, and 7.8% overcrowding among renter - occupied units. • 27 • • Employment Trends and Projections The California State Employment Development Department estimated the total labor force among the Newport Beach population in June 2000 was 45,780, of whom 44,990 were employed. Labor force is defined as the number of people 16 years of age and older (who reside within the City of Newport Beach) that are employed or are seeking employment. The Center for Demographic Research estimated that in 1997 the labor market in the City of Newport Beach was as follows: agriculture (133); mining (39); construction (2,046); manufacturing (2,533); transportation and public utilities (1,822); trade (13,206); finance, insurance and real estate (9,980); services (26,657); government (1,902); and, self - employed (5,661). This indicated a total of 63,979 jobs in the City of Newport Beach. Projected employment opportunities in Newport Beach in year 2005 will be 73,241, according to the Center for Demographic Research. Table 24 compares Southern California Association of Governments City projected employment growth (as presented in the Orangp (minty Prngrpcc Rpnnrt 9000) with projected employment growth for Orange County. This reflects the number of jobs available within the City. Data related to employment differ substantially between Center for Demographic Research and California State Employment Division Development Department estimates. The 1997 number below is a California State Employment Development Department calculation; the 2000 — 2020 projections are Center for Demographic Research estimates. The Center for Demographic Research has indicated employment in the City is expected to increase by 9,262 jobs (14.5 1/6) between 1997 and 2005. The projected countywide employment increase is 292,455 (21.7 %) during that same period. The City will have about 4.4% of the jobs in Orange County by year 2005. Summary Although employment opportunities within Newport Beach will continue to increase, those increases will also continue to comprise a smaller percentage of the overall job creation within the County. Consequently, additional demand for housing within Newport Beach will be as much a result of overall employment growth within the County, as it would be because of employment growth within the city. 28 TABLE 24 EMPLOYMENT - NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY Newport Beach Orange County City Employment/ County Employment 1997 63,979 1,370,323 4.7% 2010* 75,110 1,796,726 4.2% 2015* 76,980 1,897350 4.1% 2020* 78,325 1,975,074 4.0% Sources: Orange County Progress Report 2000. *Califomia State Employment Development Department The Center for Demographic Research has indicated employment in the City is expected to increase by 9,262 jobs (14.5 1/6) between 1997 and 2005. The projected countywide employment increase is 292,455 (21.7 %) during that same period. The City will have about 4.4% of the jobs in Orange County by year 2005. Summary Although employment opportunities within Newport Beach will continue to increase, those increases will also continue to comprise a smaller percentage of the overall job creation within the County. Consequently, additional demand for housing within Newport Beach will be as much a result of overall employment growth within the County, as it would be because of employment growth within the city. 28 Special Needs Population Groups Certain segments of the population may have a more difficult time finding decent affordable housing due to special circumstances. The State of California defines "special needs" households as the elderly, disabled persons, large families, female- headed households, farm workers, and the homeless. This Housing Element has included students and people living with HIV /AIDS in the "special needs" population. The Census Data from 1990 is not consistent in its identification of special needs households versus individuals with special needs. In some cases, individuals may qualify under several categories at the same time, e.g. a woman may be the female head of household and be over 65 years of age. The best indicators for quantifying the special needs population from the data indicate that in the City of Newport Beach in 1990: 0 10,318 people were 65 or older. 0 1,734 households were headed by females. 0 2,117 people were disabled persons with self -care limitations. 0 171 people were farm workers. 0 There existed an undetermined number of homeless. Data from the 1990 Census of Population and Housing indicate the "special needs" population in Newport Beach most in need of affordable housing is senior citizens (those at least 65 years of age). A large percentage of Newport Beach senior citizens in 1990 had a work disability with a mobility or self -care limitation. Demonstrated need for affordable senior housing has further been supported by social service providers in Newport Beach, who maintain in interviews that such housing and transportation are the primary needs for senior citizens receiving social services. Students attending the University of California, Irvine (UCI) or Orange Coast College (OCC) in • Costa Mesa also reside in Newport Beach. The UCI Student Housing Office has estimated that approximately 800 UCI students reside in the City of Newport Beach. A comparable number of OCC students are also assumed to reside in Newport Beach. However, any numbers obtained for students should be considered with caution because both campuses stress they neither have exact data on students living in Newport Beach, nor can they guarantee those students who claim to live in the City actually do. The Student Housing Offices provide information to students on locating housing but students do not necessarily obtain housing through the offices. Also, Student Housing Offices have no way of tracking residences of students. Contact was made with the UCI Transportation Office to attempt to ascertain the number of students traveling between UCI and Newport Beach. However, that shuttle service was discontinued in 1999 due to lack of riders. This may be due to most students having automobiles. The most recent study on housing costs completed by the University of California, Irvine Housing Office was in 1988. That study was based on number of rooms and made no distinction between apartments and homes. Rents then ranged from $596 per month for a one bedroom, one bath apartment, to $1,543 per month for a four bedroom, two -bath unit. Average cost of housing in Newport Beach typically occupied by students has risen dramatically since completion of that study. Those costs for year 2000, based on students helped, are as follows: • 29 • Most students who reside off campus live in West Newport, Balboa Peninsula or Balboa Island. Rent prices on Balboa Island are higher than many other areas in the City of Newport Beach. Students afford these prices by living with other students and sharing costs, a practice that may lead to overcrowded conditions. No subsequent study of student housing has been conducted. Persons with Disabilities Based on the Housing and Urban Development Data Book from the 1990 U.S. Census, 4,495 persons (6.8% of the city population) had a work disability with a mobility or self -care limitation. Over 82% of those individuals were 65 years of age or older. The most prevalent public need for persons with disabilities is access to public places, housing is and facilities. Those with handicaps include persons who are blind, deaf, mute, confined to bed or wheelchair, or who require crutches. A survey conducted by the Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled in 1987 questioned 14,000 disabled residents in Orange County. The study concluded the two most prevalent housing needs for persons with disabilities are accessibility and affordability. Mobility impaired individuals require special housing or structural needs. These include, but are not limited to, wheelchair ramps, widened doorways, grab bars, and access ramps. Certain individuals may require housing that has access to health care facilities. From available Census data it is not possible to determine how many of these handicapped persons need housing assistance. The City has produced two units designed for handicapped occupancy in one of its rent restricted, financially assisted housing developments. Rental on these two units was restricted to allow use of Section 8 rental assistance Certificates or Vouchers. These units also are located in close proximity to the largest concentration of health care facilities within Newport Beach. Female Head of Household Data from the 1990 U.S. Census indicates that there were 1,734 female- headed households in Newport Beach at that time. The data also revealed that 3.8% (66) of the 1,734 female- headed households were below poverty status and comprised a family of four. Of those 66 households, 51 had related children younger than 18 years of age and 5 had related children under 5 years of age as the only children in the home. 30 TABLE 25 UCI OFF - CAMPUS HOUSING OFFICE HOUSING COSTS FOR NEWPORT BEACH — 2000 Studio-11 bedroom, 11 bath 0 1,6 mo room, 1 bath mo bedroom, 2 bath ,5 2,4 /mo room, 2 bath $2,000 + mo ource: UCI Student Services, Housing Information. Most students who reside off campus live in West Newport, Balboa Peninsula or Balboa Island. Rent prices on Balboa Island are higher than many other areas in the City of Newport Beach. Students afford these prices by living with other students and sharing costs, a practice that may lead to overcrowded conditions. No subsequent study of student housing has been conducted. Persons with Disabilities Based on the Housing and Urban Development Data Book from the 1990 U.S. Census, 4,495 persons (6.8% of the city population) had a work disability with a mobility or self -care limitation. Over 82% of those individuals were 65 years of age or older. The most prevalent public need for persons with disabilities is access to public places, housing is and facilities. Those with handicaps include persons who are blind, deaf, mute, confined to bed or wheelchair, or who require crutches. A survey conducted by the Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled in 1987 questioned 14,000 disabled residents in Orange County. The study concluded the two most prevalent housing needs for persons with disabilities are accessibility and affordability. Mobility impaired individuals require special housing or structural needs. These include, but are not limited to, wheelchair ramps, widened doorways, grab bars, and access ramps. Certain individuals may require housing that has access to health care facilities. From available Census data it is not possible to determine how many of these handicapped persons need housing assistance. The City has produced two units designed for handicapped occupancy in one of its rent restricted, financially assisted housing developments. Rental on these two units was restricted to allow use of Section 8 rental assistance Certificates or Vouchers. These units also are located in close proximity to the largest concentration of health care facilities within Newport Beach. Female Head of Household Data from the 1990 U.S. Census indicates that there were 1,734 female- headed households in Newport Beach at that time. The data also revealed that 3.8% (66) of the 1,734 female- headed households were below poverty status and comprised a family of four. Of those 66 households, 51 had related children younger than 18 years of age and 5 had related children under 5 years of age as the only children in the home. 30 Elderly • In 1990, the fastest growing segment of the County population was older adults (ages 65 and older). Federal regulations stipulate senior citizens are presumed to have "presumptive benefit" for Americans With Disabilities Act mandated provisions. Additionally, special housing needs of many elderly persons result from lower, fixed incomes, physical disabilities, and dependence needs. The County of Orange estimated that 8% of senior citizens in Orange County were homebound or shut -ins, and approximately 46% of the elderly residing in the County required some assistance to remain independent. Since 1960, the elderly population in Newport Beach has grown steadily, and there is no indication of this trend reversing. According to the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton, 12,190 people in Newport Beach (16.9% of the City population) were 65 years of age or older in 1998. The percentage of older persons in the City is large compared to the region. In 1980, only 11.9% of Orange County residents were 60 years of age or older. Due to aging "baby- boomers, the 65 years and older age group has been, proportionately, the fastest growing segment of the total population in the previous two decades. The number of elderly can be expected to increase as persons between the ages of 35 and 64 continue to mature. Many elderly persons residing in Newport Beach are long -time residents. However, many others have arrived more recently to pursue a retirement lifestyle suited to the area's attractive locale. Those persons in the latter category generally are well- housed because their housing arrangement was chosen to match their retirement lifestyle and financial situation. Persons in the former category are more often living in houses purchased before real- estate prices increased • dramatically. Many of these individuals today would be unable to afford the house in which they are currently living. Furthermore, these homes may no longer match their housing needs regarding space, maintenance, and proximity to community facilities. Thus, persons living on low, fixed incomes may be "house rich" in terms' of accumulated equity in their homes, but poorly served by the housing unit itself. In such cases, elderly residents may retain their houses only because they wish to remain in the community. Alternative living arrangements in the community, such as smaller units close to commercial and transportation facilities with some congregate services, would better serve the housing needs of this population segment. According to the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Data Book, 7,484 owner and rental households in the City of Newport Beach were elderly and two- member households in 1990. These households represented 21.5% of the total households in the City. Of the 7,484 elderly owner and renter occupied households, 2,437 such households had problems as defined by HUD. Of the 2,437 households with problems, 1,170 had cost burdens greater than 30% of household income(s) and 1,267 had severe cost burdens of greater than 50% of household income. Of 1,880 elderly occupied rental households, 1,223 had housing problems. Of these 1,223 renter households with housing problems, 1,205 had cost burdens greater than 30% and 695 had severe cost burdens of greater than 50 %. Of 5,604 elderly owner occupied households, 1,222 had housing problems. Of 1,222 households having problems, 572 households had severe cost burdens greater than 50 %. Census data that indicate the number of elderly persons in the City who live below the federally established poverty line in 2000 will not be available until late -2002. Escalating housing costs, particularly in the rental housing market, severely impact housing affordability for the elderly • because many of the elderly live on fixed incomes. 31 • Many residents in the City reside in mobile home parks. A number of long -time elderly residents live in older parks developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Others live in mobile home parks close to the Bay that cater to the retirement lifestyle. is • Assistance for low- income elderly is a high priority for the City of Newport Beach. A portion of the City 2000 -2001 Community Development Block Grant funds were allocated to the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, a social service agency that provides tenant and landlord counseling to provide housing opportunities for Newport Beach residents of all age groups. Additionally, there are many social service programs whose clients include the elderly in Orange County. Including the Section 8 "Certificate" and "Housing Voucher" programs administered by the Orange County Housing Authority, Meals on Wheels, and various social service programs provided by and through the OASIS Senior Center. A more detailed description of these programs is contained in the Appendix to this Housing Element. Large Families Families are defined as groups of persons related by blood, marriage or adoption. Households represent all persons living together as groups, whether related or not. The City has identified total households and families with five or more persons. Table 26 shows distribution of number of persons per household as indicated in the 1990 U.S. Census and demonstrates the number of large households in the City of Newport Beach comprises only 4% of all Newport Beach households. TABLE 26 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD Number of Persons Per Household Number of Households 1 9,763 2 12,549 3 4,602 4 2,690 5 902 6 271 7+ 89 Total Households 30,866 Source: 1990 US Census The 1990 U.S. Census did not compare household size with household income, making it difficult to assess the demand for affordable, larger housing units. 32 Homeless • Homelessness increased throughout the United States during the 1990s. Factors that contributed to the increase in homelessness included a lack of housing affordable to low and moderate - income persons and families, increases in number of persons whose incomes fell below the poverty level, reductions in public subsidies to the poor, de- institutionalization of the mentally ill, and economic recession. Homelessness is a regional problem throughout Southern California. Homeless persons and families exist in every city and populated unincorporated area of Orange County. Various organizations, institutions and agencies often generate strikingly different calculations of homeless individuals /families. This Element relies on calculations contained in the Orange County "2000 — 2004 Consolidated Plan," which indicate in year 2000 there are 18,604 homeless individuals in Orange County. The County has developed and assists in funding a housing and service delivery system - the Continuum of Care - that responds to the needs of the region's homeless. The Continuum of Care was established through a community -based process to ensure the region's residents and homeless are empowered to affect changes in the existing social services system. The Orange County Community Forum, Orange County Leadership Cabinet, and Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development have shared responsibility for planning and implementing the regional Continuum of Care. Orange County's 33 cities and various County agencies have committed more than $22,800,000 in "mainstream' funds to meet the needs of the region's homeless. Although programs are available to shelter and serve the homeless, service gaps remain in the County Continuum of Care service delivery system. Gap identification and establishment of priority needs were based on data from a needs assessment survey, Community Forum and Assessment Groups meetings, and a survey of • current and former homeless individuals. According to the "Year 2000 Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis Chart," Orange County has a total homeless shelter bed inventory of 2,374, comprised of emergency shelter and transitional shelter beds for individuals and persons in families with children. The current inventory of 2,374 beds/units for 18,604 individuals in need of emergency shelter, transitional shelter, and permanent supportive /affordable housing leaves an unmet need (gap) of 16,230 beds/units. There is a current inventory of 1,135 supportive service slots Qob training, case management, substance abuse treatment, mental health care, housing placement, life skills training) for 5,581 individuals in need of such services, which leaves an unmet need (gap) of 4,446 supportive service slots. Additionally, there are current unmet needs (gaps) for individuals in the following categories (expressed as estimated need /current inventory/unmet need (gap)): chronic substance abusers (1,842/720/1,122); seriously mentally ill (2,177/150/2,027); those diagnosed with more than one of the identified needs categories (1,395/75/1,320); veterans (1,395/568/828); persons with HIV /AIDS (662/400/262); victims of domestic violence (558/275/283); youth (2,797/275/2,522); and, other - physical disabilities (837/568/270). There also are current unmet needs (gaps) for persons in families with children in the following categories (expressed as estimated need /current inventory/unmet need (gap)): chronic substance abusers (1,302/46/1,256); seriously mentally ill (651/0/651); dually- diagnosed (651/0/651); persons with HIV /AIDS (662/550/112); victims of domestic violence (1,302/290/1,012); and other - physically disabled (1,953/620/1,334). There is a surplus inventory for veterans in families with children (estimated need, 391 /current inventory, 620 /surplus, 229). Please note that homeless sub - populations do not total 18,604 because there are homeless who fall into more than one sub- • population category and /or not all homeless fall within the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development designated sub - populations listed (e.g., homeless families who are under- employed and unable to afford housing would not be captured under the sub - population categories listed, but would be captured in the total homeless count of 18,604). The County of Orange Housing and Community Development in 2000 made application to the federal Housing and Urban Development Department for two Shelters Plus Care and ten Supportive Housing Programs, totaling $8,010,818. Renewal Supporting Housing Program applications will preserve 43 transitional housing beds and 966 service slots annually. The nine new programs will add 59 permanent units for homeless with special needs. Additionally, 60 new transitional beds and 2,837 supportive service slots will be added annually to the Orange County Continuum of Care. Top priority projects /needs for the 2000 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant application were eligible permanent housing for homeless with special needs, eligible renewal projects, transitional housing, and supportive services programs. In June 1999, the Board of Supervisors established a County Homeless Coordinator position within the County Executive Office. The County Homeless Coordinator has numerous responsibilities, including participating on the Leadership Cabinet and coordinating regional resources to address homelessness. In October 1999, the Homeless Coordinator, Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force, and Shelter and Hunger Partnership of Orange County formed a partnership to ensure the Continuum of Care planning process was not dominated by government representatives. This partnership is called the Community Forum Collaborative, and shares responsibility for sustaining the Continuum of Care planning process by hosting quarterly Continuum of Care Community Forum meetings and monthly Assessment Group meetings. The Community Forum has an open membership; that is, any individual or group who wants to contribute to efforts to eliminate homelessness in Orange County are encouraged to participate. is Approximately 75% of Community Forum participants are nonprofit agencies. Assessment Groups assisted the Community Forum to develop preliminary identification of priority projects and gaps. Community Forum Assessment Groups were established to improve the existing care system by focusing efforts on specific needs and /or interest areas related to homelessness and affordable housing and to identify needs /services gaps and resources for respective homeless populations. The five Orange County Assessment Groups and their primary foci are as follows: • Homeless Prevention /Outreach Assessment Group — develops and expands programs to prevent homelessness through crisis intervention, mobile outreach, and assessment services; identifies and coordinates linkages in systems of care. Its lead agency is the Continuum of Care Coalition, which is a formal partnership of four service agencies that provides a variety of services and shelter programs for the homeless. • Emergency Shelter Assessment Group — addresses issues such as shelter based support services, availability of emergency beds, development of additional emergency beds, and development of long -term solutions to the Cold Weather Armory program. Its lead agency is the Emergency Shelter Expansion Task Force, which is an alliance of service agencies that provides emergency shelter and homeless service programs. • Transitional Shelter Assessment Group — addresses shelter -based support services, availability and development of additional transitional beds, and development of intake /exit guidelines and processes for successful transition to permanent affordable • housing. Its lead agency is the Shelter Provider Program, which is an association of homeless shelter program directors and program staff. 34 Permanent Affordable Housing Assessment Group — addresses development of • affordable housing provision of supportive services in a permanent housing setting, and other appropriate issues; addresses barriers to expansion of affordable housing opportunities to individuals and families earning less than $10 per hour. Its lead agency is the Kennedy Commission, a group of diverse community stakeholders, including residential developers, health and human service providers, low- income housing advocates, government agencies, businesses, and other groups. Advocacy Assessment Group — addresses issues such as zoning, legislation, shelter provider standards, and increased funding for homeless programs. Its lead agency is the Partnership of Responsible Public Policy, which consists of a wide variety of community leaders who represent service providers and advocates. The current Orange County Continuum of Care is comprised of certain systemic components. These Components are as follows: the Prevention Component; the Outreach /Assessment Component; the Emergency Shelter Component; the Transitional Component; the Permanent Housing Component; the Permanent Supportive Housing Component; and the Supportive Services Component. The Orange County Continuum of Care system has been designed to facilitate movement of homeless persons and families between and among components of the system by constructing links between components. Since each homeless case is unique, the case manager becomes key to moving a client between components. Local governments act as a means to bring the homeless into shelter /service programs. Orange County homeless also are moved through the Continuum of Care system via regional collaborations. • The Housing and Urban Development Department has identified six (6) homeless sub - populations that require special consideration in the regional Continuum of Care system. Those six sub - populations are as follows: veterans, seriously mentally ill; substance abusers; people living with HIV /AIDS; victims of domestic violence; and, youth. Additionally, the County of Orange has provided information regarding outreach efforts for homeless individuals with disabilities. The 1990 U.S. Census did not identify any homeless persons in the City of Newport Beach. However, according to the Newport Beach Police Department, a few homeless and transients are occasionally observed traveling through the City, and several have been observed staying in the area overnight in drainage channels overgrown with vegetation. Although homeless and transients only are occasionally found in Newport Beach, State law requires each jurisdiction provide adequate sites to facilitate development of emergency and transitional shelters. In addition, the homeless situation in the County results in part from lack of suitable affordable housing. Therefore, a comprehensive solution to homeless problems requires every jurisdiction in the County address needs of the homeless. Shelter and service programs available to homeless people in Orange County are of very good quality. However, there is a need for increased services. Presently, there are approximately 2,374 permanent shelter beds in the County, or a deficit of approximately 16,230 beds. The majority of these shelters are located in northern Orange County. However, there are a variety of homeless and related service shelters located throughout Orange County (see Appendix). Research of local agencies consisted of contacting those groups that provided assistance to • persons in need of emergency shelter and assistance. The City has been requiring Social 35 Service agencies receiving CDBG funds to provide information regarding the most recent • permanent residence(s) of persons helped. This requirement was established as part of a Housing Element program implementation action. In many cases better information has been provided; in other cases improved counting is still required. Agencies without expanded reporting requirements could not provide better information than in 1986. These agencies that provide housing and other services for the homeless include the Orange County Housing Authority, the Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter, Saddleback Community Outreach, the YMCA/YWCA, Friends in Service to Humanity, and the American Red Cross. Detailed descriptions of services offered by these agencies are contained in the Appendix to this element. Newport Beach allows emergency shelters and transitional housing subject to a Use Permit in all multi - family and commercial zones. In terms of discretionary review, these uses are considered "group homes" in the City's Zoning Code. Housing Program 5.1.6 promotes the City's practice of continuing to allow emergency shelters and transitional housing subject to the provisions in the Zoning Code. It should be noted that the Use Permit requirement is not considered a constraint since it is no more restrictive than Use Permit requirements for other potentially conflicting land uses in those zones. It should be noted that if the shelter has fewer than 7 individuals, then the shelter is a permitted use in single - family zones. Farm Workers The special housing needs of farm workers result from low wages and the seasonal nature of their employment. The 1990 Census of Population and Housing estimated farm workers comprised less than .2% of the population in Newport Beach and approximately 1 % of the County population. Therefore, demand for housing generated by farm workers in the City was nominal • and could be addressed adequately by overall housing affordability programs in the City and the County. This remains the case in the City of Newport Beach. People Living with HIV /AIDS This Housing Element includes a brief narrative pertaining to an additional special needs population not yet identified in State or Federal legislation — people living with HIV /AIDS. Information contained herein has been taken from a report entitled Orange County HIV /AIDS Housing Plan, prepared by AIDS Housing of Washington for the City of Santa Ana, and adopted by the Orange County Planning Council on December 8,1999. This population is regional in nature rather than concentrated in a particular city. As of June 30, 1999, a total 5,295 cases of AIDS had been reported in Orange County, and an estimated 2,392 people were believed to be living with AIDS. Communities throughout Orange County have persons affected by AIDS; ten cities had 80 or more people living with AIDS. Percentage of AIDS cases reported annually among Caucasians in Orange County decreased steadily during the late 1990s; percentage of AIDS cases among people of color increased during this time period. Additionally, while the United States was experiencing a rise in AIDS cases reported among those younger than 25 years of age, reported AIDS cases in 1998 in Orange County indicated a slight shift toward those 30 years of age and older. Prior to 1993, most people diagnosed with AIDS in Orange County were reported to have been infected through homosexual or bisexual activity; by 1998, other causes of infection, including heterosexual activity and injection drug use, had become prevalent. Orange County is experiencing a disproportionate increase in AIDS cases among the Hispanic, African American and Southeast Asian populations, women, injection drug users, and those who contracted the disease . through heterosexual contact 36 AIDS Housing of Washington estimated local need for housing for people living with HIV /AIDS in Orange County in 1999 included 20 percent of people living with AIDS, 10 percent of people • living with HIV, and 2 percent of homeless individuals. Such estimates yielded a total of 1,144 persons in need of housing in Orange County in 1999. Many respondents to a 1999 survey of people living with HIV /AIDS clearly were in very precarious housing situations and were overburdened by rent/housing costs. Over 80 percent of respondents reported spending more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent and over 50 percent reported spending more than 50 percent of their incomes on rent. Additionally, 38 percent of respondents indicated they would need to relocate should their rent increase by $50 monthly. Thirty percent of respondents earned less than $700 monthly. Nearly 40 percent of respondents had relocated since learning of their HIV status and one -third of respondents had slept outdoors, in an automobile or at a friend's house. An evident conclusion from this survey was that respondents were experiencing "housing problems' and were at risk of homelessness. Various agencies provided HIV /AIDS - dedicated housing resources to 410 people living with HIV /AIDS in Orange County in 1999. The Orange County Emergency Housing Program provided emergency housing assistance for 234 people. The Gerry House West, START House, and Transitional Housing Program provided transitional housing assistance for 57 people. Hagan Place, Annie's House, and the Rental Assistance Program provided assistance to 119 people. These resources will be supplemented in 2001 with Emmanuel House providing housing assistance to 21 people and a new transitional housing program providing housing assistance to 12 — 16 people (6 — 10 traditional housing units in a new location and 6 set -aside residences in existing facilities). Federal funding (through the Super NOFA Fund) dispersed by the Orange County Housing Authority, provides assistance for people living with HIV /AIDS. As of October 2000, two households in the City of Newport Beach received such assistance. Housing units dedicated for people living with HIV /AIDS are occupied and have long waiting • lists. The Orange County HIV /AIDS Housing Plan indicates conservative estimates are that approximately 737 people living with HIV /AIDS in Orange County require housing assistance in addition to those served by current resources specifically dedicated to this population. There currently are resources to serve approximately 410 people living with HIV /AIDS with some form of emergency, transitional, or permanent housing assistance. Additionally, due to the high (and unmet) demand for affordable housing in Orange County, landlords are able to increase rents (rents throughout Orange County rose 23% between 1996 and 1999), refuse to accept subsidies, demand large security deposits and other move -in costs, and require extensive background information and documentation, which has caused housing instability for many living with HIV /AIDS. Furthermore, according to the Orange County HIV /AIDS Housing Plan people living with HIV /AIDS in Orange County have experienced discrimination in their searches for housing due to race /ethnicity, sexual orientation, health status, and status as a rent subsidy holder. This has resulted in difficulties for many people who live with HIV /AIDS to find housing with their subsidies and also has made many people unwilling to live in an AIDS housing facility. Additional emergency, transitional, and permanent housing resources and supporting services are requisite to meet the multiple needs of people living with HIV /AIDS. Existing resources cannot serve all people living with HIV /AIDS. Service gaps exist in eligibility, provision of emergency and transitional housing, provision of housing for chemically dependent, housing information and referral, life skills instruction, and systemic administration. • 37 Summary • The housing needs of the Special Needs population will be addressed through Goal 5 of this element. The needs of the senior population are particularly recognized by the City and are addressed by each goal of the Housing Element. Housing Needs In accordance with State Housing Element law, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has prepared a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to identify the housing need for each jurisdiction within the SCAG region. This model was prepared for the five -year period 2000 - 2005. The RHNA allocates Newport Beach's share of housing units required to satisfy housing needs resulting from projected growth in the region. To accommodate projected growth in the region, SCAG estimates the City needs to target its housing unit production to accommodate 476 new housing units. State law requires SCAG to distribute new units on basis of income to avoid further impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of low- income households. It also is required that existing housing need be identified. SCAG identified this need by using the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standard of overpayment. Households overpaying are households with incomes below 80% of the County median household income and paying more than 30% of their income toward housing/ shelter. SCAG estimated existing need by applying percentage of overpaying households enumerated in the 1990 Census to current City population. Using this method of estimation, existing need in Newport Beach is 476 dwellings. The tables • below indicate future need for housing in Newport Beach and its distribution by income group as calculated by the RHNA. • The "special needs' population in Newport Beach most numerous and in need of affordable housing is senior citizens (age 65 and older). Thirty -six percent of this population has a disability and a significant percentage live near or below the Federal poverty level. TABLE 27 PROJECTED REGIONAL DEMAND IN NEWPORT BEACH 1998 -2005 Net Vacancy Demolition Total Construction Household Growth Adjustment Adjustment Need 971 units - 669 units 174 units 476 units Source: Southem California Association of Governments 38 TABLE X8- TOTAL CONSTRUCTION NEED BY INCOME 199 &2005 Very Low Low Moderate Above—Moderate ota 86 47 Sa 11% 17% 53% 1000 Source: Southern California Association of vemmen s TABLE 28.5 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION NEED BY INCOME NEWPORT COAST 1998 -2005 Very Low Low Modera Fe Above Moderate Total ...0— . 945 Source: Newport Coast Annexation Agreement Newport Coast • The Newport Coast area, annexed to the City on January 1, 2002, is a planned community that was approved by the County of Orange and built by The Irvine Company. The City was not involved in the approval of the community and all land uses were decided prior to its annexation. The City agreed to the transfer of a portion of the County's Regional Housing Needs allocation for • the area since The Irvine Company made a commitment to the County to fulfill its allocation. The City will work with the County of Orange and the Irvine Company to ensure that affordable housing commitments are satisfied. • 39 0 Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development The City of Newport Beach is not a residential developer and therefore must rely on private developers or organizations that have the capacity to acquire and manage affordable housing or "at -risk" housing developments. A list of such organizations is contained in the Appendix to this Housing Element. The following section of the Housing Element provides an inventory of land determined suitable for development of affordable housing. Undeveloped, Residentially -Zoned Sites Newport Beach is a nearly built out City, with very few undeveloped sites remaining. The only undeveloped sites suitable for residential development are discussed below. Of the three vacant sites, two are located within the Coastal Zone and have Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designations consistent with their General Plan designations. Each site currently has adjacent public facilities and services. The sites vary in size from 3.5 to 45.2 acres, and have an is approximate total capacity of 582 dwelling units. The potential residential development capacity of 582 units may be exceeded by 25% as provided by the density bonus provision in this Element. A density bonus does not require a General Plan Amendment. Should this provision be used, the approximated total residential development capacity of the three sites would become 727 units. In summary, there is sufficient space and zoning allowance for meeting the Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers for the City of Newport Beach on these three sites. The three vacant sites identified as potential sites to meet the City's RHNA allocation for lower - income individuals are all zoned "PC" or "Planned Community." As the Municipal Code indicates, "It is the intent of the PC District to provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment that can result from large -scale community planning." The provisions of the PC zoning district are intended to provide the maximum amount of flexibility in site design. Therefore, regulations pertaining to setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, parking and other design elements are not specified in the Municipal Code, but are included in the Development Plan for each Planned Community. Table 29 presents a summary assessment of these vacant sites. Following are descriptions of each site. Figures I — III identifies the location of each site. Mixed Use Zoning In addition to traditional residential zoning standards such as R -1 (single - family detached units) and MFR (multiple- family attached units), Newport Beach also has a "Residential Overlay Zone" • that allows mixed residential and commercial types of developments. Many commercial properties include an "R" Overlay designation and may integrate residential uses with commercial 40 uses at a density of one dwelling unit for each 2,375 square feet of land area. The mixed residential /commercial use will allow the City additional opportunities to provide housing. • TABLE 29 UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL SITES Estimated General Plan Zoning Dwelling Unit Buildable Density Site Designation Designation Capacity Wires (du /acre) Banning (Newport) Ranch SFA P -C 406 452 8.99" Avocado - MacArthur REO P -C 56 3.5 16 ayvrew Landing (PC -39) RSC P -C 120 4.5 26.7 TOTAL 3 582 53. Notes: REO= RecreaFo—nand Environmental pen Space A= ing a Family ttac ed P-C=Planned Community RSC= Retail and Service Commercial This dwelling unit per acre calculation is only an average based on the acreage of the entire site within the City's boundary. Actual density may be greater depending on the specific design characteristics and configuration of development within the Planned Community. Source: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department Newport Banning Ranch – Approximately 45.2 buildable acres of the Newport Banning Ranch are located within the City of Newport Beach City boundaries. The property is located in non- contiguous parcels northerly of Pacific Coast Highway, southerly of 15'h Street, and westerly of Monrovia Avenue. This site can accommodate 406 multiple - family residential units without the need of a change of zone or General Plan Amendment. The Newport Banning Ranch is located within the California Coastal Zone and therefore would require a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. The ultimate development of Banning Ranch is complicated by the fact that the property owner is a company formed as a partnership of two independent oil companies, neither of which are real estate developers. Discussions related to development usually include a third -party development company. Past planning efforts have involved looking at the whole land holding, including several hundred acres in unincorporated County territory. These planning efforts have required coordination with a myriad of Federal, State, and local agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Resources Agency (including the Division of Mines and Geology and the Department of Fish and Game), the California Coastal Commission, the California Department of Transportation, the County of Orange, and the Orange County Transportation Authority. Conflicting goals of these various entities sometimes create challenges to project approvals. However, the smaller areas 41 • C� J of the property within Newport Beach could proceed separate from the large project area under • existing entitlements in order to produce additional housing. Avocado/MacArthur— The Avocado /MacArthur site occupies 3.5 acres located northerly of San Miguel, southerly of San Joaquin Hills Road, easterly of Avocado Avenue, and westerly of MacArthur Boulevard. The site would require a change of zone to be developed as a multiple - family residential project(s) for senior citizens. The site could accommodate at least 56 multiple - family residential units. The City will initiate the change of zone on the site within 1 year of certification of the Housing Element. The Avocado /MacArthur site is not located within the California Coastal Zone and therefore does not require a Coastal Development Permit. • • Bayview Landing — The Bayview Landing site occupies 4.5 acres and is located at the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. This site can accommodate 120 multiple- family residential units without need of a change of zone or a General Plan Amendment. Bayview Landing is located within the California Coastal Zone and therefore would require a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission to be developed Staff is currently meeting with potential developers of the Bayview Landing project. It was determined that the site, with a City provided density bonus to encourage affordable housing, will accommodate up to 150 units. The developer is in the process of designing a site plan to respond to the geotechnical constraints of the site. 42 ,;. , '�'ru�ii`rs't 0 • 1 4 ;evwp FIG. 11 AVOCADO/MacARTHUR SITE M. 44 HOUSING ELEMENT FIG. I l BAYMEW LANDING SITE • 0 Redevelopment and "Infill" With expansion and improvement of the national and state economy and the circulation systems in Southern California in the late 1950s, the character of residential development in Newport Beach changed from a vacation home community to a more equal mixture of permanent residences and vacation homes, and subsequently to almost exclusively a community of permanent residences. During this period of change enough vacant land existed to meet increased demand for housing. Housing demand had little effect on the City's older areas, other than transforming tenure pattern from "occasional" to "permanent." This housing demand continued well into the 1980s because sufficient vacant land existed to satisfy housing demand. From the mid- 1990s, development activity in terms of net dwelling units constructed on vacant sites versus "infill" had occurred at a ratio of nearly 10 to 1 (2,101 d.u. compared to 234 d.u. respectively). Subsequent to the decrease in vacant residential acreage and an increase in cost of improved and vacant land, redevelopment and "infill" activities increased. The City of Newport Beach has identified areas with potential for redevelopment and /or intensification of under - utilized residential properties (infill). These properties, depicted in Figure IV, typically are located in older sections of the City, constructed prior to 1950 when Newport Beach was primarily a weekend and /or summer "vacation home" community. These residential developments usually involved less intense parcel utilization than currently occurs. According to the City's Planning Department, total acreage of the infill properties is approximately 478 acres, and approximately 1,100 additional housing units could be built on the infill properties. It should be noted that these are individual properties, not large landholdings. Therefore, they are not likely to produce a large number of units at one time. Because the City's General Plan and Zoning Code already provide for this infill development, it can occur without discretionary permits, an election pursuant to Measure S (as discussed on Page 53), or the provision of additional infrastructure. The City is beginning a comprehensive update to its General Plan, and it is possible that this work will result in the identification of areas for more infill or mixed -use development or redevelopment. 10 0 "REPLACEMENT" AND TABLE 30 . . "INFILL" HOUSING IN NEWPORT BEACH Date of Estimation 1-Jan 0 aL EL f0 U u Q c E^ U m o c > E.-. 'D f M n — U ^ > a c o^ > > m� = # U c+ c J E-6 Q Nk Ot♦- - a U° �+ o N U > E— N m C — 'aO t U 1981 1980 67 67 53 53 120 120 1982 1981 122 189 0 53 122 242 1983 1982 51 240 3 56 54 296 1984 1983 49 289 21 77 70 366 1985 1984 72 361 5 82 77 443 1986 1985 65 426 5 87 70 513 1987 1986 101 527 72 159 173 686 1988 1987 60 587 82 241 142 828 1989 1988 63 650 58 299 121 949 1990 1989 75 725 75 374 150 1099 1991 1990 75 800 75 449 150 1249 1992 1991 75 875 75 524 150 1399 1993 1992 75 980 75 599 150 1549 1994 1993 75 1025 75 674 150 1699 1995 Information not available 1996 1997 1998 1999 Notes: The # of .u. given or m I represents Wnerincrease In units, and oes not include re acemen units. The # of d.u. given, 1981 to 198 (est. date), permits, " by the Planning Department reflect the 9 submitted to 0017. ba—sed upon actual final building The # of .u. given, 1990-19N (est ate .reflects the average # estimalled upon the available land, market study and trend analysis. by the Planning Department based Sources: The State Department of inance and the City of Newport Beach 47 COD NMI NMI � w Z °u9 p ca CD co • Areas Proposed for Annexation E • Within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence (the ultimate incorporated City limits), there may be additional options for future residential development. For example, "Bay Knolls," and "Santa Ana Heights" are scheduled for annexation within the next five years. Once annexed, the City will explore opportunities for increasing the City's housing supply in these areas. Most of the property known as the Newport Banning Ranch (a large undeveloped parcel north and north east of the existing City boundary) is also located within the City's Sphere of Influence. Since it is currently undeveloped, it includes land that may be available for future development of affordable housing. However, the City does not anticipate successful annexation of this area within the next five years due to property owner opposition and current State Annexation Law pertaining to the protests of proposed annexations. 49 Energy Conservation Opportunities The City of Newport Beach fully enforces provisions of Title 24 of the California Administrative • Code, which require energy conservation in new residences. Standards in Title 24 create energy savings of approximately 50% over residential construction practices utilized prior to the Title 24 enactment. The City of Newport Beach Building Department is aware of energy conserving design innovations and solar technology. The department utilizes the Solar Systems Code Review Manual and its companion document, the Pool and Spa Solar Systems Code Review Manual, published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), to facilitate installation of appropriate solar systems. Under existing State law (the California Resources Code), local jurisdictions may adopt structural energy conservation standards in excess of the existing State standard. Such an increase in standards would be of dubious value because of the moderate climate of the City of Newport Beach. Additionally, increases in conservation standards generally increase housing costs and therefore exacerbate the existing housing affordability concern. The City of Newport Beach has a small remaining amount of land available for residential development. Therefore, land use standards that require subdivisions take advantage of solar energy would be of limited value. The City may wish to explore this option; however, care should be taken to insure density and affordability are not affected. A major concern pertaining to energy conservation is the relationship of housing to employment • and related affected transportation modes. Although specific energy savings are difficult to quantify because of the myriad of variables involved in a transportation system, it is generally true that physical proximity between home and work saves transportation energy. Existing affordability concerns in Newport Beach increase energy use by forcing workers employed within the City to seek less expensive housing outside the City. It should be noted the small amount of land remaining for residential development cannot singularly mitigate this concern. The jobs /housing imbalance in the City cannot be totally mitigated by increased residential development within the City. Newport Beach is not in an area of geothermal or significant wind activity and consequently cannot take advantage of these "alternative" energy sources. It appears that the City, through enforcement of Title 24 and sensitivity to innovative design, is maximizing residential energy conservation opportunities. • 50 Non - Governmental Constraints • Community Attitudes The citizenry in Newport Beach is well- organized through neighborhood homeowners associations and community environmental groups. There exists strong public sentiment in favor of preserving the suburban environment in the City. Opposition has been voiced against increased commercial and office uses, expansion of the adjacent John Wayne Airport, and higher density residential development due to concerns about traffic congestion and limitations on infrastructure. Public sentiment is a constraint because of its influence on local officials and because of the ability of citizens to establish development policies and zoning through the initiative process. In November 2000, an initiative passed in the City of Newport Beach that requires a general election be conducted to approve General Plan Amendment applications that include increases of 100 or more dwelling units or that would generate more than 100 peak hour trips. See Governmental Constraints for additional discussion of this initiative. Financing Constraints Financing costs largely are not subject to local influence. Control of interest rates is determined by national policies and economic conditions. Interest rates directly influence purchasing power of home - buyers and cost of home construction through construction loans. Currently, interest rates are at a level that enables many of the upper and middle economic classes to afford a home purchase. However, the banking industry has adopted more conservative lending criteria for • construction loans, especially for multiple - family housing. These factors have influenced housing supply throughout Southern California. • High interest rates substantially reduce home purchasing potential of households. New homebuyers find the housing product they can afford is substantially less than their expectation. Difficulty in producing housing affordable to first -time homebuyers thusly is compounded. While cost of production has increased, purchasing power of some customers has decreased due to inflation, interest rate fluctuations, and limited choices for housing types. Because development costs in Newport Beach are higher than in other areas of the State, housing is even further out of the reach of first -time homebuyers. With savings and loan institutions and other home loan lenders experiencing higher costs in attracting funds, it is extremely difficult for the fixed rate, long -term mortgage to be used as the primary mortgage instrument for housing finance purposes. Consequently, variable rate mortgages, equity appreciation mortgages, and other techniques are being promoted. This smorgasbord of "creative financing" helps to maintain a higher level of capital for housing than might otherwise be available. 51 Land and Construction Costs Land costs and construction costs are significant components in housing cost. Land costs are a • function of the private market and are relatively high due to the City's location near major employment centers and the Pacific Ocean. Due to the built out nature of the City, vacant land that is available for development of any kind, and for affordable housing projects in particular, is nearly nonexistent, and cannot be compared to surrounding jurisdictions. Construction costs also are set by the private market and are influenced by a variety of factors including availability and price of materials and labor, quality of construction, and amenities offered. Cost factors (per square foot) used to estimate cost of new housing in 1999 are as follows: Apartment Houses Wood Frame $57.90 (average quality); $74.40 (good quality) Single Family Dwellings Masonry $68.70 (average quality); $88.00 (good quality) Wood Frame $61.10 (average quality); $83.90 (good quality) Product design and consumer expectations also influence types and styles of units. New homes in year 2000 are different from those produced in the 1970s. Interior and exterior design features (e.g., larger master bedroom suites, microwave ovens, trash compactors, dishwashers, wet bars, decorative roofing materials, exterior trim, architectural style) make cost comparisons over time difficult. Growing market demand for housing in Newport Beach and little remaining vacant land in the City • has had a strong impact on financial aspects of residential development in the City. The greatest impact of this market demand on cost of new housing is seen in the price of residential land in the City. Density increases often are used to offset high construction and land costs. Density increases may decrease land costs on a per unit basis, but sales prices of units in Newport Beach indicate density increases do not necessarily bring the cost of housing to consumers to a level that is affordable to lower or even moderate - income households. In addition, high residential densities involving buildings taller than three stories will greatly increase unit marketability in many areas of the City because of the addition of a view factor. Regardless of square footage or density, a unit with a blue water or white water view can be marketed as a luxury condominium and command an extremely high price. Higher land costs in the City are the main factor in higher square footage costs for housing provision. High land costs also trigger higher costs in other areas of development. To balance land prices, developers must increase amenities within the housing unit as well as within the community area. Thus, a higher land price is the factor that triggers increased development costs. u 52 Governmental Constraints • This section of the Housing Element addresses actual and potential City governmental constraints on development of housing for all income levels. Such constraints include land use controls (zoning), building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and local processing, and permit procedures. In many of these areas, localities have varying degrees of discretion to modify State standards for local implementation and /or conditions. Included in this analysis are constraints created by specific State regulations. As previously mentioned, there is a relatively limited supply of vacant land remaining for development in the City of Newport Beach. This limitation on the supply of land and accompanying existing urban development patterns of the City shape City land use regulations. Voter Initiatives In November, 2000, the voters of the City of Newport Beach approved a ballot proposition (Measure S) called the "Greenlight Initiative." The initiative was designed to provide for voter approval of any project that significantly increases density or intensity provided for in the Newport Beach General Plan. The definition of significance is quantified as 100 or more dwelling units, over 100 peak hour trips, or 40,000 or more square feet of non - residential floor area. Thereby, Measure S applies exclusively to General Plan amendments. For projects with a General Plan amendment, Measure S could delay the effective date(s) of discretionary approval(s) until the approval(s) are submitted to the Newport Beach electorate. The time frame for the potential delay(s) is controlled by the normal election cycle (every two years) or a developer(s) willingness to fund a special election(s). is Measure S may prove to be a constraint to development if a development proposal exceeds current General Plan levels, which may deter builders who look at increasing density levels as a way of making housing more affordable. However, the initiative should have no impact on the City's ability to provide density bonuses of up to 25% for affordable housing projects on sites already designated for residential development, as the Land Use Element includes 200 units of "Miscellaneous Residential" that may be used anywhere in Newport Beach and was included expressly to support the density bonus requirement. It is important to note, however, that Measure S will note have any impact on the allowed density established for the vacant, affordable housing sites identified to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. As indicated in the above paragraph, the Voter Initiative is only applicable when a change to the existing General Plan is proposed. • Zoning The City Zoning Code is complex but typical for an already highly urbanized community. The Code uses a "district" concept appropriate to the diverse urban patterns and topography found in the City. The Zoning Code contains five basic zoning districts (excluding Planned Community districts and other specialized districts) to regulate residential uses within the City. These zoning districts are R -A (Residential Agricultural), R -1 (Single Family Residential), R -1.5 (Restricted Two - Family Residential), R -2 (Two - Family Residential), and MFR (Multi - Family Residential). Table 31 summarizes Zoning Code provisions for residential density, height, set - backs, and parking. Parking requirements are also set forth by the California Coastal Commission. 53 Zoning Code requirements could be considered constraints to development because they place demands on the land that limit space that could be utilized for dwelling units. However, zoning standards are designed to protect the quality of life and provide, at a minimum, some access to • sunlight and fresh air. Access to air and sun are guaranteed through building setbacks, open space requirements, maximum building heights and floor area ratios. The Newport Beach Zoning Code controls density for each zoning district thru development regulations pertaining to land required per dwelling unit. In the older neighborhoods of the City, density standards have not changed since 1936. Density in the amount of approximately thirty dwelling units per acre are still allowed in these areas. In the newer neighborhoods, developed since the 1960's, single - family densities are generally less than 10 dwelling units per acres. The City's Codes contain many procedures to grant relief from certain development standards which can be of assistance in allowing higher densities. However, even if the City is willing to approve reductions in some of the zoning regulations, (such as parking), the California Coastal Commission has similar development requirements which would still need to be complied with for properties in the Coastal Zone. Maximum density in the multifamily zone (MFR) is a function of the size of the lot. For example, a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 1,200 square feet applies, which translates to a maximum density of 36 units per net acre. The following hypothetical example shows how the various zoning requirements interact on an MFR zoned lot. This example is intended for informational purposes, not as a typical probable outcome. Assume a flat site of one -acre (43,560 square feet) square. The 1,200 square feet per dwelling • unit requirement would allow the construction of 36 units. These 36 units would have to placed in a building, not exceeding yard setback requirements. Required setbacks leave a buildable area of about 33,230 square feet. A minimum of 90 off - street parking spaces is required. If parking is provided at grade, about 15, 320 square feet of area would remain for the 36 units. 54 • L J TABLE 31 SUMMARY OF ZONING CODE PROVISIONS BY DISTRICT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R -1 (S.F. & R -1.5 R -2 Zone R -A Duplex) (S.F.) (Duplex) MFR (Multi.) Newport Shores Specific Plan Height' 24728' 24728' 24728' 24728' 28732' 24728' 5000 s.f., 6000 for Same as Min. Lot Size 6000 s.f. comer lots 5000 s.f. R -1 Same as R -1 Same as R -1 Min Lot Width 125' 50760' 50760' 50760' 50760' Same as R -1 1 1/2 Parking spaces /unit Same Same Same Same Same Floor Area Ration 1.5/2.0 1.5 1.5/2.0 1.5/3.03 2 100% less Lot Coverage 40% setbacks Same as R -1 Front Yard (Min. /Max.)a 20 ft. 20 ft./35 ft. 20 ft 20 ft. 20 ft.5 5' 5 T min /6' Side Yard max 3' or 4' 3' or 4' 3' or 4' 3' or 4' Same as R -1 15' min /25' Rear Yards max 10' 10' 10' 10'5 5-5 Minimum Open Space W x H x 6' W x H x 6' W x H x6' 10% of buildable Lot Area per Dwelling 1000 s.f. 1000 s.f. 1200 s.f. (1 or 2 units) /1500 s.f. (3+ units) NOTES: 1: Lower number is the basic height limit, which can be increased to higher number upon approval of a use permit in each case. 2: The 1.5 FAR applies to Old Corona del Mar and Balboa Island only. FAR does not include open decks, balconies, or patios. 3: Excludes building area used for parking 4: Twenty feet, unless otherwise specified on districting maps 5: Other special yard and building distance requirements may apply Additionally, the California Coastal Commission requires 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department The City Zoning Code provides for a modifications committee comprised of the Planning Director, the Public Works Director, and the Building Director or their designated representative(s). Whenever an interpretation of the Zoning Code or its application to any specific case or situation would preclude a use of a parcel not otherwise allowed under zoning regulations, the modifications committee is authorized to modify requirements relating to building setbacks, size and location of parking spaces, lot line adjustments, and related matters. This procedure is in addition to variance procedures as set forth by State law. Notwithstanding established density limits, California State law supercedes local land use regulation and allows certain increases 55 to residential development, such as mandatory density bonuses for provision of affordable housing, and the ability to add "granny units' in single family residential areas, subject to approval of the City. • Residential zones may also cant' a special designation or overlay. Development requirements and special considerations may differ from area to area. The Subdivision Process Basic provisions of the City of Newport Beach Subdivision Code are similar to those of most jurisdictions of similar size to Newport Beach. The Subdivision Code contains design standards that provide minimum criteria for development. In some cases, the Code allows flexibility in application of its provisions and thereby potentially could reduce development costs. Examples of such cases are allowances for the development of non - conforming lots and park fee waivers. The Subdivision Code also addresses improvements (e.g., street trees, placing utilities underground, street lighting) that add to development costs. Additionally, the Newport Beach Subdivision Code requires dedication of parkland and /or payment of in -lieu fees concurrently to recordation of a final subdivision map. This requirement is made in compliance with State law, but also adds to costs of development. Local Coastal Program The City of Newport Beach has a (California Coastal Commission) certified Land Use Plan for its coastal zone but does not have a certified Local Coastal Program. Therefore, developers and /or property owners must apply for coastal development permits to the California Coastal Commission for improvements, demolition or construction of any structure located within the Newport Beach Coastal Zone boundary, except those that are exempted from Coastal • Development Permit requirements. The Land Use Plan requirement of the Local Coastal Program might be a constraint to providing affordable housing. The Land Use Plan consists of Citywide policies and land use designations, detailed area descriptions for each area of the Coastal Zone, and land use maps for the entire Coastal Zone. The Land Use Plan policies demonstrate consistency with the California Coastal Act in the following Areas: shoreline access; recreation and visitor - serving facilities; water and marine resources; diking, dredging, filling, and shoreline structures; commercial fishing and recreational boating; environmentally sensitive habitat areas; hazard areas; locating and planning new development; coastal visual resources and special communities; and, public works. In particular, the Land Use Plan contains restrictions applicable to twelve sensitive habitat areas that limit potential residential development areas and that control and regulate locations on new buildings and structures to ensure (to the extent practical) preservation of unique natural resources and to minimize alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. Furthermore, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan indicates that areas within the Coastal Zone designated for residential use are to be used primarily for residences, but indicates certain incidental uses that (with proper location and design) are appropriate within coastal areas with a residential designation. These uses are to be governed by requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and include senior citizen housing facilities (whose occupancy is limited to elderly persons, as defined by State or Federal law). The City of Newport Beach has a defined procedure for applying for coastal development permits. Those applications may be obtained from, and filed with, the California Coastal is 56 Commission. The initial step in the coastal development permit application process of Newport Beach is that development proposals be reviewed and conceptually approved by the • City prior to submittal to the California Coastal Commission. By its adoption by the City and certification by the California Coastal Commission, the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program establishes land use designations for the following undeveloped residential parcels within the Newport Beach Coastal Zone applicable to this Housing Element; Banning Ranch and Bayview Landing. In 1981, the California Legislature enacted SB 626 (Mello), which added Government Code Section §65590 and eliminated certain provisions of the California Coastal Act that required local coastal programs to include housing policies and programs; Section §65590 mandates coastal communities require inclusion of low- and moderate - income housing as part of new residential developments and replacement of low- and moderate - income housing eliminated as a result of demolition of existing housing within coastal zones of those communities. On August 19, 1982, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Council Policy P -1, establishing administrative guidelines and implementation procedures to administer Section §65590 within the coastal zone areas of the City. This Policy now is in the Zoning Code in Chapter 20.86 which establishes the requirement of a Coastal Residential Development Permit for certain activities involving dwelling units within the Coastal Zone. This permit ensures compliance with State law by maximizing low and moderate - income housing opportunities within the Newport Beach Coastal Zone. A Coastal Residential Development Permit is required in Newport Beach to demolish or convert eleven or more dwelling units in two or more structures, to demolish or convert three or more dwelling units in one structure, or to construct ten or more dwelling units. A Coastal • Residential Development Permit is not required for demolition or conversion of a residential structure to establish a nonresidential use that is "coastal related" or "coastal dependent' and that is consistent with provisions of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. In addition, a Coastal Residential Development Permit is not required to demolish a residential structure declared a public nuisance or to reconstruct a nonconforming building damaged by fire, earthquake, or other calamity when a use permit is not required. • The Newport Beach Municipal Code indicates replacement affordable units in the Coastal Zone shall be provided on a one - for -one basis when demolition or conversion activities involve low and moderate - income dwelling units. Also, a feasibility study is required for new dwelling unit construction of ten or more units when low and moderate - income dwelling units are not proposed at affordability standards contained in this Housing Element. The test of feasibility shall be initially conducted at the Housing Element standard and subsequently at progressively higher standards contained in California State Health and Safety Code Section 50093. Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach and the owner of the low and moderate- income dwelling units provided are required to enter into an affordable housing agreement (to be recorded against the property) governing the dwelling units. Senior citizen housing facilities may require higher dwelling unit limits than normally allowed in the Municipal Code. Such higher dwelling unit limits are allowed and are consistent with the Local Coastal Program when a finding can be made that the use is a particular benefit to the City and that traffic generated by the project is not greater than the predominant use allowed in the area. Senior citizen housing facilities must conform to floor area limits of applicable residential zone(s). 57 In an effort to mitigate the potential constraint to developers of securing approval from the City and the Coastal Commission, the City is working diligently to gain LCP certification by June 2003. Once certified, the City will be the issuing agency for Coastal Development Permits and • a developer would not be required to obtain separate Coastal Commission approval. Building Codes and Enforcement Building codes regulate new construction and rehabilitation, and are designed to ensure adequate protection against fire, structural collapse, unsanitary conditions and other safety hazards. Newport Beach has adopted and enforces the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and has adopted local amendments to State codes. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopted by ordinance the 1998 edition of the "California Building Code," and also adopted and incorporated by reference the 1998 edition of the "California Building Code" volumes 1, 2, and 3, including all national codes and standards based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code, as published by the International Conference of Building Officials. These Codes establish minimum construction standards for all residential buildings. Cities can adopt stricter standards but cannot reduce standards. Thus, the City of Newport Beach is precluded from revising its Building Codes as a means of reducing construction costs. However, building costs do not appear to be unduly increased through local building codes. State energy conservation regulations, which are cost effective in the long term, may add to construction costs. There does not appear to be a need to expand present code enforcement activities as indicated by few significant housing quality problems. Permit Processing and Impact Fees The role fees play in constraining production of housing is difficult to measure, although fees can affect housing prices in certain markets. The theory behind fees is that new development • should bear its own costs and these costs should be spread equitably. State law requires fees bear a reasonable relationship to actual costs incurred by a city. However, fees may add significantly to the cost of a housing unit. To offset the cost of constructing housing units, the Newport Beach City Council adopted a program that allows for the waiver of all application and park fees when affordable housing units are proposed. In addition the Municipal Code allows for the waiver of fair share trip fees. The City's permitting procedures are considered efficient with typical zone change requests reaching completion in as few as 60 days if no environmental impact report is required. An environmental impact report may require up to one year before a decision is rendered, which is within the time frame established by State law. Conditional Use Permits and subdivision maps typically can be approved in six to eight weeks, provided an environmental impact report is not required. Planning Commission decisions on maps, and conditional use permits are final unless appealed within 14 days of the date of decision to the City Council, or unless a member of the City Council within 14 days of the date of decision requests to review the Planning Commission decision. Zone Changes require City Council action. It should be noted that the City does not impose a design review process and /or compliance with any architectural design guidelines. The lack of this procedure further lends to an expeditious approval process. City of Newport Beach fees for discretionary applications are compared to discretionary application fees of various nearby cities in Table 33. • 58 0 • • California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970, and requires governmental agencies that propose to approve projects to undertake analysis of environmental impacts resulting from that project. 59 TABLE 32 TABLE 33 COMPARISON OF PERMIT FEES— NEARBY JURISDICTIONS January, 2000 one one one one : General Plan Singlmily Multi -wily Sing —le -F—am ily Mu b- amity Jurisdiction Amendment Zone Change Parcel Map Variance Costa Mesa Huntington Beach $8,390 minor 5,300 $1,460 $1,080 $11,150 (major) Detached Attached $917 $567 Irvine $85.701hr r $85.701hr r Laguna Beach $1,210 $1,210 690 + 275 lot 180 Newport Beach minor $850 $10,421 (major) $6,894.37 Per Dwelling Unit Orange County $5,000 2,000- 5, 00 2,000 $1,50042,000 Unified School (screen check) Source: City Planning Departments ' plus $125 for additional acre Departments California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970, and requires governmental agencies that propose to approve projects to undertake analysis of environmental impacts resulting from that project. 59 TABLE 33 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES IN NEWPORT BEACH one one one one : Singlmily Multi -wily Sing —le -F—am ily Mu b- amity ransportation Coffd�` or Fee air are rip Fee Single-Family Single-Family Apartment Fiderly Detached Attached $917 $567 $1,559 $1.148 Mobile Home $850 In Lieu Park Fee $6,894.37 Per Dwelling Unit Newport-Mesa $1.84 Per Square Foot Unified School District Fee Source: City Planning Departments Applies to all development in the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agencies Area of Benefit California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970, and requires governmental agencies that propose to approve projects to undertake analysis of environmental impacts resulting from that project. 59 The CEQA process can be lengthy, and project delays can increase costs to developers. Likewise, costs to prepare environmental documentation necessary to satisfy CEQA can be quite high, and traditionally is borne by the project applicant. • The CEQA process particularly affects Newport Beach due to rich natural resources in the area. Concern for protection of natural resources within Newport Beach has in the past required, and will continue to require, modifications to intensity of residential development and design of projects. The City environmental review process is responsive, well coordinated, and meets CEQA requirements. Review of this environmental reporting process for purposes of preparation of this Element illustrates it is not excessive or overly restrictive according to State law. Summary In response to the forgoing constraints, both governmental and non - governmental, the City of Newport Beach is setting as its first goal "to maintain quality residential development through the application of sound planning principles and policies..." This goal realizes the level of constraints and opportunities presented and will make every effort to use this regulations and policies to create quality projects that both meet the requirements of the law and that meet the needs of the City's population and various groups in need. • is .o] • II. Housing Plan: Goals, Policies, Quantified Objectives, and Programs Analyses contained in previous sections of this Housing Element provides the basis for the Newport Beach Housing Plan, which is comprised of housing goals, policies, and programs. The plan places emphasis on providing appropriate opportunity for satisfaction of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement of 476 units. Additionally, the plan places emphasis on providing housing opportunities for special needs populations in local (jurisdictional) and regional contexts. The special needs populations most evident within Newport Beach and most easily quantifiable by United States Census of Population and Housing are the elderly, the challenged (handicapped), and female- headed households. Many of those Policies and Programs in this Housing Plan focus on providing housing opportunities for the dominant Special Needs population— senior citizens (those 65 years of age and older). Senior citizens comprise approximately 72% of the total special needs population and have, as a group, many who are disabled as well as live at or below the poverty level. Special needs populations less evident and less easily quantifiable by the Census are the homeless and people living with HIV /AIDS. The City of Newport Beach recognizes the homeless, in particular, exist in every community but may be transient and therefore may more accurately be classified as a regional special needs population rather than as a "City" special needs population. This is done in acknowledgement that many categories of special needs populations are regional in nature rather than confined to • jurisdictional boundaries, and that the City of Newport Beach has approximately 48 acres of primary sites suitable for residential development. • Goals and policies contained in this Housing Plan address the City of Newport Beach's anticipated housing needs during the tenure of this Housing Element (2000 – 2005) and are implemented by a series of Housing Policies and Programs. These Policies and Programs prescribe specific actions the City of Newport Beach will take during the tenure of this Housing Element. The Housing Plan set forth in this Housing Element contains an annotated description of future actions for each Housing Program policy, the Program funding source, responsible agency, and time frame for implementation. W 1992 Housing Element Review California State law requires the City Housing Element be reviewed as frequently as appropriate • and that it be revised appropriately, but not less than every five (5) years, to reflect results of the review. The last revision of the Newport Beach Housing Element occurred in 1992. All the following must be evaluated during a review of the Housing Element: • Appropriateness of housing goals, policies and programs in contributing to attainment of the State housing goal. • Effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community housing goals. • Progress of the City in implementation of the Housing Element. When a City has land within the California Coastal Zone, review of its Housing Element must consider housing pursuant to coastal requirements. This evaluation must include the following. • Number of new housing units approved for construction within the Coastal Zone after January 1, 1992. • Number of housing units required to be provided in new housing developments within the Coastal Zone or within three (3) miles of the Coastal Zone for persons and families of low- or moderate - income, as they are defined in Section §50093 of the Health and Safety Code. • Number of existing residential dwelling units in the Coastal Zone that have been authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1992 that were occupied by • persons or families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section §50093 of the Health and Safety Code. • Number of residential dwelling units required for replacement of units authorized to be demolished or converted that were occupied by persons or families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section §50093 of the Health and Safety Code. Location of replacement units on site, elsewhere within the locality's jurisdiction within the Coastal Zone, or within three (3) miles of the Coastal Zone within the locality's jurisdiction, must also be designated in the review. is 62 Housing Element General Review • In the course of administering the Newport Beach Housing Element and preparing the 2000 Housing Element review and revision, the City of Newport Beach determined that the previously adopted goals and policies continue to contribute to the attainment of California State housing goals as well as the housing goals of Newport Beach. As a result, most of those goals and policies have been retained to facilitate attainment of the 2000 -2005 City housing goals. Specific Housing Programs that have not been effective have been revised or deleted. New Housing Programs have been added. According to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment for 1989 — 1994 produced by the Southern California Association of Governments, the projected regional need for additional housing units in the City of Newport Beach was 2,062 total new units. The distribution of these new units according to income was as follows: Very Low - Income (299 units); Lower - Income (408 units); Moderate - Income (359 units); and, High - Income (996 units). According to City of Newport Beach Building Department records, 216 net units were produced in the City of Newport Beach during the period between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994, and 1,050 net units were produced in Newport Beach during the period between January 1, 1994 and January 1, 2000. The City of Newport Beach's adopted quantified objectives (which included an adjustment to RHNA) for the period between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994 were to provide 2,371 total new units during that time period, distributed as follows: Very Low - Income (272 units); Lower - Income (284 units); Moderate - Income (647 units); and, High- Income (1,168 units). Development of new residential units in projects considered to be major projects by the City of • Newport Beach between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994 totaled 240 units. The projected new construction was not achieved because the City over projected development on some sites and the owner of large parcels (The Irvine Company) did not construct new units in the prescribed affordable range. The City currently is working with the Irvine Company and a non- profit organization to develop a senior affordable project of up to 150 units at Bayview Landing. The applicant is in the process of preparing a site plan and a development application. • New units constructed in small projects, including second units and "granny" units, and rehabilitated units were estimated to be approximately 421 for the period January 1, 1989 — January 1, 1994. The total number of units identified for rehabilitation was 3,016. Incomes of occupants of these units cannot be determined by the City. The City of Newport Beach uses building permits as its sole source for quantitative records of housing rehabilitation. However, it is impossible to ascertain which of the 2,521 building permits issued for remodeling between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994 were for rehabilitating substandard units. The City does not have a substantial incidence of substandard dwelling units. According to the 1990 Census of Population and Housing, there were: • 231 dwelling units lacking complete kitchen facilities • 111 dwelling units with no source of heating fuel • 91 dwelling units lacking complete plumbing facilities These units qualify as substandard dwelling units in the City of Newport Beach, although the City does not keep statistics on such types of units. The City defines "substandard" in terms of 63 code enforcement issues, such as garage conversions. Most rehabilitation in the City was accomplished without involvement of the City because of the high land and unit values in Newport Beach. The City was not involved in any property condemnation cases between • January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994. The City of Newport Beach indicated in its 1992 Housing Element that 9,172 total units would be conserved between 1989 and 1994 by applying the City Mobile Home Park Zone Ordinance, applying the Condominium Conversion Regulations, and by applying Title 20 of the Municipal Code regarding replacement housing. Title 20 permitted demolition of 241 dwelling units between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994. It is not possible to determine incomes of occupants of those units demolished. The vacancy rate provision of the City Condominium Conversion Regulations prohibited applications for conversion of rental units to condominiums, and there were no conversions during 2001. Between the years of 1995 and 2000, a total of 167 apartment units were converted to condominiums. In addition, a 140 -unit apartment project located on Sea Lane was demolished in 2000 and is being replaced by 92 condominiums. Subsequent to the tenure of the Housing Element of 1989 -1994, the City of Newport Beach took the following actions to implement its Program objectives: Details regarding the expenditures of these programs are provided in Appendix A. The City of Newport Beach received and spent $1,457,240 of Community Development Block Grant funds between 1996 and 1999. The details on expenditures /programs for the funds are explained in Appendix A. • The City of Newport Beach, between 1989 to 1994 and 1996 to 1999, participated in • County of Orange programs that provided housing and social services for special needs populations. • The City of Newport Beach, during 1996- 2002 was involved in continuing negotiations with the Irvine Company and other residential developers for a senior residential project. • The City of Newport Beach collected $2,560,000 in -lieu fees for affordable housing from developers of market -rate residential projects. • The City established an Affordable Housing Task Force to work with the Irvine Company and other parties to develop affordable housing projects. The task force was instrumental in the Irvine Company's agreement to provide for development of the Lower Bayview Landing site with up to 150 units for very low- and low - income senior citizens. The City Council issued Request for Proposals for projects on which to use the City's affordable housing in -lieu fund. The three proposals received were either premature or infeasible, and the City Council declined them. The Task Force continues to look for potential housing sites and to work with potential developers of affordable housing, for families as well as senior citizens. • 64 Housina Element Coastal Zone Review • The City of Newport Beach uses Section 20.86 of the Municipal Code to implement Government Code Section 65590 et. seq. Between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994, 190 new residential units were approved for construction within the California Coastal Zone. Of these 190 new units, 24 were required to be developed and maintained as housing affordable to low - income and moderate - income individuals and /or families pursuant to Section §65590. During the same time period, the City permitted landowners to demolish 189 residential units within the Coastal Zone. Of the 189 units demolished, none were occupied by low- income and /or moderate - income persons and /or families. Newport Beach approved construction of 190 residential units in new housing developments in the California Coastal Zone, which represents a total net increase of 1 residential unit and a total net increase of 24 residential units affordable to low- income and moderate - income individuals and /or families. • • 65 Year 2000 — 2005 Housing Plan Quantified Objectives • The Year 2000 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) determined the City of Newport Beach had a construction need for 476 residential units between January 1998 and January 2005. The total need for each target income group is as follows: Very Low- Income (86 units); Low - Income (53 units); Moderate - Income (83 units); and, Above Moderate - Income (254 units). The Year 2000 Housing Plan for Newport Beach has identified Goals, Policies, and Programs that fulfill this construction need. The three potential sites identified in this Housing Element (Newport Banning Ranch, Bayview Landing, and Avocado /MacArthur) could feasibly accommodate as many as 727 residential units using the City's 25% density bonus allowance for affordable projects. The Newport Banning Ranch site has sufficient capacity (space and existing zoning) to allow for the construction of at least 406 residential units (without applying a 25% density bonus). Furthermore, the Bayview Landing site has sufficient capacity (space and existing zoning) to allow for construction of up to 150 residential units. The Avocado /MacArthur site would require a change of zone (to add a multiple - family residential use) to allow proposed construction of 56 residential units (without density bonus) targeted for senior citizens. The Newport Coast annexation area has a RHNA allocation of 945 units. Of these 945 units, 95 units are to be for low- income residents and 850 are to be for above - moderate income residents. Achievement of the allocation will be through implementation of the Affordable Housing Implementation Program (AHIP) established between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company. The City will coordinate and oversee enforcement of the AHIP. Following is a matrix indicating the maximum number of housing units that should be is constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved during the tenure of the Year 2000 Newport Beach Housing Element. Housing Goals 2000 - 2005 INCOME GROUP NEW CONSTRUCTION (BEFORE ANNEXATION OF NEWPORT COAST) NEW CONSTRUCTION (NEWPORT COAST) REHABILITATION' CONSERVATION Very Low Income 86 0 150 Low Income 53 95 0 169 Moderate Income 83 0 2 Above Moderate 254 850 0 0 TOTAL L 476 945 0 319 See discussion on page 63 regarding rehabilitation is .. Newport Beach Housing Element: Goals, Policies, and Programs • Goals for Housing Element success include the following: promoting quality residential development through application of sound planning principles and policies that encourage preservation, conservation, and appropriate redevelopment of housing stock; providing a balanced residential community that contains a variety of housing types, designs and opportunities for all economic segments of the community; extending ownership opportunities to as many households as possible, particularly those of moderate and upper incomes because these comprise the greatest demand; preserving and increasing housing affordability, through rental housing, for very low- and low- income households; and, providing housing for special needs groups. The policies and programs described below focus on providing appropriate and affordable housing opportunities and related services to the special needs populations most in need of such in Newport Beach, that is, in particular to senior citizens. Additionally, the policies and programs (particularly under Goals 3, 4 and 5) will ensure that the City will meet its RHNA of 476 total new units for Newport Beach and 945 total new units in Newport Coast. For purposes of defining income groups, the Housing Element uses the income table prepared by the State of California in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section §50093 ( §50093 Table). The §50093 Table uses the following income groups. Very Low - income: 0 -50% of the HUD Median family income adjusted for family size as shown in the §50093 Table. Lower - income: 50 % -80% of the HUD Median family income adjusted for family size as shown in the §50093 Table. In areas of higher income, such as Orange County, the lower income family of four does not exceed the higher of the national median family income or the State non - metropolitan • median family income. Low - income is the combination of the very low- and lower- income groups. L J Median- income: 80% -100% of the HUD Median family income adjusted for family size as shown in the §50093 Table. Moderate- income: 100% -120% of the HUD Median family income adjusted for family size as shown in the §50093 Table. Upper- income: 120% + of the HUD Median family income as shown in the §50093 Table. The following affordability standards shall apply to rental and ownership housing: Maximum household income shall be determined by number of persons in a family or household and income shall be in conformance with the §50093 Table as follows An efficiency unit as if occupied by one person; a one bedroom as if occupied by two persons; a two bedroom as if occupied by four persons; a three bedroom as if occupied by six persons; and a four bedroom as if occupied by eight. Rents for very low -, low- median- and moderate- income households shall be no more than 30% of the income in the §50093 Table. The selling price of an ownership unit shall be no more than 3 times the buyer's income. Units may be sold to buyers with qualifying incomes for the limited sales 67 price without regard to the number of persons in the family. Specific Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Year 2000 Newport Beach Housing Plan follow. GOAL 1: MAINTAIN QUALITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH • APPLICATION OF SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES THAT ENCOURAGE PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION, AND APPROPRIATE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING STOCK. Policy 1.1 Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing resources for as long into the future as physically and economically feasible. Housing Program 1.1.1 -- Improve housing quality and prevent deterioration of existing neighborhoods by strictly enforcing Building Code regulations and abating Code violations and nuisances. Enforcement activities will focus on property maintenance, eliminating derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, or other situations that may constitute health, safety or fire hazards. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department, Building Department and the City Attorney. Housing Program 1.1.2— Reduce the potential for criminal activity by providing guidelines for maintaining the security of existing development with emphasis on site design (such as security lighting, vegetation removal, electronic garage door openers, window security, and other crime prevention techniques). • Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department and Police Department Housing Program 1.1.3 -- Promote the maintenance and upkeep of rental housing by encouraging the California State Franchise Tax Board to enforce the California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections §17299 and §24436.5, preventing owners of rental housing from claiming depreciation, amortization, mortgage interest, and property tax deductions on State Income Tax reports. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the City Attorney. Housing Program 1.1.4 -- Continue to participate with the Orange County Housing Authority and Housing and Community Development Division in their administration of rehabilitation loans and grants for low- and moderate - income homeowners and rental property owners to encourage preservation of existing City housing stock. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. is 68 Housing Program 1.1.5 -- Continue to require replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone when housing is (or has been occupied by low- and moderate • income households within the preceding 12 months). The City shall prohibit demolition unless a Coastal Residential Development Permit has been issued. The specific provisions implementing replacement unit requirements are contained in Municipal Code Section 20. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 1.1.6 -- Participate in a cooperative program with the Orange County Housing and Community Development Program Office for administration of the Housing and Urban Development Rental Rehabilitation Program. Energy efficient products shall be required when appropriate. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department and Building Department. Housing Program 1.1.7 -- Should need arise, consider using a portion of its Community Development Block Grant funds for establishment and implementation of an emergency home repair program. Energy efficient products shall be required whenever appropriate. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Policy 1.2 Monitor development proposals for opportunities to maintain, increase, or enhance affordable housing opportunities. • Housing Program 1.2.1 - -As part of its annual General Plan Review, the City shall provide information on the status of all housing programs. The portion of the Annual Report discussing Housing Programs is to be distributed to the California Department of Housing and Community Development in accordance with California State law in January of each year by US Postal Service. • Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 1.2.2 -- Investigate availability of Federal, State, and local programs (including in -lieu funds) and pursue these programs if found feasible, for the preservation of existing low- income housing, especially for preservation of low - income housing that may increase to market rates during the next ten (10) years. A list of these programs, including sources and funding amounts, will be identified as part of this program and maintained on an on -going basis. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 1.2.3 - -As part of the annual General Plan review, monitor existing programs designed to preserve assisted housing developments for very low- and low - income households to determine whether additional actions are available and should be required to protect these developments. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department Policy 1.3 Support the intent and spirit of equal housing opportunities as expressed in Title VII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, California Rumford Fair Housing Act, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. • Housing Program 1.3.1 -- Continue to contract with the Orange County Fair Housing Council for administration of the Fair Housing Program including updating the analysis of impediments to fair housing. In addition, continue to contract with the Orange County Housing Authority to refer fair housing complaints. Pamphlets containing information related to fair housing complaints will continue to be provided to the public at the Planning Department. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department and City Attorney. Housing Program 1.3.2 -- Support fair housing opportunities by using Community Development Block Grant funds whenever necessary to enact Federal, State, and City fair housing policies. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Policy 1.4 Review the Housing Element on a regular basis to determine appropriateness of goals, policies, programs, and progress of Housing Element implementation. Housing Program 1.4.1 -- Monitor progress on each of the programs in the Housing Plan and periodically report findings to the Planning Commission and City Council. Propose recommendations for amendments if necessary. • Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department, Housing Program 1.4.2 -- Whenever land use regulations, land use designations, or Housing Programs are proposed for adoption or modification, the City of Newport Beach Planning Department shall undertake an analysis to determine if the proposed action or regulation is consistent with the Housing Element, all other elements of the General Plan, and with all adopted City Council Policies. If the proposal is inconsistent, the policy, plan or Element shall be amended in conjunction with approval of the proposed regulation or action to ensure consistency. Consistency shall be achieved whenever a regulation, action or project is approved. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department and Planning Commission. Policy 1.5 Maintain and preserve existing City housing stock and improve energy efficiency of all housing unit types (including mobilehomes) Housing Program 1.5.1 -- Investigate the use of Federal funds to provide technical and financial assistance, if necessary, to all eligible homeowners and residential rental property owners to rehabilitate existing dwelling units through low- interest loans or potential loans, or grants to very low, low- and moderate - income, owner - occupants of residential properties to rehabilitate existing units. • 70 Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. • Housing Program 1.5.2 -- Periodically inform mobile home owners of financial assistance available from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development for eligible owner - occupants to rehabilitate existing dwelling units through deferred payment low- interest loans. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 1.5.3 — Per Government Code Section §65863.7, a Mobile Home Park Conversion Permit shall be required as a prerequisite for conversion of an existing mobile home park. In addition, the owner of the mobile home park shall provide a detailed relocation impact report. The report shall be filed concurrently with filing for any discretionary permit on such property. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department and the State of California. (The State will determine acceptability of the permit for conversion). GOAL 2 PROVIDE A BALANCED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, COMPRISED OF A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, DESIGNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SEGMENTS, INCLUDING VERY LOW -, LOW -, MODERATE -, AND UPPER - INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS. Policy 2.1 Encourage preservation of existing, and provision of new housing • affordable to very low- and low- income households. Housing Program 2.1.1 -- Maintain rental opportunities by restricting conversions of rental units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental housing is 5% or higher for four (4) consecutive quarters, and unless the property owner complies with condominium conversion regulations contained in Chapter 20.73 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 2.1.2 -- Take all feasible actions, through use of development agreements, expedited development review, and expedited processing of grading, building and other development permits, to ensure expedient construction and occupancy for projects approved with low- and moderate- income housing requirements. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department and the City Council. Housing Program 2.1.3 - -The City Council and Planning Commission shall have discretion to review and waive planning and park fees, and modify development standards (e.g. parking, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) for developments containing low- and moderate - income housing in proportion to the number of low- and moderate - income units in each entire project. • Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the City Council. 71 Housing Program 2.1.4 -- Continue to encourage the California State Department of Real Estate and California State Department of Housing and Community Development • to permit installation of mobile homes, factory-built housing, or other construction technology, provided such products comply with development standards of the community and are compatible with planning, aesthetic, and other applicable considerations of the specific neighborhood in which such product is proposed. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department and the Building Department. Housing Program 2.1.5- Continue to participate with the County of Orange in the issuance of tax - exempt mortgage revenue bonds to facilitate and assist in financing, development and construction of housing affordable to low and moderate - income households. City staff shall encourage developers of remaining residential sites to use tax - exempt mortgage revenue bonds to facilitate construction of low- and moderate - income housing. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 2.1.6 — Develop and implement an annual compliance- monitoring program for units required to be occupied by very low -, low -, and moderate - income households as approved with the development of Newport Coast and in accordance with the Newport Coast Affordable Housing Implementation Program (AHIP). Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Policy 2.2 Encourage the housing development industry to respond to housing needs • of the community and to the demand for housing as perceived by the industry, with the intent of achieving the Regional Housing Needs Assessment construction goals within five (5) years. Housing Program 2.2.1 -- Continue to require a proportion of affordable housing in new residential developments or levy an in -lieu fee. The City's goal over the five -year planning period is for an average of 20% of all new housing units to be affordable to very low- and low- income households. Given considerations of proper general planning, the California Environmental Quality Act, project development incentives, and government financial assistance, the City shall either; a) require the production of the housing units affordable to very low- and low- income households, or, b) require the payment of an in -lieu fee, depending on the following criteria for project size: 1. Projects where ten or fewer housing units are proposed shall be required to pay the in -lieu fee (s). 2. Projects where the proposal is for more than ten housing units, but fewer than fifty, shall have the option of providing the units or paying the in -lieu fee (s). 3. Projects where more than fifty units are proposed shall be required to provide the units. • 72 All required very low- and low- income units shall be provided on -site unless at an • off -site location approved by the City. Implementation of this program will occur in conjunction with City approval of any residential discretionary permits or Tentative Tract Maps. To insure compliance with the 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. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council. Housing Program 2.2.2 - -The City shall provide more assistance for projects that provide a higher number of affordable units or a greater level of affordability. More than 20% of units shall be affordable when assistance is provided from Community Development Block Grant funds or the City's in lieu housing fund. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council. Housing Program 2.2.3 - -For new developments proposed in the Coastal Zone areas of the City (comprising approximately 40% of the area of Newport Beach), the City shall require provision of housing affordable to persons or families of low- and moderate - income, where feasible in projects of 10 or more units. Whenever practicable, the City shall require they be located on -site; alternatively, the City may permit the developer to locate units off -site but within the Coastal Zone, or within three (3) miles of the Coastal Zone (within Newport Beach). All residential developments of three units or more within the Coastal Zone shall require a Coastal Residential • Development Permit. Determinations of feasibility, and procedures relating to provision of low- and moderate - income housing within the Coastal Zone, shall be governed by Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20. Responsibility for realization of this program shall be that of the Planning Department and the City Council. Housing Program 2.2.4 All required affordable units shall have restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department, City Attorney and City Council. Housing Program 2.2.5 -- Attempt to ensure that existing landowners and prospective developers are aware of affordable housing development opportunities available within the Newport Banning Ranch, Bayview, and Avocado /MacArthur properties. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 2.2.6 - -The Affordable Housing Task Force and /or City staff shall periodically contact known local developers and landowners to solicit new affordable housing construction. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. 73 Housing Program 2.2.7 - -The Affordable Housing Task Force shall create a program for the expenditure of in -lieu housing funds. Responsibility of this program shall be the Affordable Housing Task Force and the • Planning Department. Housing Program 2.2.8- -When it is determined to be of benefit, the City shall participate in other housing assistance programs that assist production of housing. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Policy 2.3 Approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, mixed residential and commercial /industrial use developments that improve the balance between housing and jobs. Housing Program 2.3.1 -- Newport Beach Staff and developers of proposed major commercial /industrial projects shall study housing impact(s) of such project(s) during the development review process. Prior to project approval, a housing impact assessment shall be developed by the City with the active involvement of the developer. Such assessment shall indicate the magnitude of jobs to be created by the project, where housing opportunities are expected to be available, and what measures (public and private) are requisite, if any, to ensure an adequate supply of housing for the projected labor force of the project and for any restrictions on development due to the "Greenlight" initiative. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department and Planning Commission. • Housing Program 2.3.2 — As part of the comprehensive General Plan Update, investigate the potential of housing (including single room occupancy hotel(s)) and mixed use development in areas such as Newport Center, Santa Ana Heights, Bay Knolls and John Wayne Airport. GOAL 3 EXTEND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES TO AS MANY RENTER AND OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS AS POSSIBLE IN RESPONSE TO THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN THE CITY. Policy 3.1 Mitigate potential governmental constraints to housing production and affordability by increasing the City of Newport Beach role in facilitating construction of moderate- and upper- income ownership housing. Housing Program 3.1.1 -- Increase the efficiency of the building permit process by insuring that the initial plan review be completed within 4 weeks for 90% of all submittals. This will include an automated tracking system allowing applicants to monitor plan check progress via the Internet. Implementation of this program began in September 2002 and operates on an on -going basis. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning and Building Department • 74 Housing Program 3.1.2 - -When a residential developer agrees to construct housing for persons and families of low and moderate income, the City shall either (1) grant a density • bonus or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Policy 3.2 Enable construction of new housing units sufficient to meet City quantified goals by identifying adequate sites for their construction. Housing Program 3.2.1 -- Identify the following sites as adequate, which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage development of a variety of housing types to meet City housing goals as identified pursuant to Government Code Section §65583(b): Newport Banning Ranch; Bayview Landing; and, Avocado /MacArthur. Responsibility for achieving this program is that of the Planning Department and City Council. Housing Program 3.2.2 -- Require the developer(s) of the 4.5 -acre site located on the southwesterly 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 of twenty -five percent (25 %) for the project. Additionally, the City may consider using a portion of fees collected from other • projects paid in -lieu of providing affordable residential units to facilitate meeting the City Affordable Regional Housing Needs Assessment construction requirements on said Bayview Landing site. Responsibility for implementation of this program is that of the Planning Department and City Council. Housing Program 3.2.3 -- Encourage the developer(s) of a 3.5 -acre site located northerly of San Miguel, easterly of Avocado Avenue, and westerly of MacArthur Boulevard (known as the Avocado /MacArthur site) to provide at least fifty -six (56) multiple - family residential units for Senior Citizen Households. The City shall assist the developer(s) by initiating a Change of Zone within one (1) year of certification of this Housing Element to allow such senior residential units on said site, by considering a "density bonus' and/or other incentives, and by streamlining the discretionary process. Additionally, the City may consider using a portion of fees collected from other projects paid in lieu of providing affordable residential units to facilitate meeting the City's Very Low -, Low -, and Moderate - Income Regional Housing Needs Assessment construction requirements on said Avocado /MacArthur site. Responsibility for implementation of this program is that of the Planning Department and City Council. Housing Program 3.2.4 - -When requested by property owners, the City of Newport Beach shall • continue to approve rezoning of developed or vacant property from non - 75 residential to residential uses when appropriate. These rezoned properties shall • be added to the list of sites for residential development. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 3.2.5 - The City shall consider a potential reduction of commercial zoning within some of its village commercial areas within the Coastal Zone to allow for additional residential development. Economic feasibility studies to support such a reduction will be evaluated concurrently with the City's General Plan Update projected for completion in 2005. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 3.2.6 -- Encourage the participation in a Joint Powers Authority of Orange County jurisdictions for the purpose of financing and administering a lease purchase program for first -time homebuyers. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department and City Council. Housing Program 3.2.7 -- Continue to participate as a member of the Orange County Housing Authority Advisory Committee and work in cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance to residents of the community. The City shall, in cooperation with the Housing Authority, recommend and request use of modified fair market rent limits to increase number of housing units within the City that will be eligible to participate in the program. The • Newport Beach Planning Department shall prepare and implement a publicity program to educate and encourage landlords within the City to rent their units to Section 8 Certificate holders and to make very low- income households aware of availability of the Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance Program. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. GOAL 4 PRESERVE AND INCREASE AFFORDABILITY OF THE CITY'S HOUSING STOCK FOR VERY LOW -, LOW -, AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. Policy 4.1 Encourage the extension of the affordability contracts for the ten (10) developments listed in Table 12 (City of Newport Beach Assisted Housing Summary) of this Housing Element beyond the years noted. Housing Program 4.1.1 — Periodically contact owners of affordable units for those developments listed in Table 29 to obtain information regarding their plans for continuing affordability on their properties. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 4.1.2 -- Consult with the property owners regarding utilizing CDBG funds and in -lieu housing funds to maintain affordable housing opportunities in those • developments listed in Table 29. 76 Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. • Housing Program 4.1.3 -- Prepare written communication for tenants and other interested parties about Orange County Housing Authority Section 8 renewals to assist tenants and prospective tenants to acquire additional understanding of housing law and related policy issues. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 4.1.4 — Continue to pursue Community Development Grant Funds to facilitate construction of housing for very low- and low- income households. Use of CDBG funds may include but shall not be limited to site acquisition, "off- setting" of land and /or construction costs. Responsibility for realization of the program is that of the Planning Department. Goal PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS. Policy 5.1 Encourage approval of housing opportunities for senior citizens and other special needs populations. Housing Program 5.1.1 -- Apply for United States Department of Urban Development Community Development Block Grant funds and allocate a portion of such funds • to sub - recipients who provide shelter and other services for the homeless. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department and the City Council. Housing Program 5.1.2 - -As a condition of receiving housing funding through the City, the City shall require social service agencies receiving such funds record information on clients they serve and provide an annual audit of their activities. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 5.1.3 -- Cooperate with the Orange County Housing Authority to pursue establishment of a Senior /Disabled or Limited Income Repair Loan and Grant Program to underwrite all or part of the cost of necessary housing modifications and repairs. Loans would be repaid or forgiven on an ability to pay basis. Health and safety deficiencies would receive priority. Modifications for accessibility also would be appropriate. Administration of funds would be the responsibility of the Orange County Housing Authority. Cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority will include continuing City of Newport Beach participation in the Orange County Continuum of Care and continuing to provide CDBG funding Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department and the City Council. 77 Housing Program 5.1.4 -- Continue to permit development of senior citizen housing facilities in all residential and commercial zoning districts pursuant to Zoning Code Sections 20.10.020 and 20.15.020(b). Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 5.1.5 -- Continue to permit, where appropriate, development of "granny" units in single - family areas of the City. Consider amending the zoning code to allow approval of "granny units" at the staff level instead of by the Planning Commission. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 5.1.6 -- Consistent with development standards in residential and commercial areas, continue to permit emergency shelters and transitional housing under group housing provisions in its Zoning Code. Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 5.1.7 - -The City of Newport Beach shall investigate State Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA). Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the Planning Department. Housing Program 5.1.8— Notify residential developers (upon application for a discretionary permit) and to interested individuals and families, the following Table entitled "Public and Private Resources Available for Housing and Community Development Activities." This table is included in Appendix 4 to this Housing Element. Housing Program 5.1.9 - -By December 2003, the City of Newport Beach shall analyze and determine whether there are constraints on the development, maintenance and improvement of housing intended for persons with disabilities, consistent with Senate Bill 520 enacted January 1, 2002. If any constraints are found, the City will take subsequent actions within six months of the completion of the evaluation. The analysis will include an evaluation of existing land use controls, permit and processing procedures and building codes. If any constraints are found in these areas, the City will initiate actions to address these constraints, including removing the constraints or providing reasonable accommodation for housing intended for persons with disabilities. Responsibility for realization of this program is the Planning Department. The Goals, Policies, and Program housing and social service needs will be attained. Additionally, those Needs Assessment of 476 total ne between 2000 and 2005 will be m this Housing Element. Programs established above particularly provide policy assurance the of "special needs" populations in the City of Newport beach policies and programs will ensure that the Regional Housing w units for Newport Beach and 945 units for Newport Coast et according to the household income categories identified in 78 E E • 0 • • APPENDIX 1 (LIST OF CDBG PROJECTS (1996 — 2001)) The City of Newport Beach received and spent over $2,000,000 of Community Development Block Grant funds between 1996 and 2001. Those monies were allocated as follows. o 1996-1997 Housing - $70,517 (Homeless Support Services; two guaranteed apartment programs for households "at risk' of becoming homeless; housing assistance for Extremely Low Income, Very Low Income, and Low Income persons from Newport Beach). Two homeless assistance programs were located in the City of Newport Beach and provided assistance program to Newport Beach individuals and /or families and one other homeless assistance was located near the City of Newport Beach and provided assistance to individuals and /or families from Newport Beach: Substance Abuse Counseling $ 1,500 Meals for Disabled and Senior Citizens $ 35,983 Removal of Architectural Barriers $308,000 Housing Services $ 11,240 The amount spent on housing was reduced from previous years in response to neighborhood revitalization needs. Additionally, in 1996 the City of Newport Beach received Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers totaling $929,858 that was applied to 114 households. The City did not fund any new residential projects during Fiscal Year 1996 —1997 that resulted in provision of additional affordable housing units. 1997-1998 Friends in Service to Humanity (homeless assistance); $ 20,000 SPIN (substance abuse counseling) $ 8,000 Orange County Interfaith Shelter (homeless assistance) $ 8,555 YWCA (homeless assistance) $ 8,280 Friends in Service to Humanity (meals for senior citizens) $ 19,915 79 Fair Housing Counseling Services (administration) $ 90,496 Olive Crest (abused children assistance) $ 20,000 Mercy Housing (homeless assistance) $10,000 • Neighborhood Revitalization $304,750 The City did not fund any new residential projects during Fiscal Year 1997 -1998 that resulted in provision of additional affordable housing units. 0 1998 -1999 Appraisal of Balboa Theater $ 7,500 Friends in Service to Humanity (housing subsistence payments to 200 people) $ 20,000 SPIN (substance abuse counseling for homeless and people living with HIV /AIDS, assistance for 8 people) $ 8,000 Orange County Interfaith (temporary shelter for 30 people from Newport Beach) $ 8,555 YWCA (temporary [60 days] shelter for 5 people from Newport Beach) $ 8,280 Friends in Service to Humanity (meals for elderly) $ 19,915 South County Senior services (meals) $ 12,500 Fair Housing Counseling Services (administrative services)$ 12,500 General Management (program administration) $ 90,496 Olive Crest (assistance for 10 abused children) $ 20,000 Mercy House (homeless assistance for 10 people) $10,000 Public Facilities Improvements $269,150 Code Enforcement $ 28,100 • 0 1999 —2000 Code Enforcement — Balboa Peninsula $25,000 Fair Housing $13,992 FISH — Homeless Emergency Assistance $12,090 FISH — Mobile Meals $15,171 Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter — Temporary Shelter $ 7,713 South County Senior Services $15,170 Program Administration $ 85,008 Public Facilities $339,902 SPIN — Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program $ 19,106 YWCA Hotel — Temporary Shelter $ 5,000 0 2000 -2001 WISE Place (emergency shelter services and related support for 2 or more people from Newport Beach) $ 4,000 Fair Housing Council of Orange County (administrative services) $13,788 SPIN (emergency assistance for homeless through substance abuse rehabilitation program for low income families) $10,000 • 80 South County Senior Services, Inc. (mobile meals program for senior citizens) $15,600 • Orange County Interfaith Shelter (temporary housing and related support services) $ 8,000 Olive Crest (housing and related support services) $ 5,000 Friends in Service to Humanity (homeless emergency assistance program) $16,500 Friends in Service to Humanity (mobile meals program). $15,600 • • Approximately $160,092 (10.6 %) of City Community Development Block Grant funds ($1,515,228) was directly used for housing during Fiscal Year 2000 -2001. 81 APPENDIX • SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS The following programs are located in, and near, the City of Newport Beach and serve many Newport Beach residents, including the elderly. Orange County Housing Authority (2043 North Broadway, Santa Ana) offers rental assistance for elderly and non - elderly in the County. The Section 8 "Certificate" and "Housing Voucher" programs were established by Federal law. Both provide rental assistance for low- income persons (those having incomes 80% or less of the County median income) in need of decent, safe. and sanitary housing. The "Certificate" program requires families pay a portion of their rent, but an amount not to exceed thirty (30) percent of their adjusted income. Total amount of the rental unit must be approved by the Housing Authority based on utilities, location, and the condition of each rental dwelling. Additionally, total rent must fall within Housing Authority Fair Market Rent limits. It should be noted that United States Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations were modified in October, 2000 to allow Section 8 monies to be used for home purchases in addition to rental assistance. The "Housing Voucher" program allows families to pay more than 30 percent of their adjusted income toward rent should they wish to rent a housing unit that has a rent greater than Fair Market Rent. Families pay the difference between the rental price of the dwelling and the Housing Authority portion of the rent. The Housing "Certificate" • Program (which will be combined under a "New Voucher" Program by October 1, 2001) provides rental assistance for families renting housing units that charge Fair Market Rent. No assistance is provided to the renter beyond Fair Market Rent should the renter choose a unit more expensive than Fair Market Rent. The Housing Authority does not have figures on how many elderly are waiting for assistance, but has indicated that approximately 5,000 people are on a waiting list to obtain assistance. Although the following service organizations do not provide housing for the elderly, those organizations provide services to the elderly that assist the elderly in affording housing in Newport Beach. Meals on Wheels, a Home Delivered Meals Program — provides hot meals to elderly shut - ins and is available in Newport Beach. This Program is administered by South County Services, which has indicated it serves 30 —35 congregate meals daily at the OASIS Senior Center in Newport Beach and delivers 3 meals daily to 23 (approximately 17,250 total meals annually) Newport Beach residents. OASIS Senior Center (800 Marguerite Avenue, Corona del Mar) — This is a multi- purpose center dedicated to meeting needs of senior citizens and their families. OASIS estimates as many as 75 percent of its clients are residents of Newport Beach. OASIS offers classes in art, exercise, mature driving, topics of enrichment, and computers and arranges social groups for those who share hobbies and interests. The Center travel department coordinates day and overnight trips. OASIS offers transportation programs (3 • 82 • vans) for Newport Beach seniors who have disabilities that limit their access to public transportation. This shuttle program provides transportation from senior citizens' homes to the Senior Center. A Care -A -Van program is available for those senior citizens who require transportation for medical appointments, grocery shopping and banking. OASIS distributes information about job openings that might interest seniors who wish to supplement their retirement income or to remain active through part-time work. OASIS offers various health services for seniors. Support groups meet regularly at the Center to help senior citizens and their families cope with stress, illness, life transitions, and crises. Informational and supportive counseling is available to seniors and their family members on an individual basis. OASIS also offers a lunch program for active and homebound senior citizens ages 60 and older that is funded by the Federal government through the Older American Act. A donation is requested for meals, which are provided by South County Senior Services. The year 2000 operating budget for OASIS Senior Center was $470,000. Funding sources for OASIS include the following: the City of Newport Beach; Friends of OASIS, a non - profit support group that contributes approximately $200,000 annually to OASIS and funds other special events, services through grants; and, fees charged for some classes offered, facility rental, and transportation. South County Senior Services (24300 El Toro Road, Building A, Suite 2000, Laguna Woods) is a regional non - profit charitable organization that has as its mission to promote, • advocate and improve quality of life, dignity, and independence of the elderly. This organization serves approximately 10,000 seniors annually in its combined programs. South County Senior Services receives funding from federal grants, project income, MediCal, client fees, USDA, funding drives, and special events. South County Senior Services provides medical treatment programs for adults eighteen years or older with disabilities or impairments who are at risk of institutionalization, including nursing services, occupational and physical therapy, speech therapy, nutrition, music therapy, counseling, supervised social and educational activities, exercise, special events, music, and art to delay institutionalization and social isolation. South County Senior Services has an Alzheimer's treatment center and an in -home assessment program to determine needs of frail seniors, 60 years of age and older, and to establish a Plan -of -Care for services needed to assist seniors to maintain independence in their own homes for as long as possible. The Meals -On- Wheels program provides meals to individuals 60 years of age and older who are living at home and unable to prepare their own meals, or who are unable to go out to eat, or who have little or no assistance to obtain adequate meals. A transportation program coordinates lift- equipped paratransit services for senior centers. A referral service for In -Home Providers is offered to help seniors maintain independence in their own homes for as long as possible. Various programs and services are offered to meet educational, recreational, social, and human service needs of the elderly population. The Shared Housing Program was designed for seniors and various age groups to share their existing homes for companionship and relief from financial burden of housing costs for short- or long -term tenures. This Program had operated throughout the 1990s, but was discontinued in 2000 because the County of Orange discontinued Community • Development Block Grant Funds for the Shared Housing Program. 83 Assistance League of Newport Mesa ( 2220 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, CA (949) 645- • 6029) — is a non - profit volunteer service organization that assesses and helps meet the physical, material, emotional and cultural needs of the children in our community through self - funded, ongoing philanthropic projects. Programs include "Childrens Dental Health Care Center" providing oral hygiene instruction, general dentistry, othodontia and endodontics. The Assistance League also provides "Operation School Bell" providing clothing, shoes, school uniforms and backpacks at no cost to children of low- income families. Still another program includes "Kids on the Block," a nationally recognized educational program that teaches young adults increased understanding and tolerance for fellow classmates who have learning disabilities, physical handicaps or special emotional needs. The latest program, "The Community Outreach Program" provides funding for supplies used in supervised study programs for developmental education, parenting classes and counseling, living expenses for single parents, and day care at accredited facilities. is E 94 APPENDIX 2 • AGENCIES PROVIDING EMERGENCY SHELTER AND ASSISTANCE Orange County Housing Authority (2043 North Broadway, Santa Ana) offers rental assistance for those individuals and families in the County in danger of becoming homeless. The Section 8 "Certificate" and "Housing Voucher" programs were established by Federal law. Both provide rental assistance for low income persons (those having incomes 80% or less of the County median income) in need of decent, safe, and sanitary housing. The "Certificate" program requires families pay a portion of their rent, but an amount not to exceed thirty (30) percent of their adjusted income. Total amount of the rental unit must be approved by the Housing Authority based on utilities, location, and the condition of each rental dwelling. Additionally, total rent must fall within Housing Authority Fair Market Rent limits. It should be noted that United States Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations were modified in October, 2000 to allow Section 8 monies to be used for home purchases in addition to rental assistance. The "Housing Voucher" program allows families to pay more than 30 percent of their adjusted income toward rent should they wish to rent a housing unit that has a rent greater than Fair Market Rent. Families pay the difference between the rental price of the dwelling and the Housing Authority portion of the rent. The Housing "Certificate" Program (which will be combined under a "New Voucher" Program by October 1, 2001) • provides rental assistance for families renting housing units that charge Fair Market Rent. No assistance is provided to the renter should the renter choose a unit more expensive than Fair Market Rent. According to the Orange County Housing Authority, there are more than 2,000 Certificates in existence in Orange County. u Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter — This is an agency that provides housing, meals, employment services, and a children's program. The Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter is the largest family shelter in Orange County and operates on an annual budget of $500,000. The City of Newport Beach provided $8,000 (1.6 %) of that operating budget during the time period July 1, 1999 — June 30, 2000. Temporary shelter is offered to families and single women on an emergency (3 — 7 days /month) or transitional (2 —7 months) basis. During the time period noted previously the Interfaith Shelter provided temporary shelter to 80 — 90 households that indicated a most recent permanent address in the City of Newport Beach. This indicated the percentage of total households assisted (2,070) that were from Newport Beach was between 3.9% and 4.3 %, although the City provided 1.6% of the Interfaith Shelter annual budget. The racial /ethnic identifications of the 2,070 served were as follows: Caucasian (831); Hispanic (617); African American (354); Native American (57); Asian American (26); Biracial (64); and Other (33). The Interfaith Shelter also provided 57,295 meals to special needs populations during the time period noted. Additionally, the Interfaith Shelter provided children's programs to the 30 — 40 children who commonly receive shelter at any one time. Furthermore, the Interfaith Shelter indicated it provided temporary shelter to 226 single mothers (female heads of 85 households) during the time period noted. Many of the female heads of households served were women over the age of 50 with mental health disabilities. • Saddleback Community Outreach (23011 Moulton Parkway, Suite 12) is a non - profit organization that opened in August 1989. It is funded with federal (Super NOFA) monies, monies from local jurisdictions, and monies from faith -based organizations in the following areas: "in- kind" Donations Programs; Sponsorship and Underwriting for Programs and Fundraising Events; Housing Fund Donations; Food Drives; and, "Adopt - A- Family" Holiday Programs (which provides a holiday meal at Thanksgiving and holiday meal and gifts in December). The major objective of Saddleback Community Outreach programs and services is to help those assisted become self - supportive. This organization operates without paid administrators. Of the more than 100 volunteers within the organization, some are selected and trained to function as directors, evaluators, coordinators, and care workers. Saddleback Community Outreach is involved in four active programs to meet critical housing needs of its clients, who number 5,200 annually. The Emergency Lodging Program is intended for homeless families needing temporary housing until a permanent residence is established. The Housing Assistance Program is intended for families needing an interest free loan to prevent eviction or to assist with move -in costs. The Interfaith Shelter Program is a six -month program available for homeless singles seeking employment, shelter and counseling. The Transitional Housing Program is a two -year program for homeless families. Applicants are screened by the Housing Committee to assess each family's ability to pay a reduced rent in a condominium, maintain employment, set goals, meet commitments and attend practical counseling for budget management. The Saddleback Community Outreach • Pantry/Warehouse distributes more than 150,000 pounds of food annually to families or individuals in need and hosts SHARE, a program enabling people to buy up to $35.00 worth of groceries for $15.00. Saddleback Community Outreach also will pay a portion of a family's utility bill to help avoid disconnection of services. Additional services include vouchers for adults and children to obtain clothing at local thrift stores, gasoline vouchers or bus tickets for transportation to job interviews or physician appointments, donation of automobiles contributed to Saddleback Community Outreach to clients in need, medical prescription vouchers for pre- screened families or individuals, "motivational counseling" to help restore hope and confidence, "practical counseling" to assist in goal setting, budget management and future planning, and referrals to local agencies for other counseling needs. YMCA — The Newport Beach YMCA offers physical activities classes and personal hygiene facilities. During 2000, the YMCA has provided 234 daily showers for those who identified themselves current or most recently as Newport Beach residents (out of a total 4,000 annually provided daily showers) and 858 single -day guest passes for identified current or recent Newport Beach residents. The percentage of daily showers for those from Newport Beach compared to the total of annual showers is 5.9 %. The YMCA estimates approximately fifty (50) percent of its clients come from the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa area. The City of Newport Beach contributed $5,000 during 2000, which accounted for 0.14% of the approximate 2000 YMCA operating budget of $3,500,000. • 86 YWCA Hotel for Women - The YWCA Hotel for Women provides shelter, food, counseling, • job - search, and housing - search assistance for homeless women. The City also provides CDBG funds to this organization, and likewise, requires expanded reporting information • Friends in Service to Humanity — This agency (established in 1968) assists more than 5,900 families in Orange County. These families consist of more than 24,000 individuals, of whom more than 12,500 are children. Friends in Service to Humanity provides the following services: rental assistance to avoid eviction; "mobile meals to the home bound; transitional housing with case management; food; child care subsidies for low - income working parents; utility payments to avoid disconnections; baby diapers and infant formula; "adopt -a- family" program during the holidays; medical, dental, and shopping transportation; and, transportation costs for employment. During the first six months of 2000, Friends in Service to Humanity served 487 mobile meals, made 1,166 grocery deliveries, provided 119 individuals /families with rental assistance to avoid eviction; made 47 utility payments, provided 42 child care subsidies, and provided 15 automobile repairs. Friends in Service to Humanity indicates a substantial number of its clients reside in the City of Newport Beach. In year 2000, the City of Newport Beach provided Friends in Service to Humanity with $16,500 for homeless prevention and $15,500 for Meals programs. American Red Cross - assists persons temporarily displaced from their residence due to disasters such as fires. From 1994 to the present, the Red Cross reported helping 55 Newport Beach residents involved in 3 incidents. This agency does not request CDBG funding from the City. 87 APPENDIX ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE HOMELESS • Other volunteer groups and local religious organizations serve Newport Beach by providing temporary shelter, bus fares to reach pre - planned destinations, rental assistance, medical assistance, food and clothes to the homeless and other needy persons /families Several motels in the Newport Beach -Costa Mesa area are utilized by various agencies to accommodate homeless persons. These agencies pay all or a portion of the costs. An undetermined number of transients or chronically homeless individuals pass through Newport Beach. Much of this depends on opportunities and conditions presented to these individuals within Newport Beach and the surrounding communities. Housing needs of these individuals include transitional housing in the form of single room occupancy units (SRO) and emergency and transitional shelters. Name Persons /Groups Location Number of Served Beds American Veterans Veterans with Santa Ana 10 Assistance Corp. famil ies Anaheim Families with Anaheim 34 Interfaith/Halcyon children Shelter Anchor House Families San Clemente 14 Annie's House People afflicted with Costa Mesa 10 HIV /AIDS Armory (Cold Singles; Couples; Fullerton; 250 Weather Program) Families Santa Ana Bethany Single, employed Orange 7 women who have successfully completed a shelter program Beyond Shelter— Transitional shelter Fullerton 10 YWCA for single women; may be dually diagnosed or have substance abuse issues M CJ • • • L J Name Persons /Groups Location Number of Served Beds Birch 1 and 11 Santa Adult Males (Birch Santa Ana 11 Ana Facility 1); Youth (ages 18- 21) who are working or attending school and moving toward independence (Birch 11) Casa Teresa Single pregnant Orange 28 women, 18 years of age or older with no children; client expected to work or attend school Casa Youth Shelter Ages 12 -17; accepts Los Alamitos 25 pregnant teens Catholic Charities Families Santa Ana 18 Christian Families Orange 60 Temporary Housing CSP Youth Shelter Ages 11 -17 Laguna Beach 6 Dayle McIntosh Disabled Individuals/ Anaheim 7 Center For The Families with Disabled Disabled Members El Modena Transitional housing 30-35 for families or single Orange parents with children Must be employed and moving toward independent living; 70% of income must be saved by family; must he referred by O.C. shelter Eli Home Transitional housing Orange N/A for women and children (under age 12) who are victims of family abuse or domestic violence. Faith based. 89 Name Persons /Groups Location Number of Served Beds Episcopal Service Women Orange 10 Alliance, Martha House Families Forward Transitional housing Irvine 35 for families or single parents with children under 18 years of age; one adult must be employed Friendship Shelter Individuals Laguna Beach 22 Fullerton Families or Single Fullerton 27 Interfaith/New Parent with Children Vista under the age of 18; must have income Gerry House Male/Female Santa Ana 12 intravenous drug users and who may be receiving narcotic replacement therapy Gerry House West Persons who are HIV Santa Ana 6 positive with substance abuse problems Hannah's House Transitional housing Orange 12 for single pregnant women 18 years and older who are considering adoption. No other children. Woman expected to work or attend school. Hearth Dayle Disabled men or Anaheim 6 McIntosh women with or without children Henderson House Transitional housing San Clemente NA to graduates, single men, single women of the Friendship Shelter; must have referral from Friendship Shelter Program a • • • CJ • • Name Persons/Groups Location Number of Served Beds Homeless Transitional living Placentia 40 Intervention Shelter center for families, single men and single women, men with children, women with children, couples House of Hope - Women & Children Santa Ana 45 O.C. Rescue Mission Human Options Battered Women, 40 with or without Emergency children 14 Transitiona 1 Huntington Youth Ages 11-17 Huntington 1 1 Shelter Beach Interfaith Interim Single homeless Laguna Hills 8 Housing adults willing to work; 120 -day program; faith based Interval House Battered Women, 49 with or without children; accepts pregnant women Irvine Temporary Families Irvine 10 single Housing family furnished apartments Kathy's House Women, with or Capistrano 1 1 without children; Beach faith based Laura's House Battered Women, 25 with or without children Laurel House Youth, ages 11 -19 Tustin N/A Mary's Shelter Pregnant teens, ages Santa Ana 18 17 and under; teen mothers and infants 0 -18 months a Name Persons/Groups Location Number of Served Beds Mercy Transitional housing Santa Ana 12 House /Joseph for Men; must be House employed or in job training full time Mercy Transitional housing Santa Ana 14 House /Regina for Women and House Children under 10; must be employed or in job training full time Missionary Families Santa Ana 16 Brothers of Charity New Vista Shelter Families Fullerton 60 O.C. Rescue Men Santa Ana 90 Mission Orange Coast All Costa Mesa 100 Interfaith Shelter Precious Life Transitional/ Los Alamitos 21 Shelter Emergency program for pregnant women 18 years and older Rescue Mission for Men Santa Ana 40 Men Salvation Army All Santa Ana 60 Hospitality House/Buffalo Street The Sheepfold Women 18 years of Tustin 55 age and older with children; Faith Based Shelter For The Families, Men, & Westminster 106 Homeless Women Thomas House Transitional housing Garden Grove 76 for families, women with children, men with children; adults must be willing to work Provides Thomas House Families Fountain room for 7 Temporary Shelter Valley families 92 C • • • • E Name Persons /Groups Location Number of Served Beds Toby's House Adult pregnant San Clemente 5 families women; children under 5 years of age Veterans Charities Single Veterans Santa Ana 54 The Villa Posada Women Santa Ana 6 Transitional program for single women WISE Hotel for with no children; Santa Ana 34 Women must be alcohol free; drug testing may be required Women's Transitional Living Battered Women Center YWCA - Hotel For Women Santa Ana 38 Women Sources: Orange County Social Service Resource Directory (1991- 1992); County of Orange Housing Element, 1989; current (2000) research 93 APPENDIX 4 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES Program Names I Description Eligible Activities Ia. Federal Programs — Formula/Entitlement Community Development Grants awarded to the City on a ♦ Acquisition Block Grant formula basis for housing and ♦ Rehabilitation community development activities. ♦ Home Buyer Assistance The City Receives approximately ♦ Economic Development $500,000 in CDBG funds annually ♦ Homeless Assistance ♦ Public Services • ADA Compliance ♦ Public Facilities lb. Federal Programs - Competitive Section 8 Rental assistance payments to owners ♦ Rental Assistance Rental Assistance of private market rate units on behalf of Program very low income tenants HOME Flexible grant program awarded to the ♦ Acquisition Orange County HOME Consortium on ♦ Rehabilitation a formula basis for housing activities. ♦ Home Buyer Assistance City can apply to County on a ♦ Rental Assistance competitive basis for affordable housing projects Section 202 Grants to non - profit developers of ♦ Acquisition supportive housing for the elderly. ♦ Rehabilitation ♦ New Construction ♦ Rental Assistance Section 811 Grants to non - profit developers of ♦ Acquisition supportive housing for persons with ♦ Rehabilitation disabilities, including group homes, ♦ New Construction independent living facilities and ♦ Rental Assistance intermediate care facilities. Section 108 Loan Provides loan guarantee to CDBG ♦ Acquisition entitlement jurisdictions for pursuing ♦ Rehabilitation large capital improvement or other ♦ Home Buyer Assistance projects. The jurisdictions must pledge + Economic Development future CDGB allocations for repayment + Homeless Assistance of the loan. Maximum loan amount + Public services can be up to five times the entitlement jurisdiction's most recent annual allocation. Maximum loan term is 20 years. 94 • 17J • • Program Names Description Eligible Activities Mortgage Credit Income tax credits available to first- ♦ Home Buyer Assistance Certificate Program time homebuyers for the purchase of new or existing single - family housing. Local agencies (County) make certificates available. Low Income Housing Tax Tax credits are available to individuals ♦ New Construction Credit (LIHTC) and corporations that Invest in low— ♦ Rehabilitation income rental housing. Usually, the tax + Acquisition credits are sold to corporations with a high tax liability and the proceeds from the sale are used to create the housing SHELTER PLUS CARE PROGRAM Grants for rental assistance that • Rental Assistance are offered with support services • Homeless Assistance to homeless with disabilities. Rental assistance can be: Section 8 Moderate Rhabilitation SRO project based rental assistance administered by the local PHA with state or local government application ♦ Sponsor -Based Rental Assistance Provides assistance through an applicant to a private non - profit sponsor who wins or leases dwelling units in which participating residents reside. ♦ Tenant -Based Rental Assistance TBA grants for rental assistance Project -Based Rental Assistance grants to provide rental assistance through contracts between grant recipients and owners of buildings. Supportive Housing Grants for development of supportive ♦ Transitional Housing Program (SHP) housing and support services to assist ♦ Permanent Housing for homeless persons in the transition from Disabled homelessness. ♦ Supportive Services Safe Havens 95 2. State Programs Proposition 1 A Proposition I includes provisions to ♦ Down payment Assistance establish a Down payment Assistance ♦ Rental Assistance Program and a Rent Assistance Program using school fees collected from affordable housing projects. Potential buyers or tenants of affordable housing projects are eligible to receive nonpayment assistance or rent subsides from the State at amounts equivalent to the school fees paid by the affordable housing developer for that project in question. Emergency Shelter Grants awarded to non -profit ♦ Support Services Program organizations for shelter support services. California Housing Below market rate financing offered to ♦ New Construction Finance Agency (CHFA) builders and developers of multiple- ♦ Rehabilitation Multiple /Rental Housing family and elderly rental housing. Tax ♦ Acquisition of Properties from 20 Programs exempt bonds provide below - market to 150 units mortgage money. California Housing Finance Agency CHFA sells tax- exempt bonds to make ♦ Home Buyer Assistance Home Mortgage Purchase Program below market loans to first time homebuyers. Program operates through participating lenders who originate loans for CHFA purchase California Housing Rehabilitation Low interest loans for the rehabilitation ♦ Rehabilitation Program -Owner Component of substandard homes owned and ♦ Repair Code (CHRP -O) occupied by lower- income households. Violations, Accessibility City and non - profits sponsor housing ♦ Additions, General rehabilitation projects. Property Improvement 3. Local Programs Tax Exempt Housing Revenue Bond The City can support low- income ♦ New Construction housing developers in obtaining bonds ♦ Rehabilitation in order to construct affordable ♦ Acquisition housing. The City can issue housing revenue bonds or participate in the County of Orange program requiring the developer to lease a fixed percentage of the units to low income families and maintain rents at a specified below market rate. 96 • r� • • 4. Private Resource/Financing Programs Federal National Mortgage Loan applicants apply to participating ♦ Home Buyer Assistance Association (Fannie Mae) lenders for the following programs'. Fixed rate mortgages issued by private mortgage insurers. ♦ Mortgages that fund the purchase and rehabilitation of a home. Savings Association Mortgage Pooling process to fund loans for ♦ New Construction of single Company Inc. (SAMCO) affordable ownership and rental family and multiple family rentals, housing projects. Non - profit and for cooperatives, self help housing, profit developers contact member homeless shelters, and group homes institutions. for the disabled. California Community Reinvestment Non -profit mortgage banking ♦ New Construction Corporation (CCRC) consortium designed to provide long- ♦ Rehabilitation term debt financing for affordable ♦ Acquisition multi - family rental housing. Non- profit and for profit developer contact member banks *Freddie Mac Home Works —Provide Istand 2nd ♦ Home Buyer Assistance mortgages that include rehabilitation combined with Rehabilitation loan. City provides gap financing for rehabilitation component. Households earning up to 80% of MFI qualify. Lease Purchase Program The City could participate in a Joint ♦ Home Buyer Assistance Powers Authority (JPA) that issues tax - exempt bonds. Bonds enable City to purchase homes for households earning up to 140% MFL JPA pays 3 % down and payments equivalent to mortgage payments with the option to buy after three years. 97 APPENDIX PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NON - PROFITS • Orange County Housing Authority 2043 North Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 (714) 480 -2700 Orange County Fair Housing Council (714) 569 -0827 Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation 431 South Bristol Colonia Community Center Santa Ana, CA 92613 (714) 835 -0406 Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, Inc. P. O. Box 70876 Orange, CA 92613 (714) 434 -6200 Orange County Community Housing Corporation 1833 East 17a' Street, Suite 207 • Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 558 -6006 Orange County Community Development 825 North Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714) 8897 -6670 Jamboree Housing Corporation 2081 Business Center Drive Irvine, CA (949) 263 -8676 Southern California Presbyterian Homes 1 111 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 300 Glendale, CA 91202 (818) 247 -0420 A Community of Friends 3345 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 480 -0809 98 0 Affordable Housing People 7720 -B El Camino, Suite 159 Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 4436 -5979 Assistance League of Newport-Mesa 2220 Fairview Road Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (949) 645 -6929 BRIDGE Housing Corporation One Hawthorne, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Century Housing Corporation 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 500 Culver City, CA 90230 Community Partnership Development Corporation 7225 Cartwright Avenue • Sun Valley, CA 91352 (818) 503 -1548 Eden Housing, Inc. 409 Jackson Street Hayward, CA 94544 (510) 582 -1460 H.O.M.E.S., Inc. 4341 Birch Street, Suite 213 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 851 -2766 Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles P. O. Box 17157, Foy Station Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 252 -2701 Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway, Suite 7100 Laguna Beach, CA 92677 (949) 726 -9672 u .. Long Beach Affordable Housing Coalition, Inc. 110 West Ocean Boulevard, #350 • Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 983 -8880 Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 940 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 629 -91722 Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County, Inc. 350 Hillcrest La Habra, CA 90631 (562) 694 -2051 San Diego County SER -Jobs for Progress, Inc. 3355 Mission Avenue, Suite 123 Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 754 -6500 Shelter for the Homeless 15161 Jackson Street Midway City, CA 92655 (714) 897 -3221 • Solari Enterprises, Inc. 1544 West Yale Avenue Orange, CA 92687 (714) 282 -2520 Southern California Housing Development Corporation 8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 483 -2444 American Baptist Homes of the West P. O. Box 6669 Oakland, CA 94603 (510) 635 -1786 Citizens Housing Corporation 26 O'Farrell Street, #506 San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 421 -8605 M11 is • Community Housing Assistance Program, Inc. 3803 East Casselle Avenue Orange, CA 92869 (714) 744 -6252 DM & Associates Foundation 6043 Tampa Avenue, Suite 101 A Tarzana, CA 91356 (818) 708 -2710 EAH, Inc. 2169 East Francisco Boulevard, Suite B San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 258 -1800 Foundation for Affordable Housing 1I1, Inc. 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 440 -8277 HELP Development Corporation 30 East 33`d Street New York, NY 10016 • (212) 779 -3350 Joshua's House 24111 NE Halsey Street, Suite 203 Troutdale, OR 97060 (503) 661 -1999 Mercy Charities Housing California 1038 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 553 -6360 National Housing Development Corporation 8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 483 -2444 National Housing Trust P. 0. Box 3458 Walnut Creek, CA 945698 (925) 945 -1774 u In OSM Investment Company 5155 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 120 • Hawthorne, CA 90250 (310) 676 -0451 Paramount Financial Group, Inc. 1655 North Main Street, Suite 220 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (800) 850 -0694 Related Companies of California 18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 660 -7272 Retirement Housing Foundation 5150 East Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 600 Long Beach, CA 90804 (562) 597 -5541 Shelem, Inc. 24111 NE Halsey Street, Suite 202 Troutdale, OR 97060 (503) 661 -1999 • Squier Properties 3129 6`h Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 581 -9043 SLSM,LLC 651 29`h Street San Francisco, CA 94101 (415) 826 -0301 The Trinity Housing Foundation 1399 Ygnacio Valley Road, 921 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 (925) 939 -5421 Union Partners Realty Group, Inc. 24 Professional Center, Suite 250 San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 446 -1811 102 u RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING AN UPDATED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 2003- 04 (PA 2003 -103)] WHEREAS, Section 65580 of the California Government Code finds and declares that the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance and that the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order; and WHEREAS, Section 65588 of the California Government Code mandates that each local government review its Housing Element every five years to evaluate all of the following: • 1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the State of California's housing goal; 2) The effectiveness of the Housing Element in the attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives; 3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding the proposed Housing Element and voted 5 — 0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Element and certify the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearing through the publication . of an 1/8`h page advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation on July 26, 2003 and through direct mailing to all Newport Beach Homeowners Associations and all private and • public non - profit housing organizations as listed in Appendix 5 of the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 12, 2003 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code and State Planning and Zoning Law. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act an Initial Study has been conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the information contained • in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council finds that the Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Negative Declaration was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED thatthe City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2003 -004 and adopt the Updated Housing Element dated August 2003. This Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Newport . Beach held on August 12, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: 2 11 AYES, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMB MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK • • -kie -o- .I /y, 4' I � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2003 HOUSING ELEMENT (GPA 2003 -04) August 12, 2003 What is a Housing Element and why must we have one? State Housing Element Law requires each city to conduct a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community. It must include policies for providing adequate housing and action programs that set forth specific methods for achieving State Housing goals. 1 Basic Requirements of HE Law 1. HE's are subject to detailed statutory requirements regarding content. 2. Must be updated every five years. 3. Subject to mandatory review (and certification) by State HCD. Specific Requirements of Housing Element Law 9. Quantify the projected housing needs. Cities must plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs including their share of the regional housing need (RHNA). 2 What is a RHNA? Regional Housing Need Assessment: the projected housing need for the planning period for a specific community. (To accommodate the RHNA, the element must demonstrate that allowed density equals or exceeds the projected housing need, and that a variety of housing types for all income levels can be developed.) How is RHNA Determined? a) State, regional, and local levels of government coordinate all their statistics relating to current population, population projections, households, housing units, vacant land, cohort survival rates and net migration. Then, adjustments are made for existing housing stock conditions, population incomes and other household stats. 3 RHNA (cont.) b) The housing need (RHNA) is then allocated by income category pursuant to the state income limits through the Orange County Council of Governments. RHNA (cont.) c) In summary, RHNA's are created by analyzing regional population and economic models as well as adjusting for market demand, commuting patterns, site and public facility availability and housing type and tenure. 2 Other than RHNA.... Specific Requirements of Housing Elements L Review and Revise the previous Element for. a) Effectiveness of the Element. Cities must review the results of the previous element's goals, objectives, and programs. b) Progress in implementation. Cities must compare what was projected or planned in the previous element to what was actually achieved. Specific Requirements (cont.) c) Appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies. Cities must describe how the goals, objectives, and programs in the updated element have been changed to incorporate what has been learned from the results of the previous element. 5 Specific Requirements (Cont.) IL Assessment of Needs. Assess housing needs and analyze resources and constraints, including: a) an analysis of population, household characteristics and needs b) governmental and non - governmental constraints c) an analysis of special housing needs d) an analysis of energy conservation opportunities e) an analysis of units at risk of converting to market rate Specific Requirements (Cont.) Ill. Housing Plan. Establish a housing program that sets forth a five -year schedule of actions to achieve the goals and objectives of the element. The Program should'. a) Identify location of affordable housing sites. b) Assist in development of housing to meet the needs of low - and moderate income households. Housing Program (cont.) d) Address, and where possible, remove governmental constraints on the development, maintenance and improvement of housing. f) Address and remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodation for housing for persons with disabilities. Housing Program (cont.) g) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock; and h) Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons. (SB 510) 7 Specific Requirements (cont.) j) Quantify objectives by income level, including units needed, units to be rehabilitated and units to be conserved. Newport Beach RHNA's: Total 1,421 86 very —low income 148 low income 83 moderate income 1,104 above - moderate income Newport Beach Housing Programs Actively encourage the development of 3 identified affordable housing sites (Banning Ranch, MacArthur /Avocado, Lower Bayview Landing) and assist developers with the removal of site constraints. 2. As part of GP update, research sites and developments that could include affordable housing, including Newport Coast, other annexation areas, single -room occupancy hotels, infill and redevelopment opportunities. Housing Program (cont.) 3) In -lieu Fee Policy - New policy that clarifies when a developer must pay the in -lieu fee or provide the housing. 4) Inclusionary Housing Policy — simplified for easier reader comprehension and ease of staff administration 5) Potential Reduction of Commercial Zoning. New policy added to encourage investigation of reduction of commercial areas for expansion of residential development Housing Programs (cont.) 6) Senate Bill 520 — new policy that deals with analyzing constraints as they apply to housing intended for persons with disabilities. Certification History *June 2001 — City submitted to HCD for review *State required additional review and analysis (2 year process) *December 2002 — HCD visits Newport Beach — requires more review and analysis *May 8 — HCD issues letter indicating conditional compliance * June 23 - GPAC reviews *July 17 - PC voted 5 -0 to recommend City Council approval Consequences of Non - Compliance • Vulnerability to litigation, potential challenges to the adequacy of the entire General Plan. • No State funding for housing assistance and /or programs if HE is non - compliant. • Any substantial changes to element will require further HCD review and could impact the City's certified status. 10 Housing Element/General Plan Update 1. Perfect opportunity to evaluate new housing opportunities, programs, and policies 2. Consider changing land use designations 3. Consider new sites 4. Consider potential in newly annexed areas NEXT STEPS • City Council review and adoption • Copy to HCD • Implementation of Programs I