The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHOUSING ELEMENT 1982 IMPLEMENTATION *NEW FILE* HOUSING ELEMENT 1982 IMPLEMENTATION I r 05 orange county chapter CC building industry association of southem cafifamia,inc Din PRESIDENT Karl 0. Bergheer Ttie Bergheer Company January 28, 1983 ' Dear Community Leader: We are enclosing a pre-publication copy of the premier policy statement on housing from the ^' National Association of Home Builders that was just adopted by our 1800 directors at the NAHB ' annual meeting in Houston. I was honored to serve on the NAHB Resolutions Committee where we helped prepare the final draft of this statement . • • �, Please note the emphasis on Regulatory Re- form for Affordable Housing on page 5. Our directors have called for "Designing innovative , " ,s;; . " and equitable programs (for housing) without ; , � imposing mandatory inclusionary zoning ordi- nances. " OFFICE CT E MAYOR 0aa ;-! ' CORES SCAT MA: CU y�Co_mcilmn . foAlt:rney ocity�I L��£O 00thar Jerk �t r - �9�3�✓ ❑ S6 Nti�ti�°�iy�E• 6 2001 East Fourth Street,Suite 224 COD Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 547-3042 . 1983 Statement of Policy • January 25, 1983 National Association of Home Builders Houston, Texas 0 •11 Housing at the Crossroads 1p The nation's beleaguered but resilient housing industry -- s 11 reeling from the effects of the longest and most devastating recession since the Great Depression -- stands at an historic crossroads as it enters 1983. One path leads to economic recovery, a rebound in housing production and renewed public confidence. The other path puts the nation back on the same old merry-go-round of slow growth, volatile interest rates, record high unemployment, unacceptable budget deficits and political and social unrest. The odds for recovery improved in October 1982, when the Federal Reserve Board shifted gears and gave the economy room to expand. As the FED eased its foot on the monetary brakes, the marketplace showed a spark of life. Interest rates declined; Wall Street rallied; home sales and new construction picked up; and demand for shelter showed signs of breaking loose after being bottled up for more than three years. However, many critical problems remain unsolved that could delay, interrupt or even abort the anticipated recovery. The recession of 1979-82 has cut deeper into the economic and social fabric of this nation than any since the Great Depression. More than 12 million Americans , including some 1. 2 million .rin the construction industry, remain unemployed and business bankruptcies ;are still running near peak levels. While interest rates have declined, the" real cost of money remains six percentage points above the rate• of inflation. The rate of home sales and new construction -- though improved from a year earlier -- are still -far below levels required to meet the shelter needs of this country. Moreover, the 1983 outlook is clouded by continuing runaway federal deficits that threaten to break the $200 billion mark for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the mortgage finance system -- once the cornerstone of America's housing policy -- is still lianging in limbo after being rocked by shifting government priorities, bank deregulation, intense competition for savings and years of inflation and unpredictable interest rates. -This nation and this industry face a unique challenge at this turning r. point in American history. That challenge is to mount another housing-led economic expansion without reigniting runaway inflation. Meeting this challenge will require a delicate balance of fiscal and monetary policies. It will require bold, nonpartisan action and a spirit of cooperation and common purpose on the part of President Reagan, the United States Congress and the Federal Reserve Board. And it will require a renewed commitment to the goal of providing decent, affordable shelter for all Americans -- a goal first mandated by Congress in 1949 and reaffirmed since then by every Congress and every Administration. p • -2- Economic Policies During the past two years, the economy has been seriously shaken by an explosive combination of fiscal, tax and monetary policies that are not only incompatible, but in direct conflict with one another -- creating a tug-and-pull in the marketplace. The most obvious was the Administration's attempt to rev up the economy with expansionary fiscal and tax policies -- the $1.6 trillion build-up in the national defense and a $750 billion tax cut. Simultaneously, the Federal Reserve Board was slowing the economy by reducing the nation's credit supply. This combination of policies sent interest rates and budget deficits soaring and deepened and prolonged the national recession. By mid-1982 it became apparent that some mid-course policy corrections were needed to steer the economy away from the edge of the cliff. The Congress and the Administration subsequently adopted a major revenue-raising bill and a few months later, in October 1982, the Federal Reserve abandoned its doctri- naire experiment in monetarism. This shift in policies was followed by a free-fall in interest rates, a major rally on Wall Street and the modest begin- nings of a recovery in the housing market. To maintain and to add to this momentum, some additUnal changes in policy will be required in 1983. Reduce federal deficits. First and foremost on the agenda is the problem of skyrocketing federal deficits. The deficit for the fiscal year ending September 1982 reached a record $113 billion, more than twice the size of the Administration's original estimate. �The federal deficit for the current fiscal year as well as fiscal years 1984 and 1985 could top $200 billion under current spending and tax proposals. Deficits of that size could open the door to another serious credit crunch down the road -- a development that would send interest rates soaring again and.-weaken, if .not destroy, the recovery. This deficit crisis must be avoided:'. To reduce projected budget deficits , the Administration and the Congress must tackle the "big-ticket" items that heretofore have been ruled off-limits from the budget-cutting process. This would include scaling back on defense spending and containing the soaring costs of entitlement programs that, along with interest payments on the national debt, now account for 70 percent of the entire federal budget. Lower interest rates. As the economy catches its breath following three years of record high interest rates and tight money, it is vitally important that the Federal Reserve Board pursue a monetary policy that would permit a further decline in interest rates , giving both consumers and business access to affordable credit so desperately needed to turn the economy around. Any return to the monetarist policies of the past would choke off the economic recovery. Create new jobs. Each one percentage point decline in the national unemployment rate cuts the federal deficit by an estimated $30 billion. The Administration and the Congress must pursue policies that will generate growth, bolster public confidence, put Americans back to work and help put the building industry back on its feet. A housing-led economic recovery is, by far, the best and most effective way to reduce the soaring deficit. • -3- • Housings contribution would be significant. An additional 400,000 housing starts -- the difference between the 1 million units started in 1982 and the 1.4 million starts forecast for 1983 -- would create 700,000 new jobs, $13 billion in wages and $6 billion in additional tax revenue for local, state and federal governments. Revitalize the Housing Partnership Between the end of World War II and the .,beginning of 1983, entrepre- neurs built more than 56 million homes and apartment units, and rehabili- tated and restored millions more. America was transformed from a nation of poorly housed people into a nation of well housed property owners. These great achievements didn't come easily. There were intermittent interruptions in the nation's housing delivery system. But this nation never lost sight of its ultimate goal to provide decent housing for all Americans. As the housing market grew and matured throughout the post-war period, a strong working partnership developed among the private building industry, the financial marketplace and government at all levels. Housing was ranked as a top national priority. It enjoyed strong bipartisan support as the nation's electWd leaders recognized the economic, social and politi- cal benefits of a well housed nation. What was good for housing was accepted as being good for the country. In the past, the federal government's role in the housing market has been focused in two primary areas. -First, the government provided direct and indirect assistance to the poor, the elderly and disabled, who were unable to compete for housing in the private marketplace. Secondly, the government helped shape a financial system that gave home buyers access to long-term credit at affordable rates. For example, the government chartered specialized mortgage lending institutions, igsured mortgage loans against default, created a sophisticated secondary mortgage market and permitted taxpayers to deduct mortgage interest and property taxes. , That partnership, unfortunately, has been badly shaken recently by changes in the economy and shifting government priorities at a time when the need for affordable housing is at an all-time record level. The time has come for this nation's elected leaders to reaffirm their commitment to housing. By taking the best from the past and building on it, a dynamic partnership between government and private industry can be revita- lized to make housing a top national priority again and to provide decent housing in a suitable living environment for every American family. Strengthen the Mortgage Finance System A long-term, national strategy needs to be developed to strengthen and stabilize the nation's mortgage finance system, focusing on ways to reesta- blish housing's priority in the financial marketplace and to provide home buyers with access to mortgage money at rates and terms they can afford. This nation must eliminate the myth that America is overhoused and that too much credit has flowed into housing investment. That notion -- occasion- ally expressed by the President's top economic advisors - ignores common sense. -4— Providing favorable credit and tax treatment for housing is a policy worth preserving. This policy has been good for the American people and good for the economy. It has paid off in rich dividends, opening the doors to home ownership for millions of Americans and giving the average working man a stake and a sense of pride in this democratic society. The fiercely competi— tive housing system that emerged became a driving force behind the economic progress of the last four decades, providing jobs for millions and generating demand for goods and services throughout the economy. To strengthen the mortgage finance system, immediate consideration should be given to the following programs and policies: ° Creation of a tax credit for all investors in residential mortgages, one of the most significant recommendations made by the President's Commission on Housing. ° Creation of tax—exempt Individual Housing Accounts -- another Presi— dential Commission recommendation -- as a way to encourage young Americans to save for a down—paym_ant on a home. r>_ ° Adoption of legislative and regulatory reforms that would remove the obstacles preventing pension funds from investing in residential mortgages, also a recommendation proposed by the President's Commission on Housing. ° Elimination of sunset provisions for tax exempt revenue bonds, thus permitting the issuance of state and local tax—exempt mortgage revenue bonds after 1983. ° Development of new multifamily financing vehicles, including a rental housing production program and methods for refinancing balloon mort— gages on rental property. ° Expansion of efforts to strengthen existing primary and secondary mortgage market mechanisms, including FHA/VA programs, GNMA, FNMA, and FHLMC, and support of legislative and regulatory proposals to expand the role of private mortgage—backed securities. ° Support and. encourage private innovative financing concepts, such as NAHB's Home Mortgage Access Corporation, to give home builders direct access to the secondary market. ° Oppose any further direct involvement of financial institutions and their subsidiary corporations in the land development and building businesses. r -5- • • Regulatory Reform for Affordable Housing The fastest growing segment of the nation's housing market is made up of millions of young, first-time home buyers, nearing or in their 30s, who are in need of "affordable" housing. Builders have responded to this strong demand for starter homes by shifting to the development of smaller units, built on less land, with higher densities, modern layouts and ame- nities and innovative, energy-conserving features. Some communities have moved much faster than others in taking positive steps to enable the building industry to meet the challenge of providing affordable housing. At a time when local governments should be looking for ways to encourage greater efficiencies in the production and delivery of new homes, some have stood adamantly behind rules and regulations that were written long ago, have since become outmoded, and are today a major impedi- ment to the construction of affordable housing. The issues of government overregulation of the housing industry are numerous and complex. In some areas, overregulation occurs in the form of excessive building fees that are actually an attempt of local governments, confronted by overburdened taxpayers, to balance their budgetsfon the backs of new home buyers just coming into the community. Sometimes , restrictive zoning regulations are imposed to fence out new growth. Elaborate and need- lessly prolonged procedures for obtaining permits may be the result of under- staffed building inspection offices. And many times, overregulation is simply the product of a lumbering bureaucracy that, once set in motion, never stops to consider the relevance of various inefficient codes to safety, health and the public good. Whatever the cause, overregulation adds thousands of dollars to the cost of building housing and is therefore arr- excess this nation can no longer tolerate or afford. " To bring about regulatory reform 'of the housing industry, federal, state and local governments, with the support and cooperation of private industry and NAHB, should move quickly and forcefully to implement the major recommen- dations of the President's Commission on Housing. Specific recommendations on regulatory reform that deserve immediate attention are: ° Requiring federal agencies to prove the need for new regulatory actions through cost/benefit analysis and housing impact studies; ° Repealing zoning regulations that deny or unreasonably limit develop- ment of all types of housing; r ° Updating density requirements so that they do not interfere with market forces; Promoting infrastructure development financed from general governmen- tal revenues and in such a way that it does not unduly burden the housing consumer; ° Reducing fees and dedication requirements that exceed the actual costs involved in building new developments in the community; i -6- t ° Streamlining the permit process to enable builders to break ground on their projects in as timely a manner as possible; ° Repealing rent control ordinances that lead to housing shortages and ultimately hurt the very people they are intended to help. ° Designing innovative and equitable programs at all levels of govern- ment to meet the housing needs of Americans unable to compete in the free marketplace, without imposing mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinances. Housing: Shelter for the People, Jobs for the Economy A strong, competitive building industry is vital to the national economy. The industry provides shelter for the American people and jobs for the economy -- both of which are desperately needed during this period of near Depression-level unemployment and record demand for affordable housing. The significance of a healthy housing industry goes far beyond providing shelter and jobs. ,The opportunity for Americans from all walks of life to work hard and to live in decent, affordable shelter, is the glue that holds together this free and democratic society. It gives Americans the drive and incentive to excel in their individual endeavors, to climb the ladder of success and to improve their standard of living. Equally important, it gives them a sense of self esteem and independence as well as a sense of pride and involvement in their local community. Awesome challenges confront America in 1983. Seven times since 1946 the building industry has led the nation from recession to recovery. Now is the time for the Congress, the Administration, the Federal Reserve Board and private enterprise to work together for polities that will lead to lower interest rates, lower federal deficits, lower unemployment and provide decent, affordable housing for all Americans., k Joint Executive/Resolutions Committee Action: Recommends Approval Resolutions Committee Action: Recommends Approval Nq r A�VANCE PLANNING DIqVON o w w s J .Z. coy u INITIALS Bob Lenard Pat Temple Craig Bluell x•, Sandy Genis Nancy Alvidrez Tracy Williams Comments C+✓�t rvr✓1A Ire � + - - • Qom' - tL /�,�- � � � /Y�t�� , -- -_ ,-- � — � nA J r 0E727 ------ ---- -�---_.-_.: !`�, ,fir r. .�' , .-r�-A•�-L-�^�--�-�--------- ---- - - r f C _4-2AM rt �t� 4 i -- -- AV i tf i r , �EWPp�T 0 0. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663.3884 cq</FOR P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2261 May 10, 1982 Mr. Michael K. Hayde 630 The City Drive South Orange, CA 92668 Dear Mr. Hayde: Thank you for your participation in the Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session on "Housing Element Implementation". The session was very much a success, as evidenced by continents we have received from individual Planning Commissioners. The City appreciates the time and effort you and Mr. Stone contributed to the program, knowing you both must have very busy schedules. I hope you will be able to attend the Planning C=ni.ssion Study Session on June 10, 1982 where we will be discussing financing alternatives as they relate to the construction of low and moderate income housing. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HE.WICKER, Director BY ROBERT P. LENARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL:nma 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach �EWaaRr 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH.CA 92663.3884 PLAzam DEPAR7.T'1EN'P (714) 640-2261 May 10, 1982 Mr. Arthur C. Danielian 3848 Campus Drive Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Danielian: Thank you for your participation in the Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session on "Housing Element Inplementation"•: The session was very much a success, as evidenced by comments we have received from individual Planning Commissioners. The City appreciates the time and effort you contributed to the program, ]mowing you must have a very busy schedule. I hope you will be able to attend the Planning Commission Study Session on June 10, 1982 where we will be discussing financing alternatives as they relate to the construction of low and moderate income housing. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARRMIT M S D. HEWICKER, Director By ROBERT P. LENARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL:nma �a 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Pp�,e . - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.U. BOX 1768, N EWPORT BEACH,CA 92663.3884 C,��FORN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2261 May 10, 1982 Mr. Douglas O. Allred 1660 N. Hotel Circle Dr. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92108 Dear Mr. Allred: Thank you for your participation in the Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session on "Housing Element Implementation". The session was very much a success, as evidenced by comments we have received from individual Planning Con4nissioners. The City appreciates the time and effort you contributed to the program, knowing you must have a very busy schedule. I hope you will be able to attend the Planning Commission Study Session on June 10, 1982 where we will be discussing financing alternatives as they relate to the construction of low and moderate income housing. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPAMENT MISS D. HEwICKER, Director By � �V/ G�r� ROBERT P. .LENARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL:nma t 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663.3884 cq�iFonN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2261 May 10, 1982 Mr. Dennis W. Chiniaeff 17752 Skypark Suite 180 Irvine, CA 92714 Dear Mr. Chiniaeff: Thank you for your participation in the Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session on "Housing Element Implementation". The session was very much a success, as evidenced by comments we have received from individual Planning Commissioners. The City appreciates the time and effort you contributed to the program, knowing you must have a very busy schedule. I hope you will be able to attend the Planning Commission Study Session on June 10, 1982 where we will be discussing financing alternatives as they relate to the construction of low and moderate income housing. Very fly youst PLANNING DEPARTMENT DAMES D. HERICIM, Director By ROBERT P. LENARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL:nma t 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA May 6, 1982 - 2:OOp.m. Item #1 Housing Element Implementation (Discussion) Staff Report Attached a) Housing Element Implementation summary and overview. b) Presentation of alternative housing concepts. ,, a) Discussion of undeveloped sites. d) Discussion of North Ford site. e) Conclusion - determine future meeting dates Item #2 Items which the Commission and Staff may which to discuss which are not on the Agenda. -rim W IN ca,.�r ��r,�.�ni.aSka,,. c s�(� - 3 6`►3�j �-�.P.:�-�.�.-.� � ��..,�-.� �=�..... ------------- F2 - - -- - - - - — -- - o Y--=& _ Ste:,-..�.e _�/�-t,� _��-�- '�-Q � �--t✓�-. '�i,..�.ary, 0 u �6 1i I ' 3c�a r I ' i s , S-C90 m I � I Ii I - -� - �- P - i I I i ` I !i - --ate 2©ram - �`�'`�--- -- - - - - -- -- ---- ----- --- -- ---- ---- 10 -- --- -- - - ------ --- --- - r I - ----- --- - -- - -- - i - - - ---- - ----- -- ----- ------ - i i - - ---- - -------- -- - - -- -- --------- - - -- - ---- - -- - ----- -- --- -- _fir--- - � -..� - -�-�.►-�-� . - - V-0 ' i i i n �--- -- -- - - — - -- oe ---------------- -------- - --- ----- ----- ------ -- - ---- ------- ----- - ---- ------ ----------------- i I I - oCIZ7 /� - - - - - - - - Ol 1 1 I �- x--O � _� -r � �- --- ------ - --- -- --- - i l � ^-T ---- -- ---------- -------------- --- zq 3 �o - - --- - -- - --- - - i r� --- -- - - -- --- - - I - - - -_- L--- . - - - - ----- - -- - - -- -- I � - i NUS �-�-,--. - �-�--��r�---�-- --- -- --- - - - -- - - I - 62 f� - -- - - -- - - -- -- PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO. SITE LOCATION Cor•Adarrs/Pinecreek Dr. APPLICATION NO. ZE-82-09, T-11501,T-11700 AP # * Below MANDATORY ACTION DATE January 15, 1983 APPLICANT.COast Community College District AUTHORIZED AGENT C. Robt. iangslet & Son (Owner of Record) ADDRESS 1320 Adams Avenue ADDRESS 296 Redondo Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Iona Beach, CA 90803 Applicant is reminded that all ordinances and regulations PREPARED BY PLV:ajw governing the use of the land or building(s) to which this application pertains must be complied with whether speci- *141-351-01, 02, 16 fied herein or not. 141-362-01, 02, 05 REQUEST: 418-111-01, 02, 03, 04 Conditional t7se Permit and development plan for construction of 1,Y55-condo- minium units with variances from required Harking ati Private open space, and two 4-lot subdivisions. FINAL COMMISSION ACTION: Meeting of February 8, 1982 ...... .............. ZE-82-09 - Recnde to the City Gounc%l for appxaval, based tan the analysis and findings and subject to the ccu7ditituas t tanned in€tb' report, with modifications T-11501 - g end the Cit "�dil for approval, based on the analysis aril findings and subject to the conditions Contained i.n this report {5-ilJ . -11704 - ReCcattltendecl to the City Counci3 for approval, based do the analysis ialdings and subject to the ebnd tions Contained in this report (5-0) . APPLICANT NOTIFIED DATE �r CITY OF COSTA MESA,77 FAIR DRIVE,COSTA MESA, CA 92626 (714) 754-5245 FFTJ CMF 0360-30, rer. 1182 Agenda No. + l 209, T 11501, T 11700 -1- Se trom/Cst. College/Langslet'- r. DESCRIPTION A. Subject Property 1. Location - West of Pinecreek Drive, between Adams Avenue and Village Way a. Parcel 1 - South, of Village Way b. Parcel 2 - North of Adams Avenue 2. General Plan a. Currently: High Density Residential and Commercial Center b. Proposed (GP-82-IA): Urban Center Residential 3. Zoning a. Currently: MG, I&R, Cl-CP, CL b. Proposed (R-82-01): PDR-UC (Planned Development Residential-Urban Center) 4. Site Area - 28.06 acres a. Parcel 1 - 14.29 acres b. Parcel 2 - 13.77 acres 5. Present Development a. Parcel 1 - Industrial building, warehouses, outside storage b. Parcel 2 - Coast- Community College District administrative offices and maintenance buildings, automobile storage, agriculture 6. Environmental - EIR being processed concurrently 7. Background - a. In December, 1981? the City Council adopted the Urban Center Resi- dential General Plan Land Use designation and the Planned Develop- ment Residential - Urban Center (PDR-UC) zoning category. These provide for residential densities ranging from 30.1- to 50-units per acre. Requests to redesignate the subject site under these categories (GP-82-1A and R-82-01) are being processed concurrently with this application. b. The 28-acre site is divided into two parcels. Parcel 1, the northerly parcel, is owned by C. J. Segerstrom & Sons. Parcel 2 is owned by the Coast Commity College District. B. Surrounding Property - MG - multi-tenant light industrial vacant former lumber yard) 1 North g , ( 2. East - PDR-HD - 380-unit apartment (22.3-units per acre) 3. South - I&R, R3 - Orange Coast College, 384-unit apartment (25.7 units per acre) 4. West - Cl-CP - Automobile dealerships II. REQUEST AND ANALYSIS A. Request - 1,155-unit condominium development 1. Conditional Use Permit (required for all condominium developments - Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-819.2) 2. Development Plan (required for all development in a PD (Planned Development) zone - Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-253) 3. Variance from parking requirements (Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-828(f) ) - see II.C. for details 4. Variance from private open space requirements (Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-828(e)) - see II.D. for details 5. Tentative Maps of Tracts 11501 and 11700 - two four-lot subdivisions . Age* No. ZE-82-09, T 11501, T 11700 -2- Segerstron/Cst. College/iangslet II. REQUEST AND ANALYSIS (Cont. ) B. ' Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan 1. The proposed project consists of two parcels. Applicants have indi- cated that construction will probably be undertaken in two major phases, with Parcel 1 to be developed first. If, for some reason, Parcel 2 cannot be developed, minor modifications to the central driveway will allow Parcel 1 to stand on its own with regard to compliance with development standards. a. Each parcel will contain four major buildings. Applicants have indicated an intent to construct these buildings sequentially - completing one prior to commencing the next. As all existing buildings will be demolished prior to initiation of construction on each parcel, a major concern expressed with regard to other recent requests for phased developments will not exist -- that of a mixture of old and new development on the same parcel. If occu- pancy of any building is to be sought prior to completion of all construction on either parcel, provisions must be made to ensure compliance with all development standards (including parking, open space, etc. ) for all buildings occupied. In this way, the worst consequence to the City, in the event the project could not be completed, would be a smaller development than originally antici- pated, but there would be no deficiency in amenities or Code com- pliance and no mixture of old and new development. 2. Density Parcel 1: 581 units - 40.66 units/acre Parcel 2: 574 units - 41.68 units/acre Total: 11155 units - 41.16 units/acre 3. Unit Types Nine unit plans are proposed for the project. They consist of bachelor, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. (Units with one bedroom plus den are included as two-bedroom units. Because of the design of the den in the two-bedroom plus den unit, it has not been counted as a third bedroom. Breakdown by unit type is as follows: Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Total Bachelor (437 sq. ft. ) 104 128 232 one bedroom (8301rl6O sq. ft. ) 151 228 379 Two bedroom (11216-1,520 sq. ft. 326 218 544 4. Site Coverage Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Total Buildings 219,300 s.f. - 35.2% 193,800 s.f. - 32.3% 413,100 s.f. - 33.8% Paved 81,200 s.f. - 13.1% 45,143 s.f. - 7.5% 126,343 s.f. - 10.3% Open 321,970 s.f. - 51.7% 360,878 s.f. - 60.2% 682,848 s.f.- 55.9% Total: 622,470 s.f. - 100% 599,821 s.f. - 100% 1,212,291 s.f.- 100% ZE-82-09, T 11501, T-11700„ -3- trom/Cst. College/langslet II. REQUEST AND ANALYSO (Cont. ) 5. Access and Circulation a. Major vehicular access to the site is provided at three locations: one each on Adams Avenue, Pinecreek Drive, and Village Way. The Adams Avenue and Village Way entries are restricted to residents only. A fourth entry point, located on Village Way, provides access only to the parking garage below the building at the north- east corner of the site. b. Cn-site circulation is provided by a through driveway with access to all three adjacent streets. Surface level parking is also pro-- vided along this driveway. 6. Planned Development Standards (Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sec. 13-252) a. Allowable density in the PDR-UC zone ranges from 30.1- to 50-units per acre. Projects are permitted to exceed the lowest density to the extent they meet certain criteria set forth in the Crdinance and summarized below. Criteria Met (1) preserves natural features that enhance the N.A. development and will benefit the community (includes historic buildings). (Criteria deemed not applicable as historic buildings (warehouses) would not enhance the development and are of marginal benefit to the community. ) (2) provides law- and moderate-income housing Yes (Information provided in the Draft EIR indi- cates that 51% of the units will be afford- able to households earning up to 120% of the median income for the county; 19% of the units will be affordable to households earning up to 80% of the median. ) (3) distinctive design Yes (Zhe project is unique for Costa Mesa in terms of its concept, site plan, and architectural design) (4) all or part of required parking within structure. Yes (88% of the parking provided is subterranean) (5) recreational vehicle storage No (6) open space in excess of requirement Yes (42% required, 56% provided) (7) separation of pedestrian, bicycle, Yes vehicular circulation. (Pedestrian circulation is independent of vehicular circulation) (8) perimeter open space in excess of requirement. Yes (25 ft. required, 25-30 ft. minimum provided, with large areas in excess of 30 ft.) (9) within 1/4 mile of public transit route. Yes (CCTD bus routes on Adams and Harbor) (10) use of non-depletable energy sources. No (proposed in EIR as mitigation measures, but not yet incorporated into project proposal) b. The proposed project meets seven of the nine applicable criteria. In Staff's opinion, this supports the request for a density falling just above the mid-point of the allowable range. • Ag No. ZE_09, T 115— 1— ,�00 -4- Segerstrom/Cst. College/Langslet IZ. REQUEST AND ANALYSIS (Cont. ) 7. The Condominium Ordinance (Section 13-828(d)) specifies that struc- tures "shall avoid the long-row effect by being composed of not more than six (6) dwelling units" .side-by-side and by providing a four- foot offset in the front building line for every two units. The same sections provide that "alternative designs which acoomplish the same purpose may be approved by the Planning Commission." a. Although one side each of four buildings and two sides of a fifth building will contain more than six units side-by-side, differences in building height, offset elevations, and balconies will combine to reduce the "long-row" effect. Additional mitigation will be provided by the proposed landscape theme. 8. The landscape theme involves an extensive system of lakes and streams. Recreational facilities include three tennis courts, three racquetball courts, two recreation buildings, and four pools and spas. No specific provisions are made for children. Although the nature and design of the development are such that a large number of children is not anticipated, it can be expected that some will reside in the project. C. Parking Variance 1. The requested variance from parking requirements is based on the theory that smaller units will generate smaller parking demands. The following table gives a comparison between the proposed and required parking ratios and includes a reference to the apartment parking requirements for comparison purposes. Unit Size Req. Pkg. (Condos) Req. Pkg. (Apts. ) Proposed Parkin ch g Baelor 2.5/unit = 580 1.6/unit = 371 1.5/unit = 348 One bedroom 2.5/unit = 948 1.9/unit = 720 2.0/unit = 758 Two bedroom ' 2.5/unit = 1,360 2.1/unit = 1,142 2.5/unit = 1,360 TOTAL: 'I$$$ T'E3'3 2� 2. A similar request was recently granted for a 244-unit condominium devel- opment at the southeast corner of Fairview Road and South Coast Drive. In that case (ZE-80-168), the approved parking ratios were: bachelor - 1.6, one bedroom - 2.0, two bedroom - 2.5 spaces per unit. 3. A recently completed parking survey conducted by the City indicates that, for projects in excess of 90 units, automobile ownership rates for apartments and condominiums with two-bedroom units and smaller average 1.6 and 1.8 vehicles per unit, respectively. It is especially unlikely that bachelor units will generate a vehicle ownership rate greater than one per unit. 4. Code requires that two covered parking spaces be provided for the tenants of each unit, and that one-half space per unit be provided for guest parking. The results of the parking survey indicate that existing apartment and condominium developments experience a signifi- cantly greater shortage of guest parking than resident parking. This could be the result of a number of factors. However, the single factor most often cited by respondents to the survey was the use of garages for storage, requiring residents to park in open spaces designated for guests. As the proposed development utilizes large subterranean parking garages rather than individual, closable garages, the possibility of resident parking spaces being utilized for purposes other than parking is greatly reduced, if not entirely eliminated. a No. ' • y -091 T11501, T-11700 -5- Segerstrom/Cst. College/langslet II. REQUEST AND ANALYSIS (Cont. ) 5. Code requires that two spaces be set aside for the residents of each unit. The applicants propose to reserve one space per unit, with remaining parking, both subterranean and surface, to be used on a first-come, first-served basis by both residents and guests. This technique should result in greater efficiency of parking use as it will eliminate the possibility of two spaces being reserved for a unit whose residents own only one vehicle. Assignment of parking spaces will take into account proximity to elevators and stairways leading to the associated dwelling units. D. Variance from Private Open Space Requirement 1. The Condominium Ordinance requires that "an adjoining private patio shall be provided for each unit with no dimension less than ten (10) feet." The result is a minimum private patio area of 100 sq. ft. Of the nine unit types proposed in the subject project, only one unit meets this requirement. The remaining units provide decks ranging from 4 to 8 ft. in one direction and from 10 to 25 ft. in the other direction. Areas of individual decks range from 42 sq. ft. to 190 sq. ft. ; however, many units are provided with more than one deck. As a result, eight of the nine unit types provide total deck area in excess of 100 sq. ft. Only unit type 3, of which there are 32 within the entire project, provides a deck area of 69 sq. ft. 2. The Planned Development Ordinance (Section 13-252(4)(a)) also contains a requirement that each unit be provided with a private open space with no dimension less than 10 ft. However, this section contains an exemption for "multiple-story apartments or condominiums where dwelling units have no ground floor access," in which case, no private open space is required. 3. The private open space requirements of the Condominium Ordinance were adopted in August 1977; similar requirements in the Planned Development Ordinance were adopted in December 1978. In cases of apparent conflict between two sections of the Ordinance, it is standard practice to cite the most recently adopted section as most accurately reflecting the current intent with regard to a particular issue. In this case, as the exemption for multiple-story developments is the most recently adopted section, and as it is impractical to provide 101 x 10' patios for all units in such a development, Staff suggests that the proposed decks ade- quately fulfill the intent of the Code in providing private open space. E. Tentative Maps of Tracts 11501 and 11700 1. Tract 11501 is a 4-lot subdivision of the northerly portion of the development (Parcel 1). 2. Tract 11700 is a 4-lot subdivision of the southerly portion of the project (Parcel 2). 3. Each of the eight proposed lots enompasses one condominium building and surrounding parking and open space. Agenda No. 2-09, T- 1 1, T-11 00 REQUEST AND ANALYSIS (Cont. ) -6- rstrcm/Cst. College/Langslet II. REQUEST AND ANALYSIS (Copt. ) F. Environmental The Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the subject project anticipates impacts in the area of traffic, air quality, hydrology, popu- lation, noise, community services, and energy and utilities. Traffic impacts will be the result of a project generation of 9,240 daily vehicle trips. Several mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impact of these trips on the local traffic circulation system. Air quality and noise -impacts of the project are primarily a result of traffic generation. Noise impacts will also be experienced by residents of the project as a result of existing and future traffic on the adjacent street system. Construction on the site, which is now largely unpaved, will increase the amount of runoff from the site. This should not, however, overtax the ability of storm drain systems to dispose of this additional contribution. Population impacts will consist of an estimated project population of 1,863 persons, an overall increase in the City population of 2.2 percent. Adverse impacts on housing are not anticipated as the project is a resi- dential development and as many units are anticipated to be affordable to low- and soderate-inane families. Noise impacts, as a result of project-generated traffic, are not anticipated to be significant. An increase of 2.9 CNEL is anticipated for the exist- ing apartments on the east side of Pinecreek Drive. This will not, however, result in an exterior noise environment in excess of 65 CNEL, the standard for residential areas. Design and construction of the proposed condominiums will need to include mitigation of existing and projected traffic noise, especially along Adams Avenue. Impacts on community services are limited primarily to fire and police protection. Several details of design and operation of the project must be worked out with these agencies prior to issuance of building permits. It is not anticipated that these will result in any significant change in the nature and design of the project. Although adequate utilities exist or can be provided to serve the proposed project, the EIR recommends maximum attention to conservation measures in designing energy and water systems. Mitigation measures proposed in the EIR are included in the attached list of conditions. III. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS A. If General Plan Amendment GP-82-IA is approved, the proposed project and tract maps will be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and with policies encouraging provision of varied types of housing, provision of affordable "housing, and concentration of high density housing in areas located near major transportation routes and shopping and employment centers. B. The proposed project substantially canplies with all development standards of the Condominium ordinance and PDR-UC zone. Ag a No. ZE 09, T 11501, T 11700 -7- Seg tram/Cst. College/langslet III. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS (Cont. ) C. The proposed project meets sufficient criteria, as set forth in the Planned Development Ordinance, to warrant the requested density. 0, Requested variance from parking requirements represents a reasonable adjust- ment consistent with automobile ownership rates anticipated for the types of units being proposed. Impacts of the parking variance will be further mitigated by the proposed method of parking assignment. E. The proposed provision of private open space (balconies) is consistent with the intent of Code as expressed in the most recently adopted section rele- vant to this issue. F. The evidence presented substantially meets the conditions set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-347. G. With the incorporation of proposed mitigations measures, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. IV. FIRE DEPARTMENT FINDINGS A. The proposed buildings are at an excessive distance from the street neces- sitating fire apparatus access and provisions of on-site fire hydrants. B. The plans submitted show exterior building walls over 300 feet from road- ways and questionable access via walkways. C. Fire protection concerns which must be resolved include the following: 1. Fire apparatus in many cases can only be positioned on one side of the buildings and exposures cannot be properly protected. 2. Portable ground ladders cannot be transported on the walkways as shown and cannot be utilized in the proposed landscaping thus hampering rescue operations. V. PLANNING STAFF RECCMMENLIATION Recommend approval, subject to conditions. VI. CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED I Shall meet all the requirements of the various City Departments, copy attached hereto. Agenda No. • Z 2-09, T-11�1, T-11700 S strom/Cst. College/Langslet CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED ZE- 22-09 Ping. *1. Final landscape plan shall include provision of recreational areas suitable to the needs of residents with children. *2. landscape plans shall include provision of adequate bicycle and pedestrian circulation on-site, and connection to related off-site facilities. *3. Grading and construction can increase the amount of airborne dust in the vicinity of the proposed development. To control the dust, the developer shall spray and water the construction site under the direction of the Building and Safety Division and all construction vehicles shall be sprayed prior to leaving the site. *4. Major demolition and grading shall be performed in the spring when soil moisture is highest. *5. Parking and material staging areas shall be paved early during development to reduce travel on unpaved surfaces. *6. Pools and spas shall be provided with solar-assisted heating systems. *7. Building design shall make maximum use of natural heating and cooling potential. *8. Incorporate proposed new residential building energy conservation standards currently under consideration by the California Energy Commission. *9. Prior to issuance of building permits, a runoff and water quality control plan shall be approved by the Development Services and Public Services Departments. Said plan may include such items as on-site infiltration, use of infiltration/storage in the collection system, on-site street clean- ing programs, and grading plan. *10. Applicant shall submit an energy analysis for approval by the Development Services Department prior to issuance of building permits. Said report shall contain a study of the feasibility of providing solar water 'heating, a specification and analysis of proposed lighting systems (including fluorescent versus incandescent fixtures, method of time-controlling outdoor lighting, etc. ), and methods proposed to reduce energy consumption of water circulation systems. *11. If the report required by Condition #10 demonstrates the feasibility of utilizing solar water heating systems, such systems shall be incorporated into the design of the project. * 12. Project design shall include all appropriate and feasible water conservation features and devices. * 13. Provisions shall be made for on-site collection of separated recyclable wastes, under the direction of the Planning Division. 14. Parking assignment plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to occupancy. 15. If buildings are constructed and occupied in phases, all development stan- dards (parking, open space, etc. ) shall be met for each phase prior to occupancy. Access facilities and easements shall be provided as deemed necessary by the Development Services and Public Services Departments. All street improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy of the first phase. *These conditions have been included as mitigation measures proposed in the EIR. If any of these conditions are removed, the decision-making body must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. Agenda NNo. zE-82-09, T--n-MT,'N 1700 0 Sec*trom/Cst. College/Langslet CONDITIONS (Cont. ) ' Eng, 16. Two copies of the final tract map shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for checking. 17. Submit current, updated Title Report. 18, Submit nine copies and one sepia of recorded map. 19. Submit Grading Plan and hydrology calculations. �0. Construct a traffic signal at Baker Street and College Way. (City will reimburse approximately 1/8th of the cost from previously colle&ed sign-al deposits). 21, Submit improvement plans and modify the traffic signal on Adams Avenue at Pinecreek to provide more efficient traffic signal operation and central system control by replacing the signal controller and providing new signal poles to permit elimination of median-mounted signals. 221 Submit improvement plans and construct a traffic diverter to prevent left- turns out of Village Way at Harbor Boulevard under the direction of the Transportation Services Division. 23. Construct a bus bay on Adams Avenue west of Pinecreek and provide and main- tain a bus shelter at the location under the direction of the Transporta- tion Services Manager. Fire 24. Water mains and hydrants shall be installed to the standards of the Mesa Consolidated Water District and be dedicated along with repair easements to that agency. 25. The on-site hydrant shall be attached to the underground mains of the fire sprinkler system or installed to the standards of the Mesa Consolidated Water District and be dedicated along with repair easements to that agency. APPLICANT IS REMINDED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS: Ping 26. All on-site utility services (Edison and Telephone) shall be installed underground. 27. Developer is hereby advised that all utilities such as gas meters, electrical meters, telephone pedestal-mounted terminal boxes, surface- mounted electrical transformers, fire hydrants, or any other potential obstructions, shall not be located within the approved parking and/or turn-radius area. If approved by the Planning Division, said facilities may be installed underground in a vault having an approved traffic lid. All such facilities located above-ground shall meet with the approval of the Planning Division and serving utility. 28. Installation of all utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure said installation from view from any place on or off the property. Said installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the Public Utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box, and shall be installed in accordance with standard plans and specifications of the City of Costa Mesa. 29. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning compressors and duct work shall be screened from view. 30. A detailed landscape/irrigation plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to: type, size, and location of all plants and trees; type of ground cover; sprinklers; all walls, fences, or barriers; trash enclosures; driveways; parking lots and security lighting; and type, location, and assignment of street addresses on property. landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to release of utilities. a No. • 2 2-09, T 11501, T-11700 Segerstrom/Cst. College/iangslet CONDITIONS (Cont. ) 31. Design of trash enclosure(s) shall conform with City Standards. Standard drawings are available from the Planning Division. 32. CC&R's and articles of incorporation and bylaws for the Homeowner's Association shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and City Attorney prior to recordation. 33. All landscaped areas shall be separated from paved vehicular areas by 6-inch high continuous Portland cement concrete curbing. 34. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. 35. In compliance with the provisions of the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Sub-chapter 11 Article 4, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis of the proposed development, prepared under the supervi- sion of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering. Two copies of said report shall be submitted with the application for building permits. The acoustical analysis shall evaluate existing and projected noise levels, noise attenuation measures to be applied, and the noise insula- tion effectiveness of the proposed construction. The person preparing the report shall, under the direction of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, perform an inspection of the project prior to or at the time of the framing inspection to certify that construction techniques comply with recommendations contained within the acoustical analysis. Upon completion of the subject structures, field tests may be required under the provisions of Title 25. Bldg. 36. Shall conform to the 1979 Uniform Building Code and ancillary codes. Eng. 37. Construct P.C.C. residential sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standard Drawings at applicant's expense on Pinecreek Drive and Village Way. 38. Construct P.C.C. Type II driveway approach per City of Costa Mesa Standard Plans. Iocation and width are subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. 39. Any existing drives and/or curb depressions that will not be used shall be removed and replaced with full height curb and sidewalk at applicant's expense. 40. Dedicate all land 30 feet north and south of the center line of Village Way to ultimate R/W width. 41. Dedicate a 15-foot diagonal cutoff at the corner of Adams Avenue and Pinecreek Drive. 42. Dedicate a 15-foot diagonal corner cut-off at the corner of Pincreek Drive and Village Way. 43. Fulfill Drainage Ordinance Fee requirements prior to approval of tract map. 44. Submit improvement plans for and fully improve the westerly one-half of Pinecreek Drive to its ultimate width per City of•Costa Mesa Standards. 45. Submit improvement plans and construct bus bay on Adams Avenue as directed by the Traffic Engineer. 46. Provide and install street lights on Marbelite poles. Pay advanced energy fees. 47. Submit improvement plans and fully improve Village Way to its ultimate width, per City of Costa Mesa standards. 48. Dedicate all land on Adams Avenue for bus bay as directed by the Traffic Engineer. 49. Submit improvement plans and reconstruct Pinecreek and Village Way adjacent to the site. Agenda No. • 091 T 11�1;T-11700 rstrom/Cst. College/langslet CONDITIONS (Cont. ) Fire 30. Provide on-site fire hydrants, number and location to be coordinated with the Fire Department. 51. All hydrants shall be installed and operable prior to the initiation of combustible construction. 52, Water improvement plans shall be approved by the Fire Department. 53, Water mains shall be of adequate size to deliver 1,000 gallons per minute simultaneous) from all hydrants serving the development with a Y Y 4 minimum residual pressure of 20 psi. 54. Access consisting of a minimum 20-foot wide roadway capable of supporting fire apparatus shall be maintained to all fire hydrants from the time that the hydrants are placed into service. Special consideration shall be given to maintaining the integrity of such roadways during periods of inclement weather. 55. Provide for the installation of fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from the front door of each unit. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A,10BC as these extinguishers are suitable for all types of fires and are less expensive. 56. Provide an approved fire alarm system as specified in the Uniform Fire Code. 57. Any gate or other device used to control access to the project must be approved by the Fire Department. 58. Wet standpipes connected to the automatic sprinkler system shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Prevention Bureau. Exact loca- tions cannot be specified at this time. Leis 59. Street trees in the front setback shall meet with the approval of the Ser> Leisure Services Department. Street trees shall be Pinus Canariensis, 15 gallon minimum size, spaced at 30 ft. on center. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL DISTRICT ARE HEREBY FOMRDED TO THE APPLICANT` Sani. 60. Subject property is not in the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and annexa- Dist. tion to the District will be required. 61. Developer will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 62. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, and sewer permit required prior to installation of sewer. T 11501 Eng. 63. Shall meet all the requirements contained in the Assistant City Engineer's letter dated January 29, 1982, copy attached. T-11700 Eng. 64. Shall meet all the requirements contained in the Assistant City Engineer's letter dated January 29, 1982, copy attached. Agenda 7,E-82-n9,�T- 15013,T-1170 CCNDITICNS (Cont.) • • PLANNING CMUSSION MEETING - February 8, 1982 The following conditions were modified to read: 4. Deleted 6. and 10. were incorporated to read: 10. Applicant shall submit an energy analysis for approval by the Development Services Department prior to issuance of building permits. Said report shall contain a study of the feasibility of providing solar water heating for pools and spas and domestic water, a specification and analysis of proposed lighting systems including fluorescent versus incandescent fixtures, method of time-controlling outdoor lighting, etc.) , and methods propsed to reduce energy consumption of water circulation systems. 8. Amended to read: Project shall comply with any and all energy conservation standards required by the State prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Amended to read: Parking assignment and access control plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to occupancy, with particular attention to electronic accessibility for guest parking. A number of compact car spaces shall be permitted to meet established parking requirements. 51. Amended to read: All hydrants shall be installed and operable prior to initiation of combustible construction, under the direction of the Fire Department. 65. Added to read: Automatic fire sprinklers shall be provided throughout the entire project under the direction of the Fire Department. PLANNING IIVISIIN STAFF REPIRT AGENDA NO. SITE LOCATION Cor.Ada M/pineCreek ]Dr- APPLICATION NO. R-82-01 AP # *See Below MANDATORY ACTION DATE APPLICANT.C'C)aSt Community College District AUTHORIZED AGENT C. Robt. langslet & son (Owner or Record) ADDRESS 1370 Adams Avenue ADDRESS 296 Redondo Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 long Beach, CA 90803 Applicant is reminded that all ordinances and regulations PREPARED BY MS.ajw governing the use of the land or building(s) to which this application pertains must be complied with whether speci. *141-351-01, 02, 16 fied herein or not. 141-362-01, 02, 05 REQUEST: 418-111-01, 02, 03, 04 Rezone property, £rom M1 and I R to PDR i1C. FINAL COMMISSION ACTION: Ming Of February 8, 1982 Recommended to f he Clay Cotnleil fOx approval of PDR 1JC Zoning, based on the analysis arid fSndings, OOntaixed ir,. phis report APPLICANT NOTIFIED DATE lI► f CITY OF COSTA MESA,77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 (714) 754-5245 a41n CMF 0360-30, rev. 1/82 Agenda No. . -82-01 Y gerstrom, Coast Community -1- College/Langslet C, DESCRIPTION A. Subject Property 1 . Location - Properties are bounded by Adams Avenue, Pinecreek Drive, Village Way (Warehouse Avenue), and commercial properties maintaining frontage along Harbor Boulevard between Adams Avenue and Village Way. 2. General Plan Designations - General Commercial and High Density Resi- dential (Pending: Urban Center Residential). 3. Consistent Zones, General Conmiercial - C1, C2, CL, PDC, AP, and P High Density Residential - R2, R31 R4, PDR-HD, I&R, and CL. (Pending: Urban Center Residential - R4, PDR-UC, I&R, and CL) 4. Existing Zoning a. Northerly Parcel - Cl-CP (Local Business District - Conditional Use Permit) and M1 (Manufacturing District). b. Southerly Parcel - I&R (Institutional and Recreational) and CL (Limited Conmiercial). 5. Existing Land Uses a. Northerly Parcel 1. Ml and Cl-CP zoning classifications - wooden warehouses, carpet manufacturer, storage yards, and vacant b. Southerly Parcel 1. I&R zoning classification - administrative and transportation offices, storage areas, and agricultural activities. 2. CL zoning classification - vehicle storage yard 6. Area of Subject Properties a. Northerly Parcel - 14.29 acres b. Southerly Parcel - 13.77 acres Total - MT U acres 7. CEQ4 - Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amend- ment GP-82 1A. B. Surrounding Properties 1. North - MG, industrial 2. East - PDR-HD, apartments 3. South - I&R and R3, Orange Coast College and apartments 4. West - Cl and C1-CP1 automobile dealerships II. BACKGROUND Rezone Petition R-82-01 is one of four related applications being processed concurrently for the subject properties. The three other applications include General Plan Amendment GP-82-lA (requesting permission to amend the land Use designations from High Density Residential and General Commercial to Urban Center Residential), Tentative Tract Maps 11501 and 11700 (creating four lots on each parcel), and Zone Exception Permit ZE-82-09 (a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,155-unit condominium development on the subject parcels). �' • Agenda No. •R-82-01 Segerstrom, Coast Community -2- College/Langslet III. ANALYSIS (Cont. ) ,A. The subject properties have never been developed to their couplete poten- tial under their present zoning classifications. Major portions of these properties are presently being utilized for outdoor storage purposes or are vacant. Buildings located on the northerly parcel and a few structures on the southerly parcel are obsolete and are no longer being utilized. B. In advance of this rezone request, the applicants filed General Plan Amendment GP-82-1A to amend the land use designations of the subject properties to Urban Center Residential. The requested zoning classifica- tion is consistent with the proposed General Plan designation. C. The subject parcels are an appropriate site for the PDR-UC zoning classi- fication due to their proximity to commercial centers, public transporta- tion routes, and community facilities (Orange Coast College and Costa Mesa High School). Moreover, the subject parcels are located amid an intense urban environment. The proposed development for the subject properties would be compatible with this environment. D. By rezoning the subject properties PDR-UC, proposed development will be able to meet the broader goals of the General Plan by displaying excel- lence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protection of the integrity of neighboring developments. Compatibility with adjacent uses will be ensured by the PDR-UC development standard requiring a 25-ft. wide, permanently maintained, landscaped open space along property lines adjacent to Adams Avenue, Pinecreek Drive, and Village Way (Warehouse Avenue). These linear landscaped areas will aesthetically enhance the site and will provide an additional buffer from neighboring properties. E. Under the PDR-UC category, the subject properties will be planned as a whole and integrated unit, under the direction of single ownership and/or control. Collectively, the subject sites are of adequate size to accomro- date the proposed development in a manner utilizing innovative and imagina- tive planning concepts that normally would not be practiced in conventional zoning districts. F. The increased number of dwelling units per acre that the PDR-UC zoning category permits (30.1 to 50.0 units per acre) is an effective method of accommodating the current housing demand in the local market. IV. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS A. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amendment GP-82-.IA adequately considers the anticipated environmental impacts of the requested rezone. B. The requested zoning category is consistent with the pending General Plan designation. V. PLANNING STAFF RECOMiENDATION Approve the rezoning of the subject properties to PDR-UC. e x. �� r[4v pwYxx RLOtM1ML <.yH• .wrM MwMY RSDlwitLL 0 0 0 0 8 0 � = 0 0 Yir+.Ow•Oro lnrrtwCMt o e a•> 'Il \ rn�r t!Y � tt;t�S YC4f+w x{R ® Y[•RIYt COrt•tCYL L\ � �for.�\ corwwcrt cbntw " ^•K' � x,1:1� cY,1' �h•.(aa,�1-• \\\ MIOUf1MLL xwlf o 'e +,a1�.•T � (F•7Qk-ia�i'1 t: � -� i��%�+v.+'P' (."L-i?:l'F.'i�'•:'� `t� �ii:.: w�fc ur ,...w ' 7 + ;i Lj�•� , �t.��y[�'fi`�,Lx.+?�.�'.•x� sy 5z •,i L•Y•nt';'i `yr15,.� .•�li',Ci.ryn•?. :�•,,:%`4iy, '. We lt.,`.x••.i� ,:,�1�n�h.I Hh�.. :aJy i•x��i:h � EIF i (([{,'[{•'•1=="��'^�M''__,)) {jjj'',' - A34•ytij ti:ty -_LL -1?, ��1'L•:i1' ?? ��,}•a 1' © C is x �'.•< <6' • v^, 1t14 Jl•l x� -.'ij.. ,Q�a -fix xa l Zx,�.�?1� t7•�i.�•i•1< i�,1S;J1. �ry. '.�,i: . Y,'x.}te •. � '��"f.'�.j-;x/ih�'Z1Y0 �:�1- �'yY^7�:�i'L %',:�lx:f _ "W!'c� Y,:i: JC ��fj �� • % .. •'.�T•gLy,3):y n;•'Y�: W •Y a?<.%Y,'yy1^+5.. :? �L"J•: �a w.•^iia .;�=� ,. -;. �>•s-. din; . , . ,i -r1-F+{IN..y-l1 x;.__:•s- �Z;vw^ 'f';:%�t?R^ � +in , '� f '.,, u•wrwr n 4 ±,�7~Z 'INN-1h1 �• 3 (—� �� ,•1, 1, HILL//// � ', mom S'w . �¢SJ ti�`�`.'aa•i'YY.-'i.t .x41-xYf'li ny:�,i. � . '\ '� � .�'r; 'Y''�f• ''1'a�j�+'i',Zar •�t_•t�•� a --- -/ ,n`'Ff. ` ��nFIFr�j— r--ter HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARCEL 2 1 PARCEL 1 13.98 ACRES 14.29 ACRES N `�;� •1,`` ° A 1 < •:;}:•tip::_::s:::::: NN No 3009 RADIUS GENERAL PLAN PINECREEK DRIVE DESIGNATION MAP .SCALE 10:200' * • Planning CamAssion Meet August 19, 1982 Agenda Item No. 10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i TO: Planning Camussion FRONT: Planning Department SUB<TECT: General Plan Amendment 82-1(H) (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to update the program objectives to reflect Housing Element implementation progress since adoption of the Housing Element. k INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach ' 1, Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired: Recamiend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 82-1(H) be approved. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the "State CEQA Guidelines", and the City's procedures for the inplaTentation of CBQA, an Initial Study has been prepared and it has been determined that this project will not have any significant environmental impact. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached for Commission review. I Background j Objective 13 of the Housing Program (Page 114) provides for an annual review r of the Housing Element in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the goals, f policies, and program objectives contained in the Element. Implementation of Objective 13 is to be acoargilished through a Planning Department Housing Element mmitoring program. The monitoring program will result in an annual report describing progress on each of the Program Objectives contained in the Housing Program. Based on the findings of this report the City is to evaluate the progress the City has made on implementing actions, and re-evaluate the Goals, Policies, and Program Objectives, in relation to this progress. At the City Council Meeting of July 26, 1982, the Council determined that the Goals, Policies, and Program Objectives were appropriate. Since significant progress has been made on implementation of the Program Objectives, and some changes to the implementing actions are warranted, the City Council initiated General Plan Amen&Lent 82-1(H) and directed the Planning Commission to camience public hearings as soon as possible. .- I T0: Plannin#tmussion - 2 i Discussion The purpose of the proposed General Plan Amendment is to update the Element to reflect the extensive Housing Element implementation actions taken by the City. These implementation actions involve Program Objectives 3, 4, 7 and 9. Attacbment No. 1 is a strikeout and underline copy of those portions of the Housing Element Program objectives being proposed for amendment. Identification of Sites (pages 1 and 2) . Amendments to Program Objective 3 involve minor deletions in the Findings section and the addition of new language describing the results of the City's General Plan implementation hearings. The Implementation Plan has been modified by adding a new implementation action which identifies sites the City has selected for General Plan Amendment hearings. Old objective "a" has become objective "b" and has been modified to allow the Planning Commission to continue identifying sites for increased residential density. The program target dates have been adjusted to reflect these changes. Mixed Use Devel t ( " . New language has been added to the Findings section OR Program Objective 4 identifying the General Plan policies and zoning districts available to the City to accomplish mixed use development. Development of Housing for Low and Moderate Income Households (pages 4 through 10) . The City has concentrated its General Plan implementation ettorts on Program Objective 7 which discusses the development of housing for low and moderate income households. Some obsolete language has been deleted from the ' tindings section. Several paragraphs have been added to the findings section describing the formation of the Housing Task Force on Government Funding, the adoption and application of the Mobile Hone Zone, identification of the North Ford site as a potential site for low and moderate income housing, the City's use of CDBG funds, the Section 8 Rent Subsidy Program, and the construction of the senior citizen housing project. The implementation plan for Objective 7 has been modified to reflect the actions the City has taken to implement the Housing Element. Implementation action "a" has been rewritten to identify when the City shall consider the use of the Community Development Block Grant and Tax-Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond Programs. implementation action "b" clarifies when the City will encourage the development of rental housing. At the August 9, 1982 City Council Meeting, the Council disallowed the introduction of the proposed Ordinance amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to Residential Condominium Projects. The Council also directed the Planning Commission to consider changing the implementation action of Objective 9 of the Housing Element in recognition of conditions concerning the loss of rental housing and dislocation of rental tenants. Implementation action "c" has been modified to describe a retention of the existing Residential Condominium Ordinance as an effort to preserve rental housing and minimize the dislocation of existing tenants. Action V' has been rewritten to commit the City to future evaluation of mobile home parks for rezoning purposes. Implementation action "e" has not been changed. Implementation action "f" identifies the City requirement for replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone. This requirement is consistent with the newly adopted Council Policy N-4. Implementation action "g" TO: Plarn :40m aission - 3 0 describes the City's authority to waive planning fees and limitations on park dedication requirements. Action "h" identifies what types of density bonuses and other incentives shall be granted when a developer agrees to building 25% of a proposed housing project for low and moderate income households. This density bonus and incentive concession is consistent with Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918. Rehabilitation of Existing Housing Inventory (page 11) . Four paragraphs of obsolete language have been deleted from the findings section of Program Objective 9. Both implementation actions (9a and 9b) and ompanion target dates have been eliminated. A new implementation action has been added to Program objective 9 which identifies the City's camitment to submitting a CDBG Program application for a housing rehabilitation program. PLANNING DEPAFaMEW JAME,S D. HMICKER, DIRECTOR By aig B 11 Senior er CB/pw AttacPmient: Attachment No. 1 Amp- "ATTACHMENT NO. 1" Page 1. C. Objective 3: To promote the development of an increased level of new housing production, consistent with sound planning and environmental standards. 1. Findings: A major, problem confronting the housing market and communities throughout the state is the fact that total housing production is occurring at a level that is less than necessary to satisfy the needs of the community. This "shortfall" in production has created a housing shortage with many adverse effects, not the least of which are low vacancy rates, higher prices, and less consumer choice in housing opportunities. While the volume of housing production is primarily determined by national economic conditions, a fact over which local governments have no control, there are several actions Which a local jurisdiction can take to stimulate increased Production within its boundaries, assuming suitable economic conditions exist. Among the usual techniques utilized by local governments to influence residential development are land use policies and development standards. While land use policies, generally, either frustrate or facilitate housing development (depending on the nature of such policies) , it appears that development standards and project reviews associated with those standards have a much mote limited effect. Put another way: it is reasonable to expect that local -governments can influence the rate of development through their adoption and enforcement of land use policies, it is less reasonable, however, to draw a similar conclusion with regard to the adoption and enforcement of development standards. The effect of such standards is more directly related to housing costs, not rates of development. The vacant land inventory and site analysis identified seventeen sites available for residential development. These sites will provide for a variety of housing types and incomes. Existing plans for these sites will permit residential densities to range from four to twenty-four dwelling units per acre. Additionally, four of these sites have been planned for residential and commercial/industrial land use mixes. The most direct and significant action which the city can take to improve the supply/needs imbalance is to increase the allowable density of development within the city, consistent with applicable fiscal and environmental considerations. The policy of allowing increased density is only meaningful, however, when it is applied to specific sites within the city. -the-heaerng-element-ie-a-�eee preferred-�vciritiie--fer-nekriewi�ig--rxrrcamk-der�mity--their-4s tke-e#kyle-setsfng-preceee: . r • y • • III Page 2. Since the adoption of the Housing Element the Planning Commission and City Council have held General Plan Housing Element Implementation hearings which have resulted in the initiation .of General Plan Amendments on five (5) specific sites to consider increased-residential densities. 2. Implementation Plan: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of this objective: a. The City of Newport Beach shall conduct General Plan Amendment Hearings to consider increased residential densities on the following sites: Site Buildable Acreage Cal Trans West 10.1 acres Freeway Reservation West (Big Canyon Area 16) 8.7 acres Fifth Avenue Parcel 10.0 acres Marguerite Avenue Parcel 6.8 acres North Ford ` 29.5 acres These hearings shall be conducted in conformance with the Planning and' Zoning Law, California Government Code Section 65356.1. Necessary environmental documentation shall also be prepared, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. b. The Planning Commission shall continue to conduct •pyblic hearings designed to identify which of the remaining non- committed sites will be appropriate for increased levels of allowable density without engendering adverse environmental and other community conditions. 3. Target Date: The following implementation schedule shall be observed: a. The General Plan Amendments identified in 2 (a) (above) will be processed during 1982. b. Public hearing shall be conducted within three six• months after adeptien-e€-this-element •the completion of the General Plan Amendment hearings discussed in 2(a) above, and recommendations for further• action. shall be submitted to the City Council within six-menthe one year after said adeptien hearing. Page 3. D. Objective 4: To encourage, wherever feasible, mixed use development that achieves a balance between residential and appropriate commercial/industrial activities. 1. Finding: There is evidence that development patterns which segregate housing from places of work, contribute to increased traffic problems, automobile fuel consumption, and fiscal demands on local governments. Moreover, such patterns may directly impact housing affordability, to the extent that they enhance or diminish the relationship between jobs and housing opportunities of the given labor force. It is recognized that the consumer is the ultimate judge of which development patterns are most preferablet this is the principle of supply and demand operating in its purest form. There is little that local government can or should do to influence where its citizens choose to live. it is indisputable, however, based on housing marketing studies, that consumers are showing an increasing preference for housing opportunities that are in close proximity to their employment. The bases of this tendency are higher fuel costs and the psychological frustrations of commuting. It is appropriate for the city to evidence its support of development patterns which mix residential and commercial/industrial uses and to encourage such patterns, as a policy matter, when it is feasible to do so. The City has a Commercial-Residential Zoning District which provides for a mixture of commercial and residential uses. This Zoning District is utilized on small parcels in appropriate locations throughout the community. The General Plan and P-C zone are used on larger parcels to accomplish mixed use development. 2. Implementation Plan: In major projects involving commercial and industrial uses, the city shall encourage wherever feasible, the development of housing that is geared to the affordability range of the projected labor force. 3. Target Dates: This policy objective shall be initiated immediately. • Page 4. G. Objective 7: To promote and assist in the development of housing for low- and moderate-income households. 1. Finding: For a variety of reasons, the private housing market does not provide an adequate choice of affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. Such opportunities are not available in the supply of new housing construction, and they are becoming increasingly less available as a result of the "filtering process" - the traditional process by which older housing is "handed down" to households of lower incomes. The underlying premise of this process is that the upward mobility of middle- and higher-income households triggers the release of their housing, upon their purchase of new housing, to households of lower incomes. The validity of this concept weakens considerably in housing markets where there is intense higher-income demand and extreme shortage. Newport Beach is such a market. If the housing needs of low- and moderate-income households are to be adequately addressed, in most housing market areas of California, it will be necessary for local governments to design and implement a comprehensive strategy for achieving this objective. This strategy must not only seek to guide and encourage the private market to respond to the needs of low- and moderate-income households, it must provide a framework for the judicious, affirmative, and cooperative use of local regulatory powers to achieve such objective. While it is clear that local government must affirmatively use its powers to help provide for the housing needs of lower-income segments of the community, it is not clear at what point local government can intervene in the housing market without causing serious disruptions in the marketplace. �Phe--Eat€£ern#e--Eeasta�--Eenunissien;--in--its--interpretive 6n4de£snes--en--Hew--Eenstrnetien--ef--Henning;--Hates--that usma£�er---prerjc L�--dacle --eeenem4�es---of---sea-le---4+i---the eons tree t=en--frr<�-es4,--•have--greater-�ejrelopmesrb-e.�t-,--nnd prevsde--e--3eNer--�3trnd�r-o€--markeb—rates--e�rer-+rPri.eh--f axed eests- maY--be-tirsi.�.'ir�ictzir.J�---Based-won--tk'ts-�'ea'sf�2'YrxJ'y--the Eenun$ssien-generag�y-exempts-frrojeels-ro�-fcxtr-nrtrL•s-er-less £ran+- its -£ne�ttsiereary- xsing -regtt remer .---Tile -feet—tkat the-Eetntnissien-adds-�txr�hez�1'-t��rrt--tlxe -&ta�-begss£attrre-has iimi tad--�t-��tve•-reQt�3a£3on--of-i-and--dsr4stens--tznder -tke 6ttbdieisien-Harr het-te- - t-a+ s -where-#ii a ar-mere units-are-being-ereated;u-provides-e-£nrther-indieetien-that this-is-en-apprepr#ate-tkreske�d-sine-£er-the-genera3:-pe�iey deeeiepers-do—*tot--ls�tve•-the-eeonomi��_=___`____`_1 Ito-prevsde far-tAe-ine�ttsien-of-dew--end-moderate-iaeeMe-hetesing-rritkin . tke-i#mite-a€-€}ex#bi}ity-as-provided-in-6eetien-39g�3: Page S. The factor of project size in determining the appropriate "threshold" for government regulation is well-established. In addition to the examples cited by the Coastal Commission, there are countless other federal, state, and local incidences where the imposition of government regulation is withheld because the small size of the project makes it incapable of absorbing the impact of the proposed regulation. The "economies of scale" principle, which holds that small size new construction projects should be treated differently in the face of certain governmental regulations, does not dissipate once new construction is completed. The inability to absorb the impact of government regulations which may require the provision of private market housing "subsidies" is no less for the owner of an existing project than for the developer of a new one. In fact, the builder may be able to redesign the project or utilize government incentives to mitigate the adverse effects of regulations] the owner of existing units has no such options. Governmental efforts to provide housing for low- and moderate-income households through the regulation of private property, such as rent control, inclusionary housing programs, and prohibitions on the conversion of rental units to ownership, have one thing in common: they attempt to control housing prices within the private market. Regardless of the social or political merits of such efforts, they are not without economic consequences. In housing markets of extreme shortage and intense demand, conditions which exist in most coastal communities, any governmental efforts to benefit one segment of the community are likely to adversely affect another. To illustrate: rent controls may result in affordable housing for renters, but they may also result in financial hardship for property owners. Inclusionary housing programs may provide affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households, but such programs may also reduce developers' profits, and increase housing costs for households that do not qualify for the inclusionary units. Ironically, such programs may benefit low-income households and diminish housing opportunities for moderate-income households, and vice versa, at the same time. Policies restricting changes in housing tenure, such as the conversion of rentals to ownership, may preserve affordable rental housing for some low- and moderate-income households, but such prohibitions may also limit ownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income households who are capable of entering the housing market through the conversion process, and who would benefit from ownership as a result of the tax policies which favor ownership. Page 6. 6nek-�zokikri ie>rrs -mad+-else-e3eneac3e property-ofiners- whcr-ere effeetiae�Y--aske&--'bY`-�o�ern�rl`a'�--aeh9ern-,--to--aeeegt--s rednetien-3tr-�-marlyet-ve3t�Krf--tke4r-property ---Hens--an � rented-eorrtexssrxr may abso--kaee-�aegat3vQ- f-isecrb-impaets-en tke-entire-eenm+anity-as-tke-tnrneeer-rate-ef-rented-gregerty is---&Ie e&----- ^-�__,r--seek---ge}#e#es-- me��--deter --tke eenstrnetien--o-f--new--zenta3s�--anrk-�he+�e?��-exus.��.e--the � kenning-greb�em-far-e��-renters- In short, governmental efforts to tinker with the housing market will beneficially affect some, and negatively affect others. Unfortunately, the issues of who will be affected, and the extent of the effect, cannot always be determined at the time governmental regulations are adopted. It is therefore incumbent upon the adopting unit of government to make every attempt to anticipate consequences, to proceed cautiously, and to balance or mitigate any anticipated detrimental effects. This shall be the overriding policy governing all attempts by the City to provide housing for all economic segments of the community. Since the adoption of the Housing Element the Planning Commission and City Council have held General Plan Implementation hearings which have resulted in the formation of the Housing Task Force on Government Funding. The City Council and Housing Task Force have identified the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds as a source of assistance for low and moderate income households within the Community. The City has also adopted a Mobile Home Park Zone to preserve and encourage a variety of housing types and preserve an existing source of housing for low and moderate income households. The rezoning hearings involving mobile home parks within the City have been initiated. To date one mobile home park has been rezoned (291 units) , one is currently being considered (60 units) , and three additional parks (210 units) have been identified for consideration. In addition to being identified as a site for density increase hearings, the North Ford Site has been identified as a potential housing site for low and moderate income households. Federal financing and subsidy programs have been used in the City of Newport Beach since the mid 1970's. The City of Newport Beach utilized CDBG funds to acquire land and construct a senior citizen center to provide services for a large identifiable lower income segment of the Community needing services not otherwise provided. Page 7. The federally funded Section 8 Rent Subsidy Program currently subsidizes 30 lower income renters in the City. Approximately 75% of these renters have very lbw incomes. There has been a 30% increase in utilization of the Section 8 Federal Rent Subsidy Program since the adoption of the Housing Element. The City of Newport Beach and a non-profit corporation made a cooperative effort to construct a senior citizen housing project of 101 units for low and moderate income households. The City made the project possible by amending its Zoning Code to include senior citizen housing as an institutional use. The parking standards were relaxed and all in-lieu fees were eliminated. The non-profit corporation received a low interest 202 construction loan from the Federal Government and the tenants receive Section 8 rental assistance. 2. Implementation Plan: The following activities will be undertaken in support of this objective: n:--When--app}3.ca�rle--fieeiera3--'re4�rla4eicxrs--and--dtn6e eneb}#ng---}eg#d}nt#en---ex#dt7---the---e#ty---Will #nvedt#grate--#l*s-pert#e#pet#ex--#n--the--#s�u�+n+se--ef tax-exempt-mortgage-revenue-bends-te-fuel}#tnte-the dove#epn�entT-eeMdtrnet#en;-nnd-f#nnne#rag-ef-heading fer-}ew--and-moderate-#raceme-keadehe}dd: a. The City's Housing Task Force on Government Funding shall evaluate the use of the Community Development Block Grant and, Tax-Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond Programs to facilitate the development, construc- tion and financing of housing for low and moderate income households. Use of these programs shall be considered for projects which include the construction of housing for low and moderate income households. br--eke-city-H#}}_eons#der-#td-renewed-part#e#pet#en-#n the--seaman#ty--cove}epment--B}eek--6rent--Pregrem; dabdegnent-te-an-ova}eat#en-by-tusk-force-nppe#rated by-the-6#tq-Bonne#}-te-exea#ne-the-meat-npprepr#ate used--o€-6BB6--funds--fer- __.�+�;-+ ?-pnrpededT enQ-the-#apaet-ef-app}#eeb}e-6BB6-regn}at#ene- sue--pedd#b}e--rase--ef--6BB6--fends--dha}}--be--t8e edteb}#dhment-e£-tit-giosrsiny--spportutrity Pttnc'Fs-which aay-�-ut��l+rred-te-fecf3�.tetc--L4� lvp:eerr�-nnd cent#need--aver.E�ei�l#ty-of-�fEordablc-�ottsing--£er -low--- f eh--Fund aka}�-be-cep#tn}lees-�r#tk-6BB6-add#dtenee=-nd-may Page 8 b e-ei�.criut2ir�y-��Se--ei�p-,--and--�w"�-ik>irti<x�s--f rem niajer--emp3apers--do-i-ng--�.rl;,�=.:--em--3ntendst�--te eperete-3.rr-He!!pr•+_��eaeel�r.---�1--speeyrf i�-f>rogranr-map be--fiorm�rlated--bp--tote--P3srtrring-�-?epae��nen�-to--seek prseete-partsespat3en-sn-the-�atid-.---Ncr-graeeeds-e f the--Pnnd--Weald--be--ntslsged--te--preasde--dsreet lab sidle s-te-et�p---hotzse3xoirt3-,-ix�-sh,��-ertp-genera £rend--approp�Y,etioxts--be-made:-- 3'r�iy-ible•-aet#sot#es Weald-snelnde-the-snstallatsen-ef-pal9�te-fae4�ittes #n--sapporb--crF-i*�e+�+�e��-isoassng--deee�epment; deeelepment-preeesssng;-and-related-sappert fnnetsens-that-dsreetlp-redaee-healing-eenstraetsen Bests---Er4terse-far-Heassng-6ppertanstp-Pared smpletnentatsen-Weald-be-deaelaped-bp-the-Planning BepartMent- As--en--alternetsve--te--EBBE--£ands--the--Planning Eenunsss sere---sixr�l---exp3ore---the---feesi�ri�eity---ef assessing-a-3-5Rr-ressdentsal-smpeet-fee-en-prepesed Berea+erese�-�xtrlc�i-ng--peinnst-fees-�nd�err--assesssne� mnjer-emplepers-£er-eentribnt€ens-te-the-£and- e---The---Planning---Bepartdent---shall---emplere---the feasibilitp-a€-� *+�*res--to--sfxrr-tke-eenstraetsen ef-rental-ansts- b. Rental housing shall be encouraged on sites identified for housing for low and moderate income households when the construction of ownership housing in a price distribution consistent with the Housing Element is not feasible. c. The city shall seek to maintain rental opportunities by restricting conversions of saeh rental units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental housing is 5% or higher for four consecutive quarters. All-ether-preesssens-of-estp regalatiens-geeerning-the-eeneersien-ef-residential prejeets-shah-eentsnne-sn-e£feet. d. The City shall preserve mobile home park land uses through the-estftbaA-jim ent -ef--a a combined program of mobile home park sane evaluation to determine which mobile home parks should be rezoned with the Mobile Home Park Zone. Page 9. e. The City shall continue to work in cooperation with the Orange County ,Housing Authority to provide Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance to residents of the community. The City will actively pursue modification of the fair market rent structure limits for the community in order to increase the number of Newport Beach housing units that will be eligible to participate in the program. f. For new developments proposed in the Coastal Zone, the City shall require the provision of housing affordable to persons or families of low or moderate income, where feasible. The units shall be located on-site where feasible, or off-site and inside the Coastal Zone, or off-site and within three (3) miles of the Coastal Zone (within the City) . Feasibility will be determined in accordance with Government Code 65900. The number of units will be determined in accordance with the other provisions of this Housing Element. g. The City shall use its discretionary authority to review and waive planning fees for projects with low and moderate income housing. Because rental housing is recognized as a significant source of low and moderate income housing, park dedication requirements shall not be extended to rental projects providing low and moderate income housing. h. on sites where a density increase has not been granted as part of the density increase program defined in Objective 3, and a developer proposes a tract map which includes at least 25 percent of the total units for persons of low and moderate income, the City shall grant at least a 25% density bonus or alternative incentives acceptable to the developer. 3. Target Date: The following implementation schedule shall be observed: a:--Pregrem-gas--4�.s--shei-i--be _:-:___ic�akdd-witkfa-esx aentke-fx�cnr-tom-dale-eE-passage-�-aLxte-eneb�4xg �egie�e6ien- a. Program 7a: This shall be done as projects with housing for low and moderate income households are proposed. L Page 10. 3anuery-31;-1982= e=--Pregrem-=rr; --�Fk3.s--sha��-be--sarttabed-trithi-n--six menth9--£yronr-tke--dctt.�-ef--edc:ph-i�xr-ef-�tehe--hen song element- b. Program 7b: This shall be done when ownership housing is not feasible on sites designated for housing for low and moderate income households. d=--Pregrem--�d-,--ley---�f:'---tFh3s--'pir©9i'am'--ski}fib--19e implemented-immedsetely- c. Program 7c: This Ordinance is currently in effect. d. Program 7d: These rezonings shall be done on an ongoing basis. e. Program 7e: This program shall be implemented immediately. f. Program 7f, 7g, 7h: These programs shall be utilized as projects are proposed. IFS P Page 11. I. Objective 9: To promote the conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of the existing housing inventory. 1. Finding: The city's existing housing supply is important for many reasons. Among them are the following: the character of the community is shaped largely by its residential neighborhoods; much of the city's tax base is in its housing inventory; housing opportunities for lower-income households are almost exclusively confined to existing housing; and a large portion of the individual wealth of many Newport Beach residents may be found in the equities of their homes. The existing housing supply also represents essentially the last hope for homeownership for many moderate- and middle-income families who find themselves priced totally out of the new home market. Because of the many functions which existing housing serves, special policy consideration must be given to its use and occupancy. Efforts must be expended to protect existing equities, preserve affordability for lower-income households, deter the spread of physical blight, preserve and strengthen the tax base, and extend opportunities for entry into homeownership. These varied objectives are not always compatible; extreme caution must be exercised by the city to balance these objectives and to avoid disrupting reasonable interaction within the housing market. The three principal objectives which should be pursued by the city with respect to its existing housing supply are 1) to conserve housing which complies, with applicable housing codes; 2) to rehabilitate and upgrade deteriorating inventory; and 3) to promote the redevelopment of blighted, obsolete, or inefficiently utilized housing resources. In general, housing conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment are best handled by the private sector. Local government can stimulate or deter such activities, however, by the nature of the policies which they adopt and enforce. The range of actions which the city may take to spur housing conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment include housing code enforcement, land acquisition, the provision of low interest loans, and the facilitation of private redevelopment through tenure conversion. If demand is strong, housing rehabilitation and redevelopment will occur without governmental involvement. All that is necessary are appropriate public policies which allow the law of supply and demand to operate. It is indisputable that areas which are characterized by physical blight, and which give indications of future deterioration, have a high incidence of rental properties and absentee Page 12. ownership. Increasing the rate of homeownership is often all that is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating neighborhood and to redevelop that neighborhood. �Pke---e�:x�er4icxr--,�--rental---gropertY�--•to---keMeewnersksp {eendemsnsums}-kns-�.mpi�.•eat�.rtxrs--that--�ne�t•-d€sen ss4an.---Y+he mentk�Y-expense-e£-ewnsng-a-eenverted-oust-ss-usne��y-hsgker than--the--frost---o�F--reattng,---as--o-- ---�t---o-€--prepertY £mprevemente---snereased--mortgage--casts;--prefsts--te--the eenve rterT---mx}---es se egatgen---ekxes---f er---�rta�trt.•enance---and fianagement--- i�ropertey -sexes- also -#nereese- as -a-resu-1-t -ef ks gker--Rss�cd•---vaitia•1-iexr:---�phese--casts--•�+or3r---to--the detrsment-af-fewer-sneeme-keusehe�ds- en-the- )Ciez-4tan&;--the-prespeet-o£ ee�ntirnzed -irr€lation-end the-£�enefdto-o€-long-term-ewnersksp-- lax dedrtibi�itg-ef interest--payments;--egtt4tY--lses�d-np;--and--prepertY--ea�tte nppreesatsen----#ertd - to - cYffset--sko-rt-terns--casts----The eenverssen--ef--rental--ousts--er--eendemsnsums7--rrhseh--are tpps eat�Y--smabler-irr--terms-rof-3•aving--space-�retr-ssng�e- £emssy-units=-provi a-kedge-against- ±tf *n,- and-their msnsmas-masntenanee-respenssbs�stses-make-them-attreetsve-te ene-person-•o-r- .::_ _�____-keusehe�ds=-vleleY�-hoLtseixrlds-,--and eskers--at--casts- `a`u`c--are-sie�3ri-fyceent•3.�-dc�we��-then--new eenstrnetsen-eests- Pram--4he--estp•+s-ateiitt•-o€--aiec�r,-- lrhe-•-eenverssen- o£--tenses • ousts--rnereases--asses-xd•--valises--off--property--taxes--end stsmu�ates--private---re�?��eie�pmerrr�----�-on�erPrs-icxrr--c}@--net; kewever;-eentribute-•to-•mai-rrtai-zri-ng--�Yte--supplybf-af ferdab�e heussng-•€er-3.•ow---emd-��ttr-i-stcorne-�onsekaids.---�t-shea�d be-•m8in�.va�irr-sn-lTfrJ-regard;-1ZITSL -e-�-i:cm--agagnst eendemsnsum--•er+n=._--_otrs---does--net---t._ee�sari-ly--preserve heussng-�id.�.•tY-fc:r•-rawer-4neeme-�aoasehoids--trr-areas ef-}rig}r-demands--fn--!•ke-}ong-rttn:--ifs--c+alttatri:on•-£nereases; rents--w-r��-wise--to--t,�-�eve�--wlreeYr-•ean--be=-suppor�teel--bY demand---At-thss-pesnt;-heweverT-the-nature-ef-the-demand-ss sske}Y-te-change---£nstead-ef-rental-ousts-being-eeeupsed-by ene-fattti3Y�-•i�eey--crr��-be-rented-by--ert��:�__`_i�m•-a€-tenants {etudents;-unmarried-eeup�es7-ate.-}---�Pkere-ss-evsdenee-that this-Pattern--has•--a- ready-�•o-i�-es�ebi-iskeel--sn--Plewpert Beeekr--3f--�n;.;nr-eta-eent4nue-ttneheeked•�--t}ris--pattern-may result—sn•-,e--}richer--snesdenee--a€-i�-l��t-�-��Ld--cute trn££se;-nesghberheed-snstebs�sty;-end-e-hsgker-ersme-rate- Hens sag-rehabs�#tetsen-e f farts-mnY-ska3i-�•-c-.rtcrouraged•-as-e menus--ef--maintairri ng--afiferrdabi�- haussng--fcrr--sew---and mederete-snceme--keusekesds----�Pe--aekseve--tkss--ebgeetsve; several--�eee�--governments--offer--dew--snterest--keens--te esdersY-estisens-•and- =�-i�±c��-ko�xseho-lds-.--�Pke•-sauree-e£ funde-£er-tkss-e£fert-ss-genere��y-the-EemmunstY-Beve�epment Beek-6rent-Pregrnm- Page 13. 2. Implementation Plan; a:--�Phe--air-Thai-3r-eunend—ibs-eone�o�rl:rr�.axn--eenvers4en erd�nnne e-ke-pezmi�-the--eonveralocr-o-5-rental-an#t s in- �=_;====-trF-fear--uirihs-ors-lrsa-4.w--er+nership benareT-beeease-o�-hhe--expetx3ed-opportuntbies-thek sack-*:!+s±s�diexr�roric�ea-ke- €rivtz:onc-heMebayero nnd-neM-en6ranCs-te-6he-heassng-market: a. The City shall submit an application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for CDBG Funds to financially assist the rehabilitation of housing for low and moderate income households. The Planning Department shall monitor the CDBG Program and make recommendations regarding the program to the City Council. b---�n--lba--evcrllzaMit>tr-bf--kh�-Een+etnnikY--B eae�epment Bye ek-F:rntrb-Pregra�nT-tlse--ei:ty-sha33- +--tke f e nsfb�l�ty-ezF-using-a-poririrm--of-3ach--f unds-for heas4ng-rehebr�ftatfen-parpesee: b. The City shall require the replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone when it is occupied by low and moderate income households. The details of these requirements are contained in adopted Council Policy N-4. 3. Target Dates: a---Program-9n---�Ph�s-shall-be-�tt�p�eMented-�nunedlately- a. The CDBG application shall be made for 1982 funds. b:--Pregran- 31r---ghie--slsabl Program-4b- b. This program shall be utilized as projects are proposed. L 4 • NEGATIVE DECLARATION • TO: Q Secretary for Resources FROM: - Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 .1 � Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 SantA Ana- CA 927n? NAME OF PROJECT: General Plan Amendment 82,1 (H) PROJECT LOCATION: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Staff Report dated August 19, 1982 FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining .to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: NONE INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulev rd, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Enmental Coordinator Date: nviro 0�`/1`/ VZ b . . . NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: - Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 I Mx Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 -Santa Ana. CA q?7n9 NAME OF PROJECT: General Plan Amendment 82,1 (H) PROJECT LOCATION: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Staff Report dated August 19, 1982 I FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: NONE IL INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulev rd, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: ` Environmental Coordinator Date: 9p r • NEGATIVE DECLARATION • TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: • Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 '1 Mx Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 NAME OF PROJECT: General Plan Amendment 82,1 (H) PROJECT LOCATION: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Staff Report dated August 19, 1982 FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: NONE INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulev rd, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental) Coordinator Date: � /0 � r = • Planning Commission Study Son June 10, 1982 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Housing Element Implementation Suggested Action I£ desired; (1) Set a date for a future Study Session for continued discussion of increased residential density and discussion of financing alternatives; and (2) Recommend to the City Council that a task force be appointed by the City Council to investigate the CDBG and mortgage revenue bond programs. Background At the Planning Commission Study Session of May 6, 1982 staff and several professionals from the housing development industry discussed the characteristics of higher density development. Based -on the information presented at this meeting the Commission made a recommendation to the City Council that a General Plan amendment be initiated to increase the residential density on the North Ford Site. On May 24 the City Council initiated the reramrended General Plan Amendment. Discussion Density Increases. Additional sites are currently being considered for increased residential density as part of General Plan Amendment 81-2. The sites included in GPA 81-2 are Caltrans West, Freeway Reservation West (Big Canyon) , and the two Fifth Avenue Parcels at Marguerite Avenue. High density alternatives are being considered for these three sites. Sites which have been identified for consideration of increased residential density in the Housing Element that have not been discussed include Westbay, Newporter North, Freeway Reservation East, Newport Center and the Fifth Avenue Parcel at Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. A sixth site, the Baywood Expansion Site, was added to the list of sites to be considered for density increases. This site could be used to expand an existing rental project. Housing Element Objective 7, which is directed at providing housing for low- and moderate-income households, identifies the providing of incentives to increase the construction of rental units as a means of increasing the stock of housing available to low- and moderate-income households. TO: Planning CoWsion - 2 • Discussion Housing Element. Housing Element Objective 7 also commits the City to investigation of mortgage bond programs, consideration of renewed participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program and continued cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide Section 8 rental assistance. The federally funded Section 8 program is currently implementing that portion of the housing program which requires the utilization of governmental funding sources to meet the needs of low- and moderate-inane households. Additional sources of governmental funds to be considered for use by the City are the mortgage revenue bond programs and CDBG programs. The Housing Element commits the City to creating a Council appointed flask force for investigation of the CDBG program. Financing Alternatives. In cases where incentives such as increased residential density can not be granted because of resulting project impacts or do not sufficiently reduce selling prices, additional financing or funding sources may be advantageous. These financial sources are available through both public agencies and private industry. Several financing programs are offered by private industry. Mortgage buy downs reduce interest rates to a lower rate over the life of the loan. These loans vary in length from 3 to 30 years. Mortgage subsidies or graduated interest loans have a base interest rate which is reduced through a subsidy for a defined period of time. Additional programs such as "sleeping seconds" (60-30-10 financing) , negative equity and others will be discussed at the study session. Several sources of funds are also available through government approved or funded programs. Three primary funding programs are discussed. Mortgage Bond Programs. The Mortgage Bond Subsidy Act of 1980 (federal legislation) authorizes the use of mortgage revenue bonds for mortgages to purchase newly constructed single-family housing, for financing new multi-family housing, for mortgages to purchase existing single-family housing, and for single-family housing improvement and rehabilitation loans. All mortgages must be new mortgages, and MRB proceeds cannot be used to acquire, replace, or refinance an existing mortgage. Mortgage assumptions are allowed if all other borrower and sales price requirements are met. The new mortgage requirement is excepted only in the case of a qualified housing rehabilitation loan. Borrower and sales price restrictions as they apply to different types of mortgages are summarized below: A. Newly Constructed Single-Family Units 1. For purposes of new construction, single-family units include detached, single-family dwellings, condominiums, stock cooperatives, and factory-built housing permanently fixed to a foundation. Land which is in excess of that necessary to maintain basic livability or which produces income cannot be included as part of a qualifying single-family dwelling. • TO: Planning Co�sion - 3 • 2. All mortgagors must use the acquired dwelling unit as their principal residence. 3. First-time homebuyer requirement: all mortgagors must not have owned an interest in property used as a principal residence for the previous three years. This does not apply to loan co-signers who do not have an ownership interest in the property. 4. Acquisition prices of dwelling units must be below 90% of the average area purchase price for new single-family units. Housing in Newport Beach would have to be priced at or below $104,760. B. New Construction of Single-Family Units in Target Ares: Newport Beach does not have a target area. C. Mortgages for Existing Single-Family Dwellings: 1. Existing single-family dwellings which can be financed by MMs include types of single-family units eligible for new construction plus two-, three-, and four-unit residences, one unit of which is owner-occupied. This latter type of structure is only eligible if it has been occupied for five years. 2. All existing single-family dwellings acquired must be occupied as the principal residence of the mortgagor. 3. First-time homebuyer requirement: all mortgagors must not have owned an interest in property used as a principal residence for the previous three years. 4. Acquisition prices of dwelling units must be below 90% of the average area purchase price for used single-family units. Housing in Newport Beach would have to be priced at or below $110,430. D. Home Improvement Loans Home Inprovement loans to a maximum of $15,000 may be made from bond funds for owner occupied single-family dwellings. These loans must be used for repairs or improvements to protect the basic livability of a unit or to inprove its energy efficiency. A larger rehabilitation loan may be made on houses identified as being over 20 years old. j TO: Planning C sion - 4 a Mortgage revenue bond programs in California must be implemented under the authority of one of the state statutes as well as the Mortgage Subsidy Bond Act of 1980. The major State programs for construction of single-family housing are AB 1355 and SB 99. Focal Housing Finance Agency Act of 1979 (AB 1355) This act was created to allow cities and counties in California to issue tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to reduce the shortage of affordable housing in the state. Mortgages financed under AB 1355 issues are to benefit persons not presently eligible for financing through the private sector. Special attention was given by the Legislature in drafting this act to avoid competition with private financial institutions, ,and to target assistance to harnbuyers at the lower end of the homebuying spectrum. Location and Character of Residential Construction Authorized by AB 1355: 1. AB 1355 authorizes cities and counties to issue revenue bonds to provide mortgage capital for owner-occupied single dwelling units, condominiums, or units in a stock cooperative where the occupant is a shareholder. 2. Mortgages may be provided for newly-constructed units located anywhere within a local jurisdiction provided that such a program is authorized by a local ordinance for the purpose of increasing the housing supply. 3. Loans may be provided for rehabilitation in local areas or neighborhoods designated for a housing rehabilitation or code enforcement program. Mortgages for the purpose of refinancing are not authorized unless substantial rehabilitation is to be undertaken in connection with such a loan. 4. Income limits under AB 1355 are as follows: a. Mortgages for new hones must be issued only to households whose incomes are 120% or less than the median household income. AB 1294 (Costa) amended this income limit to 150% of me-dian household income for a period of approximately one year. This may further limit the sales price of new housing to approximately $90,000. b. Mortgages for improving a have are to be issued only to households with incomes below 120% of the median household income. AB 1294 (Costa) raised this income limit to 150% of median household income for a period of approximately one year. c. Mortgages for homes where the purchaser will not be the first occupant must be issued to households with incomes below 100% of the median household income, with 1 TO: Planning Cot*sion - 5 • r 50% of such funds allocated to mortgages for households below 80% of the median or 90% where the local legislature has made a specific finding requiring this higher income level. AB 1294 (Costa) also amended these percentages to 120%, 100%, and 110%, respectively. d. Mortgages for new homes and for home improvement loans may be issued to households with incones below 150% of the median income if the financed units are within a special impact area as designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Title IV redevelopment area) and if the area is eligible for Urban Development Action Grant funds. This language was not removed by AB 1294 because of the temporary nature of the increases to income limitations. e. AB 1355 defines median household inane as the highest of the following: - State wide median household income; - Countywide median household inane; or - Median family income as determined by the U.S. Departmmt of Housing and Urban Development for the area. 5. All AB 1355 issues must allocate at least 60% of financing from bond proceeds to either new construction or substantial rehabilitation. Substantial rehabilitation costs are costs equal or in excess of 20% of the value of the structure after rehabilitation. Redeveloprmnt Construction Loan Act of 1975 (SB 99) The SB 99 program authorizes residential construction in urban redevelopment areas in order to stimulate the process of revitalization. The City of Newport Beach cannot participate in this program because it does not have a redevelopment program. Marks - Foran Rehabilitation Bonds Another bond program for rehabilitation funds does exist. This bond program is authorized by the Marks - Foran Residential Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The program is more flexible in terms of acceptable programs and does not require the existence of a redevelopment agency. This bond program does require participating agencies to prevent the displacement of rehabilitation area residents or provide relocation assistance if the rehabilitation of housing results in rent increases of other increases in housing costs that dislocate residents. TO: Planning C ssion - 6 • Multi-Family Housing The issuance of mortgage revenue bonds for multi-family housing is authorized by federal and state legislation. Unlike single-family MRB legislation, federal and state laws in regard to the use of revenue bonds for multi-family housing are essentially the same. Federal Law The Mortgage Subsidy Bond Act of 1980 details federal authorization of multi-family revenue bonds under Section 103(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. It requires that multi-family projects financed with revenue bonds reserve a minimum of 20% of total units for occupancy by lacer-income households. Projects in target areas must reserve only 15% of total units for lower-income occupancy. The federal law does not impose a limit on the amount of bonds to be issued for multi-family housing, although state legislation does limit the amount in order to avoid an oversupply of tax-exempt bonds in the market. State Laws City and County Issuances: Until recently, only charter cities were authorized to issue tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to finance the construction of multi-family housing. on March 12, 1982, AB 665 was signed into law by the Governor authorizing all cities and counties to issue mortgage revenue bonds for this purpose. AB 665 will remain in effect until January 1, 1984. This new law also authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds to finance construction loans or mortgage loans to the sponsors of multi-family housing and to finance the provision of capital improvements necessary for such multi-family housing. Cities and counties may also make loans to lending institutions for this purpose. CouTercial property may be financed in conjunction with multi-family projects if the financing for such property does not exceed 10% of the proceeds of the issue, and if the commercial property is on the same parcel or the parcel adjacent to the multi-family parcel. Any revenues earned on the commercial project in excess of debt service, reserves, and operating expenses related to the project must be used to reduce rents on units within the multi-family project reserved for law- and very low-intone households. Not less than 20% of all multi-family units in a project financed by revenue bonds must be reserved for occupancy, on a priority basis, by lower-income households, defined as households whose income is below income limits of the HUD Section 8 housing program. To the extent feasible, half of the reserved units must be reserved for very low-income households. Sponsors of such multi-family projects must enter into a regulatory agreement with the issuing agency providing that these units be reserved for lower-income occupancy y TO: Planning CcOssion - 7 • for at least 20 years. This agreement is to be binding upon succeeding owners of the property. Cities and counties are authorized by AB 665 to enter into an agreement with the California Housing Finance Agency to issue bonds for multi-family housing projects. in such an instance, CHFA will supervise construction and management of the development, and the same rules apply in regard to reserving units for occupancy by lower-income households. The new law limits the amount of bonds to be issued for multi-family housing in any calendar year to $900,000,000. In order to administer this limit, each city or county intending to issue bonds for multi-family housing must report its plans ,to the State Treasurer, who will monitor and limit issuances to this amount. Community Development Block Grant Program. The Community Development Block Grant Program is an assistance program that provides funds to public agencies for a variety of programs. Recent changes in CDBG regulations specify that the application need only be a written statement of the general goals of the proposed program. Program applications must be submitted by September 30, 1982. Newport Beach qualifies as an entitlement city because the city's population is in excess of 50,000. As an entitlement city Newport Beach has $496,000 in grant fund available. These entitlement funds can be used for the acquisition of land for construction of public facilities (parking facilities) or public works projects, and the construction costs of such projects. Block Grant funds may be used to acquire land for the development of housing for low- and moderate-income persons. A rehabilitation / program of publicly or privately owned housing is also permitted by the Block Grant Program. As part of these programs a participating agency must agree to a number of assurances. The more significant of these assurances are the affirmative action requirements for person involved with the project, the requirement for employment of the local labor force on the project, the preparation of a Housing Assistance plan and possibly an assurance that housing would be preserved for low- and moderate-inane people for a definite period of time. Section 8 Program. The Section 8 rental assistance program has undergone extensive revision and will continue to receive funds. Currently 25 residents of Newport Beach receive rental assistance under this program, 19 (76%) of which are defined as very low income (below 50% of the Orange County Median income) . This program is administered by the Orange County Housing Authority. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director G T. Senior Pfanner CTB:nma THE IRVINE =PAW 55d Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92660-9959 (714) 720.2000 June 10, 1982 Planning Commission 4 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: Study Session on Financing Programs for Affordable Housing Madame Chairman and Commission Members: We appreciate these opportunities to share our views and experiences with building affordable housing in Orange County. Attached for your reivew is a ,packet of information assembled from our files which provides an overview of the problem of financing new housing construction which is affordable primarily to moderate income families. As a result of your review of the Housing Element Implementation Program, we would like to suggest that the City take the following actions in re- lation to available housing programs: 1 . Prepare a Housing Assistance Plan in order to qualify for City partici- pation in the Section 8 existing housing program and Section 202 construction of housing for elderly program. 2. Adopt resolution as required to participate in the County of Orange's Mortgage Revenue Bond Program for financing affordable housing, such as Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Loans-to-Lenders Program (for apartment construction and for sale housing). 3. Ensure compatibility of Condominium Conversion Ordinance with require- ments of financial institutions pertaining to condominium tract map approval as a condition of loan approval for apartment construction. 4. Reapply for participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program, and designate use of the proceeds to reduce the cost of off- site improvements and land. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have on these recommenda- tions. i truly yours, as H. Nielsen or Vice president Community Development THN/lk i INDEX OF REPORTS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM 1. Single-Family Bond Program -- City of Irvine cooperative agreement for participation in County bond program. Same type of form is required for multi-family projects. 2. Board of Supervisors Memo re 1982 Single-Family Housing Revenue Bond Issue. 3. County Bond Offering Statement - Single-Family Program 4. First Interstate Bank Apartment Loans Program. 5. Multi-Family Bond Program - Sample city resolution authorizing issuance of bonds. 6. Description of Multi-Family Project -- San Diego. 7. Apartment Loans Program Memo - Newman & Associates. 8. Loan to Lenders Program Description. 9. Summary of State and Federal Programs from City of Orange Housing Needs Assessment Report (Wildan Associates) l r A ,t,1 .` • U May 14, 1982 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR: CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 25, 1982 SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION IN ORANGE COUNTY HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE ADOPTING A HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE PROGRAM IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE (ATTACHMENT 1) . 2. Approve subject to City Attorney approval, and authorize the Mayor to execute a cooperative agreement between the County of Orange and the City of Irvine (Attachment 2) . ISSUES: 1. Should Irvine enter into a cooperative agreement with Orange County to participate in the County' s Home Mortgage Finance Program? 2. Should the Woodbridge Alders project be approved for financing through this program? HISTORY: The Alders site, located at the corner of Culver Drive and Alton Parkway, was originally proposed for apartment development by The Irvine Company and Irvine Pacific. A tentative tract map was approved in August, 1978; and a site plan and conditional use permit were approved in December, 1979. A preliminary commitment for Section 8 Rental Assistance for 80 units on this site was received from HUD in October, 1980. These units were intended to count towards satisfaction of the lawsuit settlement commitment. With the subsequent change in federal administration, it was not possible to secure construction financing through HUD. The Irvine Company thenproposed to develop the site with condominium units, 2/3 of which would be priced to satisfy the city' s inclusionary zoning requirements. The tract map was revised accordingly, and the conditional use permit and site design were approved on October 15, 1981. s-� C.C. Meeting May 20, 1982 Orange County Mortgage Page 2 Finance Program In February, 1982, Orange County began planning for a mortgage revenue bond issue, pursuant to the federal Mortgage Subsidy Bond Tax Act of 1980 and California's Costa-Marks Act. The County program included the opportunity for cities to participate in the program, and Irvine Pacific indicated an interest in reserving bond proceeds for use on the Alders project. At that time, however, the County required resale controls on all projects financed with bond proceeds, including those in participating cities that did not have resale control policies of their own. Under these circumstances, Irvine Pacific did not pursue the program. On March 9, 1982, the Orange County Board of Supervisors decided that resale controls are not required on projects in participating cities, as long as such projects are in compliance with the city' s housing element. With this change in requirements, The Irvine Company intends to use County bond proceeds for the Alders project. Before bond proceeds may be used in a city, Orange County requires approval,by resolution, of a cooperative agree- ment, and approval of the specific project to be financed with the bond proceeds. These approvals must be given no later than May 26, 1982. ANALYSIS: Orange County plans to issue up to $76 million in mortgage revenue bonds prior to August 19, 1982. The target dates for marketing the bonds are from May 26 to June 6, 1982. The proceeds from these bonds will be used for mortgage subsidies in unincorporated areas of the County and in participating cities. It is anticipated that 30-year, fixed rate mortgages will be used, and that, with private mortgage insurance, the rate to the borrower will be approximately 14%. All of the responsibilities for administering the bond sale and disbursement of the proceeds will be borne by the County. There will be no City program administration require- ments beyond the usual monitoring of inclusionary units. For city projects, state law limits the qualifying income for participating households to 120% of the county median income. This is consistent with the definition of moderate income in Irvine' s Housing Element. Affordable prices for the units are defined as those which qualified households can afford using FHLMC lending standards assuming a 10% down payment and including principal, interest, property taxes, insurance (including private mortgage insurance) and homeowner association dues. These 5 � - C.C. Meeting May 20, 1982 Orange County Mortgage Page 3 Finance Program standards are flexible, and allow payments ranging from 28% to 33% of monthly income. Under Irvine' s inclusionary program, units are priced at a maximum of three times the income limit- ation, without giving consideration to financing costs. Prices satisfying requirements of the County bond program would likely be lower than those normally allowed for city inclusionary units and, therefore, consistent with Irvine' s Housing Element. CONCLUSION: The Orange County Home Mortgage Finance Program presents an opportunity to make affordable units with low-cost financing available in Irvine, with no administrative burden on the City. The program requirements are consistent with Irvine' s Housing Element with regard to income limits, pricing and resale controls. The specific project involved, Woodbridge Alders, is one that has a historyas a hopeful affordable housing project, which could finally be realized through this program. Staff recommends that the City Council take advantage of this opportunity by adopting the program in cooperation with Orange County. Report prepared by: Sharon Wood Sub d by: Approved by: RY K OH GLE WILLIAM W OLLE /u1�� "or City hiana er Director of Community Development y g SW:bb cc: John Gibson, Orange County CAO Mike Banzhaf, TIC Richard Moran, Irvine Pacific �=3 0 L RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE ADOPTING A HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE PROGRAM IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE WHEREAS, there is a shortage in the County of Orange (the "County") and in the City of Irvine (the "City" ) of decent, safe and sanitary housing, particularly of housing affordable by persons in the lower end of the purchasing spectrum, and a consequent need to encourage the construction, purchase and rehabilitation of homes affordable by such persons and otherwise to increase the housing supply in the City and in the County for such persons; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County has resolved to engage in a home mortgage finance program (the "Program") pursuant to Part 5 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the "Act") for persons and families within the income limits established by the Act and has determined to issue revenue bonds pursuant to the Act to provide funds for the Program; and WHEREAS, this City Council finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the City to adopt the Program and to consent to the implementation of the Program by the County within the geographic boundaries of the City pursuant to the Act; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City hereby adopts the Program for the purpose of increasing the housing supply in the County and in the City and consents to the implementation of the Program by the County with respect to all property located within the geographical boundaries of the City. SECTION 2. The cooperative agreement, dated as of May 25, 19 , etween the County and the City (the "Agreement") , in substantially the form submitted to this meeting, is hereby approved; and the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver said Agreement, for and in the name and on behalf of the City, and to approve any additions to or changes in said form of the Agreement which he may deem necessary or advisable, his approval of such additions or changes to be conclusively evidenced by his execution of said Agreement as so added to or changed. The Mayorofthe City is further author- ized to enter into such additional agreements with the County, execute such other documents and take such other actions as he may deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of the Agreement or to cooperate in the implementa- tion of the Program. SECTION 3. The project known as Woodbridge Alders, located at t-Fe corner of Culver Drive and Alton Parkway is approved for financing through the Program. This project has previously received City approvals for subdivision, conditional use permit and site design; and can be expected to be constructed substantially as shown in such City approval documents. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon is adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Irvine at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of May, 1982. MAYOR OF THE CITY OF IRVINE ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF IRVINE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF IRVINE ) I, NANCY C. ROWLAND, City Clerk of the City of Irvine, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the-City Council of the City of Irvine, held on the 25th day of May, 1982, by the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF IRVINE S-5 i 0 ! N . * COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF IRVINE THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (the "Cooperative Agree- ment") is hereby made and entered into as of May 25, 1982, by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a legal subdivision and body corporate and politic of the State of California (the "County") , and the CITY OF IRVINE, a municipal corporation of the State of California (the "City") . W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the County has determined to engage in a home mortgage finance program (the "Program") pursuant to Part 5 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the "Act") to make or acquire, directly or in- directly, long-term loans to finance the construction and acquisition of homes in the County, all as provided for in said Act; and WHEREAS, the County has determined to borrow money to finance the Program by the issuance of revenue bonds (the "Bonds") as authorized by the Act and by the provisions of the Costa-Marks Housing Bond Allocation Act of 1981 (the "Costa- Marks Act") ; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted the Program and deter- mined to cooperate with the County pursuant to the Act in the exercise of their powers under the Act for the purposes of the Program; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual coven- ants hereinafter provided, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1. The words and phrases of this Cooperative Agreement s a or all purposes hereof unless otherwise de- fined herein, have the meanings assigned to such words and phrases in the Act and in the Costa-Marks Act. SECTION 2. The County agrees to use its best efforts to underta e t e Program and to issue the Bonds therefor pursuant to the Act as soon as the County determines the same to be nec- essary and advisable. 5- to SECTION 3. The City represents and warrants to the County that: (i) the City has heretofore adopted a general plan for the City in conformance with the provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law of the State of California (Government Code Sections 65000 et seq. ) , (ii) ,said general plan includes a land use element and a housing element as required by Government Code Section 65302 , and (iii) the Program complies with said land use element and housing element. SECTION 4. The City agrees that the County may make or acquire home mortgages under the Program, all as more specif- ically set forth in the Act, with respect to property located within the geographic boundaries of the City and that any and all of its powers for the purpose of financing home mortgages pursuant to the Act with respect to such property shall be exercised by the County; and the City hereby assigns to the County the City' s entitlement allocation pursuant to the Costa- Marks Act for calendar year 1982; provided, however, such assignment shall be effective solely for use by the County to provide financing for properties located within the City (in- cluding a proportionate share of the costs of issuance, under- writ under- writers' discount capitalized interest, reserve funds, and similar expenses associated with the Bonds) , and the amount of the City' s entitlement allocation so assigned shall be deter- mined by the County and notice thereof shall be given to the City within thirty (30) days after the issuance of the Bonds, and notwithstanding the foregoing, such assignment shall not be deemed ineffective if, after the issuance of the Bonds and for reasons beyond the control of the County, the County is unable to use all or any portion of the City's entitlement allocation assigned hereby to provide financing for properties located within the City and the same is used instead to redeem Bonds or to provide financing for properties located elsewhere in the County. However, no financing pursuant to the Program shall be made available for a home which is constructed within the City subsequent to the date hereof without the City Council' s prior approval of the use of such financing for the development within which such home is to be constructed. SECTION 5. The City agrees to refrain from partici- pation in a ome mortgage finance program from which bond pro- ceeds would be made available to provide financing for homes in projects with respect to which the City Council has approved the use of financing from the Program pursuant to Section 4 hereof. In addition, in recognition of the transfer of jurisdiction effected by the provisions- of Section 4 hereof, the City agrees not to issue any qualified mortgage bonds during calendar year 1982 the principal amount of which, when added to the principal amount of the Bonds deemed hereunder to have been issued for the benefit of property within the City, will exceed any limit established by 'the Costa-Marks Act. -2- s- SECTION 6. The City agrees to undertake such further proceedings or actions as may be necessary in order to carry out the terms and the intent of this Cooperative Agreement; and the City further agrees to refrain from taking any action which would to its knowledge tend to adversely affect the rating on the Bonds. SECTION 7. Nothing in this Cooperative Agreement shall prevent the County from entering into one or more agreements with other municipal corporations within the County, if deemed neces- sary and advisable to do so by the County. SECTION 8. This Cooperative Agreement may be amended by one or more supplemental agreements executed by the County and the City at any time, except that no such amendment or supplement shall be made which shall adversely affect the rights of the holders of the Bonds. SECTION 9. This Cooperative Agreement shall expire and be of no further force and effect if no portion of the Bonds are deemed .to have been issued for the benefit of property within the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Cooperative Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized, and their official. seals to be hereto affixed, all as of the day first above written. -3- w• COUNTY OF ORANGE BY Chairman of the Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Counsel CITY OF IRVINE BY Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney -4- 5 5 �FR,p�,Caucln R. E. THOMAS • COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 4 U N-rY ® 1= HALL OF ADMINISTRATION ' 30 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 1 '• SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 3 p� TELEPHONE: 034.2345 5 Z FLAN Gt� AREA CODE 714 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 1 May 25, 1982 t Board of Supervisors County of Orange Santa Ana, CA � SUBJECT: 1482 SERIES II SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BOND ISSUE Honorable Board Members: During the preparation of the County's 1982 Series I Single Family Housing Revenue Bond Issue, it was planned that if market conditions improved, the County slid participating cities would market a second 1982 housing revenue bond issue. Based on recent bond issues by other jurisdictions and near-term projections, bond market conditions have improved significantly and preparation of the 1982 Series II Single Family Housing Revenue Bond Issue should begin with an anticipated marketing date of the first week in June. The structure of the upcoming bond issue will be nearly identical to the Series I issue. It is anticipated that the issue size will be approximately $75 million. The only structure changes proposed for your Board's consideration are: 1. The potential inclusion of financing for resales on a limited basis. The cities of Huntington Beach, Yorba Linda, Santa Ana, and Tustin responded to the County's original request for participation in the County's upcoming bond issue. Their requests were specifically mentioned in the `County's mortgage revenue bond allocation request to the State. Consequently, certain amounts were specifically earmarked for use in each city's jurisdiction. Subsequently, developers have withdrawn, modified or reduced requests creating the potential for allocation loss if the funds were not used in the original jurisdiction. To utilize the available Huntington Beach funds, the Huntington Beach Board of Realtors has proposed I using the funding for financing resales to qualified buyers in the city jurisdiction. The basic qualifications are first-time homebuyers whose income does not exceed 100% of the County median I income with 50% of the funds being used for purchasers with incomes below 80% of the median. The Huntington Beach Board of Realtors is presenting a request to the city council to sign a cooperative agreement with the County to use Huntington Beach's mortgage C. EACH SUP,. - AO & COCO Honorable Board o0pervisors • ` y May 25, 1982 Page 2 revenue bond allocation to finance qualified resales. It is proposed that staff be authorized to draft the necessary cooperative agreement to utilize mortgage revenue bond funds for resales on a pilot basis in Huntington Beach and to contact the remaining cities and the appropriate Boards of Realtors to determine if there is any interest in participating in a pilot resale financing program with any unused funds from the allocation to each city. Additionally, statutes require that another $2.75 million of mortgage revenue bond funds be reserved for one year for use in the one designated target area located in jurisdictions participating in the bond program. The target area is located near Laguna Hills Leisure World bounded by E1 Toro Road, the San Diego Freeway and Laguna Canyon Road/Laguna Freeway. There are known new construction projects meeting program criteria in this area. Therefore, it is proposed that staff be authorized to contact the Saddleback Board of Realtors to determine if there is any interest in participating in a resale financing program. Any use of funds for a resale financing program should be on a pilot basis with adequate review and evaluation before future use of funds to finance resales. 2. Resolicitation of lenders for lower origination and servicing fees. Subsequent to the County's Series I issue other California issuers have received loan origination services for the same fee as the current fee to the County, but-the servicing fees have been as low as 18 basis points versus the 25 the County is now paying. It is requested that CAO-Bond/Capital Funding Manager be authorized to contact all lenders that have indicated an interest in participating in the mortgage revenue bond program on the basis that the maximum fee the County will pay is 50 basis points for origination plus $200 closing costs and 18 basis points for servicing+, This will translate into a direct 7 basis point savings for the program mortgage interest rate. The proposed upcoming bond issue is a continuation of the utilization of the 1982 State mortgage bond allocation. As previously reported to your Board, the financing team was hired to complete this year's State allocation and the following have indicated their desire to complete the second in the series of issues under the same terms and conditions as the recently completed issue: Security Pacific Bank--Trustee Investor's Mortgage--Program Administrator/Private Mortgage Insurer A. G. Becker--Senior Managing Underwriter E. F. Hutton--Co-Manager Salomon Brothers=Co-llanager Dean Witter Reynolds--Co-Manager Merrill Lynch--Co-Manager Blyth Eastman Paine Webber--Co-Manager Staff is recommending a revision in the contract for bond counsel services. The County has utilized co-bond counsels with one firm specializing in real estate to provide the expertise necessary to I� Honorable Board o0uperyisors • May 25, 1982 Page 3 address the development and modification of the County's resale control program. As the resale control program modifications have now been completed, the need for the specialized real estate expertise will be greatly minimized. Therefore, it is proposed that the contract for bond counsel services be revised to the effect that Irell and Manella be designated Special Counsel and Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth continue as Bond Counsel. To the extent there is requirement for the specialized expertise provided by Irell and Manella, the services can be billed on a direct hourly basis. This will save $25,000 in bond counsel fees less the cost of any utilization of Irell and Manella services. Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth has submitted a letter agreement (Attachment I) reflecting the above changes. It is recommended that the agreement be approved and the Clerk of the Board authorized to sign the agreement. It is further recommended that the CAO-Bond/ Capital Funding Manager with the assistance of County Counsel be authorized to negotiate a letter agreement with Irell and Manella for their services as Special Counsel. The completed agreement will be submitted to the Housing Revenue Bond Advisory Committee for their review and approval prior to submission of the contract to your Board for final. approval. The rating agencies will require an update of the feasibility study and an amendment to the study to meet the requirements for the inclusion of any housing resale financing in the bond issue. Questor Associates, a well-recognized California firm, has informally contacted County staff to indicate their interest in performing the study update at a very reasonable fee. Due to the very short timeframe for completion of the study, it is recommended that the CAO-Bond/Capital Funding Manager with the assistance of County Counsel be authorized to contact Plantec Corporation, the firm that conducted the feasibility study for the recent bond issue, and any other qualified firm to negotiate a contract for completion of the feasibility study update for the Chairman of the Board's signature. The contract would not exceed $8,000. If the bonds were not issued in a reasonable length of time, the fee would, be a liability of the County. As previously indicated, the structure of the upcoming bond issue will be the same as the first 1982 housing revenue bond issue. It is requested that your Board approve the utilization of the final documents from the first 1982 issue as the draft documents for the upcoming issue and authorize staff to make the necessary amendments to reflect the previously discussed changes and any other minor technical legal changes. The final documents will be presented to your Board for review and approval. Attachment II is• a listing of all the projects that have been submitted for inclusion in the proposed bond issue. Developers have been requested to sign a Developer Agreement without paying the commitment fee by May 20, 1982 to indicate their clear understanding of the terms and conditions and their firm intent to participate in the bond issue. If a developer subsequently 'wit'kdraws after signing the agreement, they would be placed in the lowest priority for participation in any subsequent 1982 or 1983 bond issues. To the extent there remains any oversubscription, staff will recommend a priority system to your Board for final project approval and selection. The material in this report has been discussed with the Housing Revenue Bond Advisory Committee and they unanimously concur in the recommendations. —_ •w...n......•............r...v....�..e-wv.nwewi.r.+✓�eraav+uwavvmaa...ar+rra++.++wuu«..ex..».r...aa.+.•W_t..•:L".Yat4te�4.1viy»y4' ' Honorable Board o0pervisors • - May 25, 1982 Page 4 If you have any questions, please contact John Gibson at 834-6135. Recommendations 1. Approve the development of the 1982 Series II Single Family Housing Revenue Bond Issue. 2. Authorize on a pilot program basis the inclusion of housing resale financing as described in this letter. 3. Authorize the CAO-Bond/Capital Funding Manager to request lender proposals for loan origination and servicing for program loans with origination fees not to exceed 50 basis points plus $200 closing costs and servicing fees not to exceed 18 basis points. 4. Authorize the CAO-Bond/Capital Funding Manager and County Counsel to negotiate the contract for special counsel services with bell and Manella as outlined in this letter and authorize the Clerk of the Board to sign the letter agreement for bond counsel services with Stradling, Yoeca, Carlson & Rauth. 5. Authorize the continuation of the remaining members of the financing team for the Series II issue under the same terms and conditions as the Series I Housing Revenue Bond Issue. 6. Authorize utilization of Standard and Poors for bond rating services. 7. Authorize the CAO-Bond/Capital Funding Manager with the assistance of County Counsel to negotiate a contract for an update of the feasibility study in an amount not to exceed $8,000 for the Chairman of the Board's signature. 8. Approve the utilization of the final documents from the Series I bond issue as the draft documents for the Series II issue and authorize staff to make necessary changes subject to final approval of the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, (9] I certify that Section 29 of the Board Rules of Procedure hasAbeen c mplied with , Tlioma � County Administrative Officer JHG:kh Attachments STMN-DLIXG, YOCCA, CARLSON & AdUTI-I FEIT7.R.SIMAMUNO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION NICE E.YOCCA ATTORNEYS AT LAW C.CRAIG CAIIILSON SUITE 800,UNION BANK BUILDING wILLTAII R.RAVIII III H.C.SCIIAAP 610 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE JOANE.33Rzcn=TRDOL• RICHARD C.GDOD:SAN POST OFFICE BOX 7680 OF COUNSEL JOHN J.NIUEPHY TnoxAs P.CLAEII,JR, NEWPO:RT BEACB,.CALIPOnNIA 99660-OG80 BENA.FRYDXAv TELEPHONE (714) 640-7035 DAVID R.MCEN En DESEE IV.HUNT PAVD L.GAI.E NI.D.TAImoT - DOVOLAS P.HIOHAH B.KURT YL'AOEE DAu H.CA8LsoN May 18, 1982 RwxDAZI.J.SHEE:KY ' B.ADAI&ALLTSON BRUCE FEUCHTED LAw Iuvcn D.FI2ENZEL S.I{AIHVIEN LEE Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange c/o Mr. John Gibson 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 Re: Single Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Issue II of 1982 Dear Supervisors: After discussions with John Gibson concerning the above referenced financing, we are prepared to offer bond counsel services, as opposed to co-bond counsel services, in connection therewith at a reduced fee level from that set forth in our letter of October 21, 1980. The services which we would perform as bond counsel would be identical to those set forth in said letter. However,. the base fee set forth therein would be reduced from $75, 000 •to $50,000. In all other respects the terms and conditions of our agreement with the County would be identical to those set forth in said agreement. If this arrangement is satisfactory to the County, its acceptance noted on a duplicate of this letter and delivered to us shall show the agreement between us. Very truly yours, STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH John J. Murphy JJM:pw This proposal .is accepted by the County of Orange on this day of 1982. Attacbment II = REMATNING REQUESTS--FIRST AND SECOND MRB PRIORITY PROJECT LOCATION DEVELOPER PROJECT NAME UNITS REQUESTED AMOUNT I Unincorporated Gfeller Kellogg Terrace 50 $ 6,500,000 ` Unincorporated Elite (Sterling) The Springs 136 8,350,000 Unincorporated Carma-Sandling Whiting Ranch 315 11,318,000 Yorba Linda John D. Lusk Green Hills 93 7,800,000 Santa Ana Cord Land 22 1,600,000 Unincorporated S&S • Casa Breve 208 17,250,000 • Garden Grove Elite Lake Grove 92 4,000,000 Unincorporated Carma-Sandling Beacon Hill 352 33,682,000 Fountain Valley Hansen-Conzelman 166 13,000,000 Irvine Irvine Pacific Woodbridge Alders 20,000,000 TOTAL PRIORITY I $123,500,000 II New Requests After 4/13/82 Santa Ana William & Louis 8 $ 656,500 Costa Mesa William & Louis 6 492,500 Garden Grove Reda Development 40 3,186,000 TOTAL PRIORITY II $ 4,335,000 I TOTAL $127,835,000 • I i I ` � FI AA i% ? J' 1' , ee I �•' R. E. THOMAS (� � COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER `" ( ®U YV Il�}-Y ® 1 11= HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA SANTA AN A,CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: 834.2345 5 3 / �� a AREA CODE 714 1 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE April 13, 1982 Board of Supervisors County of Orange Santa Ana, CA Subject: Approval of the Form of the Final Official Statement for the County's Single Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bond Issue of 1982 Honorable Board Members: ` Attached for your review and approval are the final Official Statement for the subject bond issue and a proposed approving resolution with authorization for the Auditor-Controller and Tax Collector-Treasurer to execute the final Official Statement. The bond issue received a "AA" rating from Standard and Poors and was sold at a net interest cost of approximately 12.92% resulting in a stated mortgage interest rate of 13.375%. Federal statutes governing the issuance of mortgage revenue bonds require that of the total amount of the bond issue, a certain portion of funds be reserved for use in any target areas in the unincorporated territory or participating cities. A target area is any census tract (1970 census) in which 70% of the households have an income of less than 80% of the State median income at the time of the census. There is one target area. It is located in the unincorpor- ated territory consisting of census tracts 626.21, 626.22, 626.23 generally located in the Laguna Hills Leisure World area. The required amount for reservation is $2,772,578. Each developer has agreed to allow 51 of their funds to be withheld for use in the target area. However, several of the developers anticipate utilizing their bond funds during the first year of the bond issue and the reservation of funds would cause their projects not to be fully funded. To assist with this problem and facilitate the implementation of the bond issue, 1-7A ' Honorable Board of S visors April 13, 1982 Page 2 Mission Viejo Company, S&S, and Pacesetter have agreed to allow any funds used in the target area to be taken from their allocation of funds (a significant proportion of these allocations will not be utilized until the second or third year of the bond issue) on the basis that the developers will be paid 5 basis points for any funds that are so utilized and that they have a first priority position in subsequent bond issues to replace any funds lost. The 5 basis points provides a 1/2 basis point return to the developers over their initial 4 1/2 basis point commitment fee to partially compensate them for the loss of use of the funds. Attached is a proposed amendment to the Mission Viejo Company, S&S, and Pacesetter developer agreements reflecting the necessary revisions. In four to six weeks, the housing revenue bond financing team will continue the series of bond issues to utilize the remainder of the $130.8 million State allocation to the County and participating cities. If you have any questions, please contact John Gibson at 834-6135. Recommmendations 1. Approve the draft resolution. 2. Authorize the Clerk of the Board to sign the Developer Agreement amendment on behalf of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, �J I certify that Section 29 of the Board Rules of Procedure has been c mplied with. r4m - �4uyAdministrative Officer JHG:kh Attachment 1-8A I AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPER AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPER AGREEMENT, dated as of April 12 , 1982 , is by and between PACESETTER HOMES , INC. ( the "Developer" ) and the COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA ( the "Issuer" ) . W I T N E S S E T H: The Developer and the Issuer have heretofore entered into a Developer Agreement dated as of April 1 , 1982, ( the "Developer Agreement" ) , pursuant to which the Issuer has agreed to reserve funds from the sale of bonds for the purchase of mortgage loans to finance the purchase of certain residences to be constructed by the Developer; and WHEREAS , pursuant to Section 4. 01 of the Developer Agreement, the Issuer is permitted to designate a portion of the funds so reserved for use in connection with Targeted Area Residences, within the meaning of that phrase as defined in the Developer Agreement, rather than for use in connection with residences to be constructed by the Developer; and WHEREAS , the Developer and the Issuer wish to amend said Section 4.01 of the Developer Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, •the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, and for and in consideration of the mutual promises, representations and agreements herein contained, hereby agree as follows: SECTION 1. Section 4. 01 of the Developer Agreement hereby is amended to read as follows: Section 4. 01. Reservation of Funds. The Issuer hereby agrees to reserve funds in the Program Fund for the purchase of Loans on Developer Reserved Single Family Residences in an aggregate principal amount equal , as nearly as practicable, to the amount of the Developer' s Reservation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Administrator, acting on behalf of the Issuer, may direct that a portion of such reserved funds be used by the Trustee for the purchase of Loans made with respect to Targeted Area Residences, rather than Developer Reserved Single Family Residences , during the year beginning on May 1 , 1982 and ending on April 30 , 1983. The maximum amount of such reserved funds which may be so utilized shall be the lesser of: , (a) 54. 074705% of the total amount of funds utilized for Targeted Area Residences during said one-year period, or (b) $1 ,499 ,26,3. In the event any money in the Program S ; Fund is used to purchase a Loan on a Targeted Area Residence, the Developer ' s Reservation shall be reduced ratably along with the reservations of S & S Construction Company, Inc. and Mission Viejo Company and any other developer whose draw-down of its reserved funds is at least six months behind the schedule set forth in such developer's draw-down schedule; any such reduction shall be applied first to the last monthly draw as set forth in Exhibit A to the Developer Agreement and thereafter to each respective monthly draw preceding the same. The Developer will be paid a fee equal to five percent (5%) of the principal amount of any reduction in its reservation. SECTION 2. Except as specifically amended by Section 1 hereof, the Developer Agreement, and each and every provision thereof, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and the Issuer have caused their names to be signed hereto by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first above written. PACESETTER HOMES, INC. By Its COUNTY OB ORANGE, CALIFORNIA By Chairman Board of Supervisors [SEAL] h Clerk of the board of Supervisors County of Orange, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL By S L 1 • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE , CALIFORNIA WHEREAS , this Board of Supervisors has heretofore approved the authorization , issuance and sale of bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $54 ,060 ,000 designated "County of Orange , California , Single Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Issue of 1982" ( the "Bonds" ) ; and, WHEREAS , there has been presented to this Board of Supervisors a proposed final Official Statement to be used in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds; and, WHEREAS , this Board of Supervisors has reviewed said proposed final Official Statement; NOW, THEREFORE , the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange HEREBY DOES FIND, DETERMINE , RESOLVE AND ORDER that the proposed form of final Official Statement presented at this meeting is hereby adopted and approved to be used in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds and the Auditor-Controller and the Tax Collector-Treasurer of the County of Orange are hereby authorized and directed to execute said final Official Statement on behalf of the County of Orange and to deliver the same to the initial purchasers of the •Bonds. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1982. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (SEAL] a APARTMENT LOANS PROGRAM Prepared by: f FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA 707 Wilshire Boulevard W12-1 Los Angeles , California 90017 (213) 614-5350 And NEWMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 717 Seventeenth Street , Suite 2180 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 572-8500 x 4 1 9 k R I INTRODUCTION Conventional methods of financing apartments have been economi- cally infeasible for some time because of the high cost of bor- rowing. As a result, there has been very little apartment development . This fact , combined with the removal of a signi- ficant portion of available apartment stock due to condominium conversions, and the cutback in Federal insurance and subsidy - programs has led to a shortage of affordable, decent and safe apartments. The Apartment Loans Program is designed to help local public agencies encourage private enterprise to provide apartment stock. k li 3 i I i i , THE APARTMENT LOANS PROGRAM The Apartment Loans Program enables savings and loan asso- ciations, banks and other traditional mortgage lenders with existing pools of single-family mortgage loans to provide low- cost construction and permanent financing to developers of multifamily housing projects, where 80% of the units will be occupied by persons of middle income and 20% of the units will be occupied by persons of low or moderate income. The Program requires the issuance of tax-exempt bonds and the use of bond proceeds by the Trustee to purchase from the lenders a participation in a portfolio of seasoned, single- family mortgage loans which will produce an adequate cash flow to retire the bond issue. The lenders, in turn, utilize the proceeds from the sale of the participation to make loans to developers to finance qualifying multi-family housing projects. The Tax-Exempt Multi-family Loan Program affords low-cost financing for the developer while enabling it to deal directly with its local mortgage lender with minimal outside restric- tions. The Program will set a maximum rate which may be charged to the developer on the multi-family mortgage loan, but other- wise the lender will be allowed to negotiate the terms of the mortgage loan directly with the developer. The developer, for its part, must agree to maintain 20% of the units in the project available for occupancy by persons of low or moderate income within the meaning of the Section 8 program, but there is no requirement that such tenants actually receive a government subsidy and no restriction as to how the developer offsets the costs associated with those units. It is anticipated that the loans will generally provide for level payments of principal and interest over 25 years, maturing to a 12-year balloon (coinciding with the mat.urity of the bond issue) , but such terms are open to negotiation between the lender and the developer. I The Program enables the mortgage lenders to substantially increase their return on low-yield single-family mortgage loans by using those loans to collateralize the multi-family loans. Each mortgage lender will be paid an annual fee of up to 1. 5% of the loans made by it for providing the participations. They will also be entitled to profit from the temporary investment of undisbursed loan proceeds and will be free to charge con- struction and permanent loan discounts typically charged in connection with the extension of loans for multi-family housing development. In addition, each lender will be paid a normal fee for servicing the single-family loans in the participation pool. Benefits to Developers Interest rates substantially below those currently available for non-tax-exempt financing . The lending rate to the developer obtainable under this Program is anticipated to be 50 to 100 basis points below that obtainable through comparable loans-to-lenders pro- grams. This is due to the fact that the bond issue will have a shorter average maturity than under most loans-to- lenders programs (9 years as compared to 12 or 13 years) and the fact that no insurance of the mortgage loan is required in contrast to most loans-to-lenders programs. Such additional amounts ultimately are passed through to the developer in the form of a higher mortgage loan rate. The• Program offers maximum flexibility for negotiation with a lender the developer is familiar in working with to arrive at mutually satisfactory mortgage loan terms, as described above. Tax-exempt financing is available -without the usual long waiting periods and certifications required by other tax-exempt financing methods. Benefits to Lenders Older low-yielding single-family loans can be used to collateralize new multi-family loans, thus increasing the yield on the portfolio and the income to the lender. Low-yielding single-family loans can be utilized without recognition of a loss by the lender, since for account- ing purposes the transaction is treated as a loan of the single-family mortgages and not a sale. There is no requirement that the full faith and credit of the lender be pledged to repayment of the bonds. The lender has maximum flexibility to negotiate the terms of the loan with the developer (e. g. , loan discount, equity participation, amortization, maturity) as long as the rate is within the maximum rate permitted under the Program. The Program enables the mortgage lender to maintain existing and encourage new banking and depository rela- tionships with developers. The Program enables each mortgage lender to satisfy the need for multi-family housing units in its market area. Financing Team A successful tax-exempt financing team includes the following parties : investment banker, bond issuer, lenders, developers, trustee, and bond counsel. It is crucial to have experienced team members. Investment Bankers First Interstate Bank was one of the five largest under- writers of housing issues in the first quarter of 1981 with $261 .3 million in new financing issues. Over the past several years the Bank has acted as senior manager for six California Housing Finance Agency issues totaling $213 .3 million. In addition, First Interstate Bank has responded to the need for adequate housing by managing or participating in a total of over $8 billion in housing redevelopment issues over the past five years. First Interstate Bank will be represented by Byron Sayre, Manager of Public Finance, William Klein, Manager of Research and Disclosure, and Dewey Mastick, Vice President. Newman and Associates, Inc . , is a national leader in tax- exempt financing of apartment complexes' Last year alone, Newman and Associates , Inc. , provided more than $220 million of tax-exempt financing for 75 apartment complexes geographically ranging from Washington, D.C. , to Hawaii . Newman and Asso- ciates , Inc . , will be represented by Brad, James, Vice President , David Smith, Vice President , and Douglas Smith. Haynes $ Miller (Washington, D.C. ) will act as underwriter' s counsel and prepare the offering documents and assist in the structuring of the financing . Bond Issuer The local governmental unit (e. g. , county, city, housing authority, development authority) which has authority to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance multi-family housing will be selected as the Issuer of the Bonds . The Bonds will be special and limited obligations of the Issuer, payable only from the participation in the single-family mortgage loans purchased with Bond proceeds and certain other reserves and assets pledged to repayment of the Bonds , and not through the general taxing power or other assets of the Issuer. Lenders It is anticipated that any financial institution having access to a pool of seasoned single-family mortgages may parti- cipate in the Program. This would include banks, savings and loan associations and other traditional mortgage lenders. Cash flows from the multi-family housing projects will be utilized to repay the loans from the lenders. Developers Any developer of a new apartment complex or purchaser of an existing apartment complex, 20% of the units of which will be dedicated to low or moderate-income tenants, will be eligible for participation in the Program. Twenty percent (20% ) of the units must be held available for low or moderate-income tenants for a 20 year period. Eighty percent (80%) of the units are available for middle-income tenants for the life of the loan to the developer (no prepayments are to be allowed prior to approximately the seventh year) . Trustee The trustee, usually a commercial bank, is knowledgeable regarding the overall transaction, manages the funds, and per- forms various other trust duties as instructed in the trust indenture. Bond' Counsel Tax-exempt bond purchasers require a nationally recognized legal opinion as a prerequisite to purchasing tax-exempt instru- ments. Nationally recognized bond counsel must be retained to prepare the necessary legal documents and to render an unquali- fied legal opinion as to the legality and tax-exempt status of the transaction. I _ ' 0 The Mortgage Loans The local lender, upon posting collateral , borrows money from the issuer and in turn funds either the construction and/or the permanent loan to the apartment complex. The loans have an amortization of approximately 25 years with a balloon payment in 10 years . The lender may post several forms of collateral for the mortgage loan. The forms of collateral are as follows : Direct obligations of the U. S. Government or U. S. Government guaranteed securities in an amount whose market value equals 125 percent of the loan to the lender; FHA/VA single family mortgage loans whose market value equals 140 percent of the loan to the lender; Single family mortgage loans whose market value equals 150 - percent of the loan to the lender; or - A participation certificate in a single family mortgage pool of loans . The participation certificate is the most advantageous program for the lender and the borrower. The primary benefit is the 1/2 to 3/4 of a percent savings in the overall interest cost of the mortgage as compared to the other forms of collateralization of the mortgage loans . The Apartment Complex Apartments that have not begun construction or been purchased prior to the adoption of an inducement resolution by the issuer will qualify for financing. They must be in the geographical boundaries of the agency issuing the bonds . There are no restrictions on either the number of units in the apartment complex, the size of the units , or amenities offered with the units . Based on the requirements of the Mortgage Revenue Bond Subsidy Act amending the Internal Revenue Code, at least 20 percent of the units must be occupied by households having incomes 80 percent or less of the median income of the area. Loan documents between the lender and owner of the complex will provide for the enforcement of the income restriction requirements . APARTMENT LOANS PROGRAM INVESTMENT BANKERS BOND First Interstate Bank ISSUE Newman and Associates , Inc. Underwriter's Counsel TRUSTEE BOND ISSUER _F' SINGLE-FAMILY MORTGAGE POOL LENDER LENDER Bank Bank Savings & Loan Savings & Loan Mortgage Lender Mortgage Lender APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT TAX-EXEMPT MULTI-FAMILY LOAN PROGRAM Initial Timetable ° Week 1 "Letter of Understanding" signed by Issuer, authorizing First Interstate Bank and Newman and Associates, Inc. , to proceed with structuring a multi-family loan program. Inducement Resolution submitted. Underwriters authorize feasibility consultant to start demand analysis, if required. Also set up initial meeting of financing team to start structuring . Financing team works with appropriate public officials and local lenders in structuring issue, answering questions . 2 Initial planning meeting of full financing team. Initial structure formulated and agreed upon. II 3 Signed Inducement Resolution given to Underwriters. 4 Bond issue sized based upon feasibility study, if required, and input from public offcials and local lenders . Documents revised accordingly. Rating agency package prepared and submitted . 7 Preliminary official statement printed. Ratings received. 8 Offering begins. 9 Bond Purchase Agreement signed. 10 Closing. 3 i SELECT LIST OF TAX-EXEMPT MULTI-FAMILY FINANCINGS FOR WHICH THE MANAGERS WERE SENIOR UNDERWRITERS Date Issue Rate Amount 6/27/78 California Housing Finance Agency 6.51% $50,000,000 Mortgage Revenue Bonds l/l/79 Mt. Vernon, Illinois, Elderly Housing Corp. 7.875% 3i880,000 First Lien Revenue Bonds 2/l/79 Wharton Housing Development Corporation 8.00% 2,015,000 Wharton, Texas First Lien Revenue Bonds 8/l/79 Housing Corporation of South International Falls 7.375% 1,110,000 South International Falls, Minnesota Mortgage Revenue Bonds 8/l/79 Moline Housing Development Corporation 7.375% 2,587,500 Moline, Illinois Mortgage Revenue Bonds 8/3/79 California Housing Finance Agency 6.89% 100,000,000 Mortgage Revenue Bonds 8/15/79 Gainesville Housing Development Corporation 7.90% 2,8400000 Gainesville, Texas (Family) First Lien Revenue Bonds 9/15/79 Gainesville Housing Development Corporation 7.625% 2,100,000 Gainesville, Texas (Elderly) First Mortgage Revenue Bonds 1011/79 Valley Housing Development Corporation of 7.50% 49115,000 Phoenix, Arizona Housing Revenue Bonds 10/1/79 Portner Place Leased Housing Corporation 7.50% 2,120,000 Washington, D.C. First Mortgage Revenue Bonds 10/15/79 Zanesville Housing Development Corporation 7.375% 21955,000 Zanesville, Ohio First Mortgage Revenue Bonds 10/15/79 Woolworth Housing Development Corporation 7.375% 1,525,000 Omaha, Nebraska Mortgage Revenue Bonds 11/15/79 Hobbs Housing Assistance Corporation 8.875% 2,760,000 Hobbs, New Mexico First Lien Revenue Bonds Date Issue Rate Amount 12/1/79 Newport News Redevelopment and Housing Corp. 8.00% 5,230,000 Newport News, Virginia Mortgage Revenue Bonds 12/1/79 Fairgrounds Road Housing Corporation 9.125% 1,860,000 Natchitoches, Louisiana First Mortgage Revenue Bonds 12/1/79 Lynchburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority 8.00% 3,125,000 Lynchburg, Virginia Mortgage Revenue Bonds 8/15/80 Washoe Housing Finance Corporation 9.75% 2,496,000 Reno, Nevada Mortgage Revenue Bonds 9/1/80 Indianola Housing Development Corporation 10.43% 1,415,000 Indianola, Mississippi Mortgage Revenue Bonds 9/l/80 South Jackson Housing Development Corporation 10.43% 1,830,000 Jackson, Mississippi Mortgage Revenue Bonds 9/1/80 Olive Branch Housing Development Corporation 10.125% 1, 155, 000 (Rolling Hills Manor Project) Olive Branch, Mississippi Housing Revenue Bonds 9/1/80 Lauderdale Leased Housing Corporation 15.00% 1,315,000 Meridian, Mississippi Housing Revenue Bonds 9/1/80 Olive Branch Housing Development Corporation 15.00% 1,200,000 (Sandidge Hill Apartments Project) Olive Branch, Mississippi Housing Revenue Bonds 9/1/80 Vicksburg Leased Housing Corporation 15.00% 2,320,000 Vicksburg, Mississippi Mortgage Revenue Bonds 9/1/80 Faircliff Housing Finance Corporation 10.007 2,945, 000 Washington, D.C. Mortgage Revenue Bonds I 9/1/80 Aurora Housing Finance Corporation 9.30% 2,830, 000 Aurora, Colorado Mortgage Revenue Bonds i 9/1/80 Yazoo City Housing Development Corporation 10.43% 1,405, 080 Yazoo City, Mississippi Housing Revenue-Bonds Date Issue Rate Amount 911/80 Martin County Housing Development Corporation 10.10% 6,490,000 Martin County, Kentucky Mortgage Revenue Bonds 9/1/80 Greater Kentucky Housing Assistance Corp. 10.10% 11,335,000 Pike County, Kentucky Mortgage Revenue Bonds 9/1/80 Northwest Washington, D.C. Housing Finance Corporation 10.00% 2,215,000 Washington, D.C. Mortgage Revenue Bonds 10/1/80 Brandegee Housing Development Corporation 10.30% 21130,000 Brandegee, New York Mortgage Revenue Bonds 10/1/80 Greater Columbus Housing Assistance Corp. 10.40% 8,4509000 Columbus, Ohio Mortgage Revenue Bonds 10/1/80 Mercedes Housing Development Corporation 10.00% 1,450,000 Mercedes, Texas Mortgage Revenue Bonds 10/1/80 Smithville Housing Development Corporation 10.00% 1,180,000 Smithville, Texas Mortgage Revenue Bonds 10/1/80 Oceanside Housing Development Corporation 9.875% 3,395,000 Clearwater, Florida Mortgage Revenue Bonds 10/1/80 Baltimore City Housing Corporation 10.15% 4,400,000 Baltimore, Maryland Mortgage Revenue Bonds 10/1/80 Walton Housing Development Corporation 10.30% 1,240,000 Walton, New York Mortgage Revenue Bonds 10/1/80 Kaufman Housing Redevelopment Corporation 9.50% 2,840,000 Kaufman, Texas Mortgage Revenue Bonds 10/1/80 Vicksburg Leased Housing Corporation 10.00% 206650000 Vicksburg, Mississippi Housing Revenue Bonds 10/1/80 Dade-Cutler Meadows Housing Development Corp. 9.75% 4,630,000 Miami, Florida Mortgage 'Revenue Bonds v t e Issue Rate Amount 11/1/80 Neshoba Housing Development Corporation 13.50% 1,685,000 Neshoba, Mississippi Housing Revenue Bonds 11/1/80 southwest Florida Housing Development Corp. 10.00% 2,025,000 t Pinellas County, Florida Mortgage Revenue Bonds 11/1/80 Genesee Housing Development Corporation 10.30% 2,070,000 Utica, New York Mortgage Revenue Bonds 11/1/80 South Leflore Housing Development Corporation 10.43% 1, 745, 000 Mississippi - Housing Revenue Bonds 11/1/80 Bristol Redevelopment and Housing Authority 10.375% 3,625,000 Bristol, Virginia Mortgage Revenue Bonds I1/l/80 Greencastle Housing, Inc. 10.30% 2,835,000 Greencastle, Indiana Mortgage Revenue Bonds 12/1/80 Goodman Housing Development Corporation 15.00% 1,655,000 Goodman, Mississippi Housing Revenue Bonds ` 12/1/80 Tchula Housing Development Corporation 15.00% 1,385,000 Tchula, Mississippi Housing Revenue Bonds 1/1/81 Greenwood Plaza Housing, Inc. 10.43% 1,690, 000 -r Bozeman, Montana Mortgage Revenue Bonds 1/1/81 Oneonta Housing Development Fund Corporation 15.00% 1,220,b00 Oneonta, New York Mortgage Revenue Bonds 2/1/81 Greenwood-Leflore Housing Development Corp. 15.007 2,805,000 (W. J. Bishop Apartments Project) Greenwood, Mississippi Housing Revenue Bonds 2/18/81 California Housing Finance Agency 10.81% 36,300,000 Mortgage Revenue Bonds 9/25/81 Minneapolis Community Development Agency 11.75% 1,270, 000 1 Minneapolis, Minnesota Mortgage Revenue Bonds y I CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING LOANS TO LENDERS TO FINANCE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL STRUCTURES FOR OCCUPANCY BY PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Irvine, (the "City") is authorized to issue and sell its bonds, notes, in- terim certificates, debentures or other obligations (the "Bonds") pursuant to the City Charter for the purpose of making loans to lending institutions or purchasing participation interests in mortgage loans from lending institutions in order to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation, construction and improvement of multi-family residential rental structures located within the City for occupancy by persons and families of low and moderate income; WHEREAS, The Irvine Company has requested the City to issue and sell its revenue Bonds for the purpose of making loans to the lenders or purchasing participation interests in mortgage loans from lenders to permit them to undertake a financing program (the "Program") for multi-family low and moderate income rental structures, including related and appur- tenant facilities and property (the "Projects") , to be con- structed by The Irvine Company within the City; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to induce the lenders to undertake the Program and to induce The Irvine Company to under- take the Projects; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest, for the public benefit and in furtherance of the public purposes of the City that the City Council authorize Bonds for the aforesaid pur- poses; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . The City Council hereby authorizes the issuance and sale to First Interstate Bank of California and Newman and Associates, Inc. or other purchasers of Bonds of the City pursuant to the City Charter and the procedures to be specified in an Ordinance in a principal amount of not to exceed $10Q, Q.0Q1000 for the purpose of making loans to lenders or purchasing partici- pation interests in mortgage loans from lenders in order to finance the acquisition, construction and improvement of the Projects, subject to completion of appropriate underwriting re- view and approval . Section 2. Authorization shall be for the purpose of inducing t-Te lenders to undertake the Program and to induce The Irvine Company to undertake the Projects. Section 3. The issuance and sale of said Bonds shall be upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the City, the lenders and First Interstate Bank of California and Newman and Associates, Inc. or other purchasers, and shall be authorized by resolution of the City Council at a meeting duly held and conducted for such purpose. Section 4. The proceeds of the Bonds shall include such related and necessary expenses, administrative costs, debt ser- vice reserves and interest payments as may be required to accom- plish successfully the financing. Section 5. The lenders may include the financing of additional perots pursuant to the loans to the lenders or the purchase of participation interests in mortgage loans from lenders in the Program, provided that inducements contained herein are first duly supplemented by action of this Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Irvine at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of December, 1981. David G. Stills Mayor of the City of Irvine ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Irvine STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF IRVINE ) I, NANCY C. ROWLAND, City Clerk of the City of Irvine, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Irvine, held on the 15th day of December, 1981, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF IRVINE 2. PUBLIC/PRIVATE JOINT VENTURE Location: Site 18 San Diego California Project: 65 acres 280 Condominiums 120 Section 8 rental units Developer: San Diego Housing Commission/Collins Development Company, a joint venture Fiscal Impact on City of San Diego: Financial return to the City: (1) receipt of the current full appraised value of the raw land underlying the 280 condominium units ($1.47 million); (2) a 45% share of the "proceeds" realized on the ' sale of the condominiums; and, (3) ownership of the 120 Section 8 rental units (which can be retained or sold) . Financial risks to the City (1) the Housing Authority/Commission will be responsible for the development costs and financing for the Section 8 rental project; (2) a projected mortgage shortfall on the Section 8 rentals must be eliminated; (3) the land must be subordinated to the development loan for both the condominium and rental project; and, (4) a downturn in the real estate market could reduce the expected profit on the condominium units. While these risks do exist, they are no greater than those risks taken by the private sector in today's housing market and represent reasonable risks given the potential return to the City. BA MORTGAGE AND INTERNATIONAL REALTY CORPORATION R , , Background: The City of San Diego determined in June of 1978 that one of its city owned properties, Site 18, be sold for residential development through an RFP process. (see time table for details.) Purchase Price: The purchase price for the condominium portion of the property is $1.47 million land value, plus 45% of the "proceeds" realized as a result of the sale of the condominium units. This equates to a per unit value of $5,250 for the unimproved raw land, without access or an approved map. The $1.47 million purchase price (70% of total land value) is for the land underlying the proposed 280 condominium units (70% of the expected units in the project.) Payment of the $1.47 million land value will be made in the form of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. A portion of the note will be paid as each condominium unit is sold. It is estimated that with the — 1.15 repayment factor contained in the agreement, the full land value will be paid after 87% of the condominiums are sold. ' An additional part of the purchase price is a 45% share of the "proceeds" realized on the sale of the condominiums. "Proceeds" are defined as the unit sales price minus all direct costs of the development. The direct costs, all of which are controlled in the Agreement, include land price, construction costs, loan costs, marketing, and costs of escrow on the condominium sales. Development of the Parcel and Condominium Project Construction Collins must begin construction of the condominium project at close of escrow and complete it within three years. Compensation to Collins for all off-site, on-site, and building construction will be tied to the limits set by FHA on the general overhead and general requirements that can be charged relative to the multifamily housing development. Collins shall receive no developer's fee for their work on the condominium project. Their total profit will be based upon their 55% share of the "proceeds" on the sale of the condominiums. i Responsibility For Development Costs Collins will be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the development and construction of the condominium project. The Housing Commission will be responsible for payment of all development costs associated with Section 8 rental units. For the off-site improvements (access road, etc.) it will not be possible to factor out the actual and direct costs to the rental project versus the condominium project. Collins will pay 70% of the off-site improvement costs and the Housing Commission will pay 30% of the costs. Sale of the Condominium Units Collins shall be responsible for the sales and marketing of the condominiium units for the actual and direct costs required for this activity. The sales commission portion of these costs paid to Collins shall not exceed 1% of the sales prices. Should Collins choose to contract the sale and marketing of the units to another party, then the — costs shall be equivalent to customary costs paid in San Diego County for similar services. Development of the Rental Project The Housing Commission will be responsible for financing the development and construction of the 120 Section 8 Rental units along with the rental project's 30% share of the off-site improvement costs. Long-term financing of the project will be provided through the issuance of FHA insured, tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. These bonds will not be a liability to the City as they will be FHA insured and backed by project revenues only. Collins Development will coordinate development of the rental project for a fee equal to 8% of the rental project development costs. This percentage figure, which is lower than the 10% figure usually approved by HUD, shall also include the builder's profit. The general overhead and general requirement which Collins may charge as general contractor will (as with the condominium project) be limited to FHA limits. 0 Potential Mortgage Shortfall_- Section 8 Project: At the present time, the project has yet to be processed through the Department of Housing & Urban Development to obtain FHA insurance. Initial cost estimates indicated that the supportable mortgage on the project would be $2.7 million short of the cost to develop the project. The following funding sources will be pursued to cover the mortgage shortfall: Projected Equity Requirement: $ 2,769,8ll A. 10% Rent Increase $ (523,174) Subtotal $ 22246,637 B. CDBG Funds $(110001000) Subtotal $ 11246,637 C. a Development Cost Reduction $ (1339864) _ Subtotal $ 11112,773 D. Based on 27,6 Syndication Proceeds $ 110592305 Subtotal $ 53,468 E. Housing Capital Outlay $ (53,468) Subtotal -0. NOTE: A. Initially requested only 110% of FMR's but hope to receive 120% of FMR's B. $1,000,000 has been approved C. At the time construction bids are requested; feel confident a 2 reduction can be realized. D. As owner SDHC can utilize syndication proceeds to reduce equity E. When a city owned site can not be utilized, the property is sold and funds are deposited into this fund. 'EXHIBIT A `. r SITE ENVIRONMENT \'` •_ : l AL pPRK / •� KELLY STREET PARK I 1 ..! 4�.�d I"�"l,>�:•• •••.i—�� '(P� N. ELM,:. ST. 1 • MAN ST. :::....... j S7. I ' y i 0 U:11V--+41TY OF SAN ^!EGO : o 1 s� (�! LEGEND NO L^.C:.L is CANYON PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXHIBIT B SITE 18 CONDITIONAL SALE DEAL POINTS I. OPTION AGREEMENT: Term: 12 Months Purpose: Environmental Clearance to sign Purchase Agreement Negotiation of Land Exchange with University of San Diego II. CONDITIONAL SALE PURCHASE AGREEMENT: Term: 18 Months Maximum Escrow Deal Points: Y ' A. Property.sold underlying 280 condominiums (approximately 65 acres) k : B. Purchase price = $1.47 Million ($5,250/unit) plus 459% of net proceeds. C. Conditions of sale: 1. Completion of USD exchange 2. Collins to obtain all approvals 3. Acceptable Development Financing D. Collins must complete construction in three (3) years E. Collins will not receive developer's fee for condos F. Collins to receive 80 of developer's fee for rentals (includes builders'profit) G. Collins to obtain development loans for condo project H. Housing Commission to obtain financing for rental project (tax-exempt bonds) I. Land will be subordinated to development loans J. 70% of off-site costs charged to condo project, 30% of off-site costs charged to rental project K. Collins to sell and market condos--------1% sales commission maximum L. Rental projoect may be converted if required project equity cannot be obtained. Same terms as current condo deal EXHIBIT C SITE 18 CONDITIONAL SALE CASH FLOPS EXAMPLE PROJECT: 280 Market Rate Condominiums TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST PER UNIT $ 68,000 (Site Improvemen s, Construction Cost, Construction Financing, Marketing, Take Out Loan) POTENTIAL RETURNS: Sales Price: $ 95,000 Development Costs: $ (68,000) Sales Commission: $ (1,000) Land Costs: $ (51250) _ Escrow Charges: $ (800) Net Proceeds/Unit $ 19,950 DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS PER UNIT TOTAL PROJECT Net Proceeds: $ 19,950 $ 51586,000 Collins (55%) $ 10,972.50 $ 39072,300 Housing Authority/ $ 8,977.50 $ 21513,700 Commission (45%) TOTAL RETURNS: Collins. ... .$3,072,300 (Proceeds) + $280,000 (Sales Commissions) = $ 31352,300 Housing Authority/Commission. .. ..$2,513,700 (Proceeds) + $1,470,000 (land) _ $ 31983,700 1 EXHIBIT D SITE 18 RENTAL PROJECT CASH FLOW ANALYSIS PROJECT: 120 Section 8 Low-Income Rentals; 30 1-Bedrooms (600 Square Feet) 76 2-Bedrooms (772 Square Feet) 6 2-Bedrooms - Handicapped (824 Square Feet) ; 8 3-Bedrooms (972 Square Feet) PROJECT COST: Land $ Land Improvements $ 1,707,300 Structures and Fees ($38.14) $ 8,8291450 Financing Costs $ 447,760 Builders/Sponsor Profit (8%) $ 400,485 Other Fees (Taxes, Insurance, Title, Rec.) $ 82,000 Total Replacement Cost $ 61496,995 — BOND REQUIREMENTS: 3% Bond Contingency $ 117,700 Z6 Working Capital $ 78,470 Total Project Cost $ 626932165 RENT RATE MAXIMUMS/PROJECT INCOME: Average Rent - $494.60 x 12 x 120 $ 712,224 Laundry Income - $420/Month x 12 Months $ 5,040 5% Vacancy Adjustment $ (35,864) Operating Expenses (Includes Taxes, Insurance, $ (174,000) Utilities, Rep. Res. ) 10% Mortgage Reserve $ (50,740) Income Available for Debt Service $ 456,660 IL MAXIMUM MORTGAGE POTENTIAL/PROJECT EQUITY: Income Available For 'Debt Service $ 456 Debt Service Constant (11% + 11V. MIP) TA 5"660 Maximum Mortgage 31923,354 PROJECT EQUITY REQUIREMENT: Total Project Cost $ 6,693,165 Maximum Mortgage $(3923,354) Equity Required $ 2:769,811 4 r• EXHIBIT E SITE 18 CONDITIONAL SALE CHRONOLOGY 6/8/78 T&LU recommends Site 18 for housing 8/7/78 City Council designates site for housing, sale to developer recommended (Resolution #221593). 8/78 Housing and Community Services issues RFP on seven (7) City-owned sites including Site 18. 10/78 Three (3) responses from RFP cover Site 18 including Collins proposal. 11/78 PS&S dissatisfied with RFP process, matter referred to newly _ forming Housing Commission. 2/79 Housing Commission hired consultant to review RFP responses on all seven (7) sites. Consultant recommended issuance of new RFP. 2/79 - 5179 Housing and Community Services Department defers action until arrival of new Housing Commission Executive Director. 9179 Willdan Associates commissioned to complete Site 18 Land Development Study. 2/80 Willdan study completed. Six alternative access schemes identified. 3/10/80 Housing Commission reviews Willdan findings. Access from Linda Vista Road determined most appropriate. Access route proposed by Collins under the earlier RFP consistent with preferred alternative. Collins granted a 90-day right to negotiate for project. Y • • '1 6180 Collins submits specific development proposal for 400 units, 70% market rate, 30% low-income. 8/80 Housing Commission approves joint venture concept for development of project. 9/23/80 HUD commits Section 8 rental subsidies for 120 low-income units on Site 18. 11/8/ - 1/81 Joint Venture Negotiations. 1/30/81 Housing Commission expresses financial liability and legal concerns with joint venture concept. 2/81 Conditional sale concept proposed/negotiations. 4/81 Cost estimates received for rental project. Potential $2.7 r million equity requirement identified. 4/24/81 Conditional Sale Agreements reviewed by Housing Commission. Staff directed to inform City Council of project status and agreement terms. 5/12/81: Informational report presented to Housing Authority. Resolution authorizing the Housing Commission to proceed i s I continued to June meeting. Y NE--A'MAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. INVESTMENT BANNERS/MUNICIPAL BONDS 717 SEVENTEENTH STREET/SUITE 2180 DENVER,COLORADO 80202 (303)572-5500 1 July 23, 1981 Mr. Paul Ireland City of Irvine Manager , Planning Services 17200 Jamborree -Road P. 0. Box 19575 Irvine, California 92713 Dear Paul : Per our discussion today, I have enclosed for you a brief Apartment Loans Program Model as it would apply to Irvine . Using the assumptions as shown , I have come up with a sample mortgage on a 100 unit project . The difference between the mortgage size and the actual cost of the proj-ect would be made up by the developer ' s equity. As we discussed at our meeting a couple of weeks ago, I think we are probably only looking at approximately 70% loans under this program . Based on discussions with numerous developers, however , this seems to fulfill their requirements. I plan to be in Los Angeles the week of July 28, and would very much like to get together with you to further discuss this concept . I do believe that this concept is very responsive to the housing needs of Irvine as discussed in our meeting on July 8 . Sincerely, NEWMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. David C. Smith Vice President DCS :mkm Enclosure cc : Byron Sayre MEMBERS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS INC./PUBLIC SECURITIES ASSOCIATION First Interstate Bank of California 8 Newman and Associates , Inc . rvine , ali ornia Apartment Loans Program Model ASSUMPTIONS I . Assumptions Relevant To 20% Low F, Moderate Portion Allowable Rents Median Income Assumed Median Income ( Orange County) _ $282000 Trended Income (Assume 1 yr. construction period @ 10%/year inflation) _ $28, 000 x 110% _ $30, 800 Approximate Rents That Can Be Charged Based Upon Above Median Income By Family Size 1 Person ($30, 800 x 80% x 70% x 30% ) - 12 = $431/month 2 Person ($30 , 800 x 80% x 80% x 30% ) - 12 = $492/month 3 Person ($30, 800 x 80% x 90% z 30% ) - 12 = $554/month 4 Person ($30, 800 x 80% x 100% z 30% ) - 12 = $616/month * i . e. , "low $ moderate" defined as 80% of median income ** adj,ustment for family size ("median income" based on 4 person family) *** Assume 30% is percent of income that can be reasonably expected to be paid by "low $ moderate" income level families. II . Assumptions Relevant To 80% Market Rate Portion Current Projection Market Market Rents Trend* Rents 1 Bedroom 525 mo x 110% = 5 7 mo 2 Bedroom $575/mo x 110% _ $632/mo 3 Bedroom $650/mo x 110% _ $715/mo * To trend for 1 year construction period @ 10%/yr . III . Assumptions Relevant to Apartment Configuration A) Assume 100 unit apartment complex B) Assume 20% low/moderate requirement is met with 1 bedroom units rented to couples without children C) Assume 80% market rate portion is targeted for the 2 bedroom market share . IV. Resultant Monies Available To Amortize Debt , And Resultant Mortgage Gross Rental Revenue 20 1 bedroom units @ $492/mo x 12 = $118, 080 80 2 bedroom units @ $632/mo x 12 = 606 , 720 Total Gross Rental Revenue 724 , 800 Vacancy Factor 98% 710 ,304 Less Projected Expense ($710, 309 x 38% ) ( 269 , 915 ) Monies available for Mortgage Amortization 440. 389 Mortgage = $440, 389 , 1234335** = $3 , 243 , 000 1 . 1* *Assumes lender (mortgage company, Savings $ Loan, or bank) wants 1 . lx coverage . **Debt service constant on 12% mortgage, 30 year amortization. • 4 r • 11/24/81 MORTGAGE-BACKED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BOND PROGRAM INTRODUCTION In response to the recent record-high interest rates and dramatic cutbacks in federal housing subsidy programs, we have developed a Mortgage-Backed Multifamily Housing Bond Program (the "Program") which utilizes the issuance of tax 'exempt Bonds by a state, county, political subdivision or other public instrumentality (the "Issuer") in order to make lower cost construction and permanent financing available for qualified multifamily rental housing developments (the "Developments") . Under terms of the Program, the Issuer will issue its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (the "Bonds") . After payment of costs of issuance and funding of certain reserves, Bond proceeds will be used to acquire (i) all the right, title and interest of participating lenders (the "Lenders") for a specified number of years (the "Participation Interest") in a pool of seasoned single family mortgages (the "Single Family Mortgage Loans") or (ii) the Lenders' Notes (the "Lenders' Notes") secured by the cashflow from the Single Family Mortgage Loans. The scheduled payments of principal and interest on the Single Family Mortgage Loans will provide approximately 105% coverage of the debt service payments on the Bonds. The Lenders will be required to use the proceeds from the sale of the Participation Interest, or the proceeds from the loans evidenced by the Lenders' Notes, to make construction and permanent loans to the developers (the "Developers") of the Developments to be financed. The principal advantages of the Program over a typical collateralized loans-to-lenders format or a letter of credit or standby collateral purchase commitment loans-to-lenders program are: 1. The amount of Single Family Mortgage Loans which a Lender must initially encumber in connection with the issue is substantially less than (approximately one-half of that) required under a traditional loans-to-lenders format. 2. The Single Family Mortgage Loans are not required to be periodically priced to market throughout the term of the Bond issue. 3. The Program does not require the deposit of additional amounts of collateral in later years as the principal balance of the collateral originally posted declines more rapidly than Bonds are retired. 4. The Bonds are amortized on a level debt basis from the Participation Interest or Lenders' Notes cashflow, which shortens the average life of the Bonds, and thus provides a lower net interest cost which can be passed through to the Developers. r -2- 5. There is no required fee for the payment of the letter of credit or standby collateral purchase commitment and there are no fees for evaluation of the collateral. All Program parameters in this Memorandum are subject to approval or modification by the Issuer prior to the sale of the Bonds. , QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CONCERNING THE PROGRAM 1. What are the parameters of the Program? The Program is designed to provide proceeds through the issuance of the Issuer's tax-exempt Bonds to acquire, pursuant to a Sale or Lender Loan Agreement (the "Lender Agreement") (a) the Participation Interest, as described above, in the pool of seasoned Single Family Mortgage Loans or (b) the Lenders' Notes, as described above, which will be secured by the Single Family Mortgage Loans. The Lenders are required to use such proceeds to make construction and permanent multifamily loans (the "Multifamily Loans") to Developers for qualified multifamily residential rental housing Developments pursuant to the terms of a Multifamily Loan and Development Development Agreement (the "Development Agreement") . The Lender Agreement sets forth the requirements for the Single Family Mortgage Loans (see Question 2 below) , the terms of the sale or pledge and assignment of the Single Family Mortgage Loans to the Trustee and the obligations of the Lenders regarding the servicing of the Single Family Mortgage Loans. The Development Agreement specifies the qualifications for each Development (see question 3 below) , certain terms of the Multifamily Loans and the regulatory guidelines necesary to ensure that the operation of the Developments complies with the Program. Generally, approximately 84 or 85% of the Bond proceeds will be disbursed by the Trustee to purchase the Participation Interest or fund the Lender Loans, approximately 10% will be used to fund a Bond Debt Service Reserve Fund, approximately 2% will be used to fund a Participation or Lender Loan Reserve Fund and the remainder will be used to pay underwriting discount and costs of issuance. The Bond issue will be structured so that the Bonds, other than those issued to fund the Bond Debt Service Reserve, will be retired on a level debt basis over the term of the Bond issue, which generally will be from 7 to 20 years. Bonds issued to fund the Debt Service Reserve Fund and the Lender Loan Reserve Fund will be retired at the end of the Bond issue from the maturing principal of the investments held in those Funds. 2. What types of Single Family Mortgage Loans are eligible and how will the cashflow from these mortgages be utilized? The Lenders will provide a pool of seasoned, geographically disbursed Single Family Mortgage Loans with a cashflow of principal and interest sufficient to cover approximately 105% of the debt service on the Bonds. Any excess cashflow not utilized for debt service will be returned to the Lenders at the end of each month. The yield on the Single Family Mortgage Loans is required to be less than the yield on the Bonds. Each Single Family Mortgage Loan is required, among other things, to (i) be FHA insured, VA guaranteed, or a conventional loan with an original loan-to-value ratio of 80%, or lower (or insured down to 72% by private mortgage insurance) , (ii) constitute a valid first lien on a single unit residence, (iii) have an original term of 25-30 years, (iv) have been outstanding five years prior to the transfer in the case of conventional loans with an original loan-to-value ratio in excess of 80%, and three years for the other types of loans, (v) have current payments, (vi) have a fixed rate of interest and provide for level monthly payments of principal and interest, and (vii) have a final maturity equal to or greater than the final maturity of the Bonds. 3. What are the terms of the Multifamily Loans and the qualifications of a Development? The Lenders will be required to use the proceeds from the sale of the Participation Interest in the Single Family Mortgage Loans or the proceeds of the Lenders' Notes to provide construction and permanent financing to the Developers for the Developments. Each Lender will be free to structure the terms of its Multifamily Loan with a Developer as it wishes subject to certain yield requirements and subject to compliance with the Issuer's Program Guidelines. Each Development will be required to satisfy the following conditions, among others, subject to compliance with regulations yet to be promulgated under the Mortgage Subsidy Bond Tax Act of 1980, as amended (the "Act") : (a) the Development must be a multifamily rental housing facility consisting of 5 or more dwelling units; (b) the Development must consist of a single structure or multiple structures (which may include duplexes) on a common site, owned by the same person or persons, functionally related and geographically contiguous; (c) each tenant residing in the Development must satisfy the eligibility requirements, if any, imposed by the Issuer in its jurisdiction; (d) at least 20% of the dwelling units in each Development (15% in certain target areas) must be occupied or held available for occupancy by low or moderate income families (currently a family whose annual income does not exceed 80% of area median income for a family of four) for a 20-year period commencing when the development is first available for occupancy; and (e) the Development must be maintained as a multifamily residential rental housing facility for a period of at least 6 years. 4. What are the stages at which documents must be executed? Prior to the execution of the Issuer's purchase contract for the sale of the Bonds, each Lender will be required to execute a Participation Offer with the Issuer to provide a Participation Interest or to obtain a Lender Loan in an amount equal to the amount of Multifamily Loans it intends to make to Developers plus such Lender's pro rata share of costs of issuance. The Lender will be required to deliver with its Participation Offer a Letter of Credit for its pro rata share of costs of issuance, to be returned to it as described below. The Lender must have identified at the time it submits a Participation Offer one or more Developers and Developments; however, the Lender will have the right to substitute Developments for a period of six months from the date of the delivery ,of the Bonds undes .bertain specified conditions. At the Closing of the Bond issue the Issuer and the Lenders will execute the Lender r -4 i Agreement. Within 45 days following delivery of the Bonds, the Trustee will review the Lender's collateral, and the Lender will have 6 days to replace any collateral submitted which does not meet the program requirements, The Trustee will reduce the Lender's Loan and draw upon the Letter of Credit to the extent the Lender fails to deliver qualifying collateral, but will otherwise refund the Lender's Letter of Credit as soon as the collateral has been approved. The Lender is required to have executed a multifamily loan commitment with each Developer within six months following delivery of the Bonds and to have the initial closing of the Multifamily Loan by the end of the ninth month after delivery of the Bonds. The Development Agreement will be executed on or before the initial closing of the Multifamily Loan on a Development. The Developer is required to proceed with due diligence to construct the Development following the construction loan closing. All proceeds from the acquisition of the Single Family Mortgage Loans or Lenders' Notes not disbursed to fund the Multifamily Loans within 36 months from the date of delivery of the Bonds will be used to redeem Bonds. 5. What are the fees paid by the Developer(s)? Each Developer will pay the usual and customary origination fees in the community at the time of the origination of both the construction and permanent loans. it is presently anticipated that such fees will not exceed 2% of the Multifamily Loan at the commencement of construction and 2% of the Multifamily Loan at the closing of the permanent loan. 6. What are the fees payable by the Lenders? Each Lender will be required to deposit with the Trustee a Letter of Credit of approximately 3-4% prior to the execution of the Issuer's purchase contract for the Bonds. The Letter of Credit will be drawn upon as described in Question 4 above in the event one or more of the Single Family Mortgage Loans pledged by it fails to satisfy the criteria described under Question 2 above. 7. What are the fees which the Lender may charge or earn? The principal sources of profit to the Lenders from participating in the Program are (1) the normal construction and permanent loan origination fees which the Lender may charge on its Multifamily Loan as described in Question 5 above, (ii) the investment earnings in excess of the Bond yield which the Lender may retain from investing the proceeds from its sale of a Participation Interest or the proceeds from its Lenders' Note, from date of delivery of the Bonds until such proceeds are actually drawn upon by the Developer to fund the Multifamily Loan as described in Question 4, and (iii) the spread between the Bond yield and the interest rate on the Multifamily Loan to the Developer, as described in Question 9 below, to the extent that spread is not utilized to amortize bond discount and costs of issuance. Each Lender will also be allowed to retain from the cashflow, on the Single Family Mortgage Loans a monthly servicing fee equal to approximately 1/12th of 3/Sth of It of the outstanding principal amount of the Single Family Mortgage Loans provided or pledged by it. Finally, each Lender will be entitled to retain a pro'rata portion of any profit realized from the investment of the Debt t' • -5- Service Reserve Fund and the Participation Interest or Lender's Loan Reserve Fund at rates higher than the yield on the Bonds, after deduction of certain expenses of the Issuer, the Trustee and a Program Administrator (if necessary) . 8. Does the Lender retain any interest in the Single Family Mortgage Loans? Yes, each Lender receives the reserve cashflow of approximately 5% to the extent not needed to pay debt service on the Bonds. In addition, each Lender receives the remaining principal amount of the Single Family Mortgage Loans sold or pledged by it after the Bonds are retired. 9. What will be the interest rate on the Multifamily Loans? The interest rate on the Multifamily Loans will be determined upon the sale of the Bonds. The interest rate on the Multifamily Loans will be such that its yield does not exceed the yield on the Bonds by more than 1.5% (one and one half percentage points) for purposes of the federal arbitrage regulations. Generally, these regulations will permit a rate on the multifamily loan approximately 2.0% (two percentage points) higher than the yield on the Bonds, after taking into account approximately 0.5% (one half a percentage point) generally needed to amortize certain discounts and costs. 10. What are the obligations of the Lender to replace or repurchase a Single_ Family Mortgage Loan? In the event a Single Family Mortgage Loan does not comply with the Program eligibility 'requirements, the Lender must replace the Single Family Mortgage Loan or the Trustee will draw upon its Letter of Credit as described in Question 9 above. In the event that a Single Family Mortgage Loan prepays or there is a default under the terms of the Single Family Mortgage Loan, the Lender may, but is not obligated to, replace such Single Family Mortgage Loan. 11. What are the eligibility requirements of Developers? it is anticipated that the Issuer will place no restrictions whatsoever on eligible Developers; however, each Developer must be acceptable to a Lender. 12. Must Developments be insured by the FHA or have Housing Assistance Payments Agreements or Contracts? No. It is anticipated that all Developments financed under the Program will be conventional and not insured; however, insured developments may be eligible for financing. 13. Which Lenders are eligible to participate in the Program? Any state or federal savings and loan association, state banking corporation or national banking association or other mortgage lender which has a portfolio of eligible Single Famj,1X Mortgage Loans and which has the authority to make loans for multifamily housing in the jurisdiction of the Issuer may participate in the Program. '.� • -6- • a 14. What is the size of the Bond issue? ' The Bond issue size will be dependent upon the request for funding by Lenders and the allocation of funds by the issuer. It is generally expected that the Issuer will maintain the right to reduce the size of its Bond Issue if it determines that the number of units to be financed under the Program will result in an over-abundant supply of rental housing in its jurisdiction which could lead to financial difficulties for local builders and lenders. 15. Is there a minimum or maximum project size? No. 16. Is there a minimum or maximum mortgage loan size? No. 17. May a Lender participate in the equity of the Development? A Lender may participate in the equity in the Development to the extent of the fair market value of its contribution. In no event can any paticipation in such equity cause the yield on the Multifamily Loans to exceed the limitations described in the response to Question 9 above. 18. What Development costs are eligible for financing under the issue? At least 90% of all the costs financed with proceeds from the Bonds must be for capital items and must not have been paid or incurred prior to passage of a resolution by the Issuer accepting each Development. If, prior to this resolution, the Developer has expended funds for a Development for land acquisition or any other reason, and this expenditure cannot be included in the allowance for noncapital items expended prior to the inducement resolution, then these costs may not be financed with Bond proceeds. Of course, such costs may be included as a part of the Developer's equity in the Project for purposes of satisfying any maximum loan-to-value ratio imposed by its Lender. . 19. Can funds from the Bond issue be used to finance projects already completed? This will depend in part upon the law in the issuer's jurisdiction. in some jurisdictions, bond proceeds may be used to acquire a completed Development by a new owner unrelated to the party who owned the Development prior to the passage of the inducement resolution on the Development. In other jurisdictions, funds from the Bond issue must be used to finance only new developments or substantially rehabilitated developments located in the jurisdiction of the issuer. in no event may Bond proceeds be disbursed to a Developer simply to refinance a previously completed Development owned by it. 20. Can funds from the Bond issue be used for construction only? No, proceeds from the issue must be used for both construction and permanent financing. The purpose of the Program is to provide permanent rental housing for residents of the jurisdiction of the Issuer. Under no circumstances can any loan financed- with proceeds of the issue be prepaid within 6 years of issuance. Furthermore, prepayments for the next several years may carry penalties. The purpose of this is to discourage owners from using low rate financing under the Program to build units designed for owner occupancy. 21. What is the required mix of units? There is no unit mix required. A Developer may build as many units of any style as he desires as allowed under applicable building codes. However, each unit must be a complete living unit, containing a kitchen and bathroom and certain other basics and amenities. 22. What are the tenant certification requirements? At the time of initial occupancy, each tenant in a low or moderate income unit will be required to sign a form which certifies that his income is within the limits established under the Program. Compliance with these and any tenant eligibility requirements imposed by the Issuer will be monitored by the Trustee or a Program Administrator. 23. Must tenants occupying a designated low or moderate income unit be evicted from the unit if his/her income increases beyond the low or moderate income level after initial occupancy? No. A Development is in compliance and tenants are eligible for occupany provided that their income at the time of initial occupany was within that range allowed by the Issuer. If the income of a person residing in a 20% set-aside unit increases, the unit will still constitute part of the 20% set- aside for low or moderate income families. 24. Which party makes the request for funds allocation from the Issuer? The request for a funds allocation must be made by the Lender. FINANCING PARTICIPANTS Public . ' Pa}nesnt Bond's for Boys Underwriters Net Bond" Proeeeds onds (Less Discou ) Issuer ' Net Bond Proceeds Trustee \ Lender's Note \ Lender's Portion of Bond Proceeds Lender 1 Lender 2 I Lender 3 MLoanam Developer's 1� P ds Note Developer 1 Developer 2A eveloper 2B Developer 3A Developer 3B Developer 2C 11/12/81 SAMPLE TIME SCHEDULE Week 0 - Preliminary Meeting (Underwriters, Issuer , Bond and Underwriters Counsel) . Week 1 - Inducement resolution of Issuer naming underwriters, and getting basic terms of financing . - Underwriters advertise Lenders ' and Developers ' Meetings. - Bond Counsel and Underwriters ' Counsel distribute initial drafts of documents . Week 2 - Documents Session. Week 3 - Lenders ' Meeting . - Developers' Meeting . Week 5 - Commitments due from Lenders. - Transaction sized by Underwriters . - Documents delivered to rating agency (Standard & Poor ' s) . Week 6 - Rating Agency Meeting . Week 7 - Rating obtained; Marketing begun by Underwriters . - Approval by Issuer ; Bond Purchase Contract signed. Week 8 PreClosing. - Closing. RESOLUTION NO. ' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE PURPUSE OF MAKING LOANS TO LENDERS TO FINANCE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL STRUCTURES FOR OCCUPANCY BY PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of '(the "City") is authorized to issue and sell its on s, notes, interim certificates, debentures or other obligations (the 1113onds") pursuant to the City Charter for the purpose of making loans to lending institutions or purchasing participation interests in mortgage loans from lending institutions in order to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation, construction and improvement Of multi-family residential rental structures located within the City for occupancy by persons and families of low and moderate income; WHEREAS, (the "Lenders") have requeste t e City to• issue an se is revenue Bonds for the purpose of making loans to the Lenders or purchasing participation interests in mortgage loans from lenders to Permit them to undertake a financing program (the "Program") for the hereinafter described multi-family low and moderate income rental structures, including related and appurtenant facilities and property (the "Projects"), to be constructed by the Developers within the City; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to induce the Lenders to undertake the Program and to induce the hereinafter described Developers to undertake the Projects; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest, for the public benefit and in furtherance of the public purposes of the City that the City Council authorize Bonds for the aforesaid purposes; NOR', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF , as follows : 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the issuance and sale to First Interstate Bank of California and Newman and Associates, Inc. , of Bonds of the City pursuant to the City Charter and the procedures to be specified in an Ordinance in a principal amount of not to exceed for the purpose of making loans to lenders or purc asing participation interests in mortgage loans from lenders in order to finance the acquisition, construction and improvement of the following described Projects, subject to completion of appropriate underwriting review and approval : A� P 2. Authorization shall be for the purpose of inducing the Lenders to undertake the Program and to induce the foregoing described Developers to undertake the Projects. 3. The issuance and sale of said Bonds shall be upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the City, the Lenders and First Interstate Bank of California and Newman and Associates , Inc . , and shall be authorized by resolution of the City Council at a meeting duly held and conducted for such purpose. 4 . The proceeds of the Bonds shall include such related and necessary expenses , administrative costs , debt service reserves and interest payments as may be required to accomplish successfully the financing. 5. The Lenders may include t$e financing of additional projects pursuant to the loans to the Lenders or the purchase of participation interests in mortgage loans from lenders, and the Program ; provided that inducements contained herein are first duly supplemented by action of this Council. 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 19811 by the following vote : AYES : Councilmembers NOES : Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers Mayor ATTEST: City Cleric 2 ! A PHASE IV REPORT HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ORANGE April , 1982 rPrepared by: WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 1745 Orangewood Avenue Suite 210 Orange, California 92668 (714) 978-6185 CHAPTER 2 HOUSING PROGRAMS (The following will be added as a Subsection to the Chapter entitled "Housing Programs.) • o 2.1 POTENTIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FEDERAL AND STATE OPTIONS Both the Federal and State governments have provided relatively large amounts of funding assistance to local California communities in efforts of improving housing opportunities at the lower and moderate household income levels. How- ever, several factors have either diminished or threaten to reduce the avail- ability of funding to most communities: 1. The passage of the Jarvis-Gann Property Tax Initiative has reduced fund- ing availability at the State level . While the State Department of Hous- ing and Community Development and the California Housing Finance Agency continue to provide housing assistance to local communities that assis- tance has been reduced to administrative assistance, primarily. Although limited funding continues to be provided for active housing programs the level of involvement has been significantly curtailed. 2. The Federal budget has been operating with an increasingly large deficit and in an effort to close the gap between revenues and expenditures the Reagan Administration has proposed elimination or reduced expenditures for numerous housing related assistance programs. Moreover, proposal of "New Federalism" may eventually eliminate direct federal participa- tion in local housing by transferring such activities to the state governments. 3. California and U.S. economic conditions have been waning since 1973 (oil price increase) while the inflation rate, including the cost of housing, has seen many significant increases. The net result has been that affordable housing is no longer the plight of only the very low- and low-income households. Virtually every economic segment of the community has been affected. While the lower income segments of the community remain the most needy of all , many moderate and 'higher income households, newly formed households, and senior citizens are realizing the effects of such conditions and the high cost of housing. The significance of this factor relates once again to Federal and State assistance programs which primarily focus on lower income segments of the community. Given no other source of assistance a community which views current housing shortages as a serious short- and long-term strain on the community's economic development, must pursue housing objectives seriously and with a maximum effort. Nonetheless, the City of Orange Housing Program should not overlook the avail- ability of housing programs at either the State or Federal levels. A list of potential Federal and State housing programs is contained in the Appendix. This list reflects current programs legislated at the State or Federal levels. Where available, information relative to funding has been provided. -35- LOCAL OPTIONS Local governments have been granted substantial authority in the administra- tion of local planning to the extent that virtually all cities regulate, through zoning, the location, bulk, height, setback, and in some cases archi- tectural style of new residential development. However, many communities are enforcing zoning, subdivision, or other similar development management tools which were created and successfully used during growth and development periods which thrived between the 1960' s and 1970's. Rising concerns for maintaining environmental resources, depletion of non- renewable energy resources, declines in the GNP and other economic indicators, and the continuously rising cost of providing shelter are all factors which have attributed to changes in lifestyle. Keeping such changes in mind, the City should consider the reevaluation of adopted land use and housing policy, zoning ordinances, and other implementa- tion tools which were enacted during significantly different economic condi- tions. Opportunities to affect housing production and ultimately the hous- ing market at the local level may be provided at three primary levels: 1. Policy (General Plan) - Redesignation of land uses and land use densi- ties to reflect current needs and objectives for future growth. 2. Ordinance - Amendments to the zoning map and ordinance to implement the genes plan and minimize procedural and administrative review of devel- opment applications. 3. City Support and Assistance - Local interest in support of City housing objectives may be assisted by the City. Local volunteer groups, non- profit sponsors, or nonprofit development corporations may be assisted by the City in varying degrees including: surplus land donation; do- nated staff time; and overall project coordination and support. I� w APPENDIX TABLE U - FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS COSTS- PROGRAM TITLE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION COMMENTS CITY NON-CITY 235(1) - Interest Reduction- To rake homeownership more readily available 3. Staff costs involved in Pro- ilortgage lender time For eligible families, down -ay. nt must be Homes Por Lower Income to lower income families by providing in. gran information, coordina- in processing. 3 percent o' the acnuisition cost. Assistance ay Families terest reduction mnents on a nonthiv basis tion. and analication if Sity navments are made Monthly to the lender and nav to lenders on behalf of the lower income takes active lead in this reduce the efyective interest rate paid by the (HUD) families. program. homeowner to as low as 4 3/4 nercent. Assisted families are renuired to oav at least 2D percent (IUD insures lenders against losses on mart- 2. '!lone. if City does not ac- of their adiusted income (gross income after gage loans. These loans may be used to Lively narticinate. certain allowable deductions) for mortgane nav- finance the purchase of a new or substan- ment. This program has maintenance of effort tially rehabilitated single-family d.relling (-'IQ renuire-ents. or condominium unit anoroved nrior tr beginning of construction or beginninm of substantial rehabilitation. Insured loans ray also be used to finance I the purchase of a mobile home consisting N of two or more modules and a lot an rhich such mobile hone is or will be situated. Turnkey III - Low Income To orovide, through local Public ilousinm Ilone, if delegated to a Public Tnis nrogram must be approved by the local Housing Agencies (PRA's) low-income families with Housing Authority. governing body, the opportunity of owning their own homes. (HUD) Funding for this nronram is limited and addi- To assist Public Housing Agencies in tional units are Presently not authorized under providing housing purchase opportunities this program. for low-income families. Families are - required to maintain their own homes and the PHA comaensates them by crediting cer- tain amounts budgeted Por maintenance to family equity accounts. Nhen the faAilv's income and equity accounts increase to the point where it can obtain permanent financ- ing for the unit. or when the equity account eouals the unamortized debt and clos tno costs, ownership masses to the fanily. Originally the units are ow-ned by the local Public (lousing Agency. During the meriod of tenancy, the family makes payments based on its current mcomr. The Turnkey III homes are amortized over a neriod of un to 30 years. i TABLE U - Continued PROGRAM TITLE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION COSTS COMMENTS CITY NON—CITY coar,-Comunity, Develonrent TD develop viable urban communities, includ- 1. Staffing costs to maintain Yartable. The Cogmunity 9evelopment Block Grant Program is Block ,rant iM decent housinn and a suitable living en. financial records. citizen the most comprehensive fundinq assistance pronran vironrent. and expand economic onnortunities, participation, relocation, offered by either Federal or State G m overent. (H:�D) principally for persons of low and moderate etc. Variable dependinq upon Althouqh future and ongoinq fundino is unknown, inc". extent of program. this program will apparently continue to be tun until replacerent proorars are offered throuqh Localities may undertake a wide ranqe of ac. 2. Audits. Federal or State agencies. tivitles directed toward neighborhood re- vitalization, emnonic develoorent, and 3. Various additional costs Drovision of irproved cormmnity facilities depending unon specific pro- and services. crams. Hefphborhood-based nonnrofit organizations, local develoM nt corporations or Sall Busi- Sub-ness invest- nt Cmpoanies My act as grantees to carry out neinhborhood revital. w ization or co unity econ=ic develoocemt I DmJects in furtherance of black grant objectives. Section S To aid lower-inane families in obtaining I. tone, if adlinistered by 1. none to This is a basic subsidy progrsul providing assist- decent, safe and sanitary housinn in Drirate County Housinn authority. participants. ante to low- and very low-income households. The Housing Assistance Program accorrodatiens and to prorate economically advantage in offering this program through a County nixed existing. newly constructed, and sub. 2. If adninistered by City. 2, tone to owners. Housing Authority is that the County Housing (Inn) stantially and roderately rehabilitated staff costs are offset par- Authority staff which already exists can admin- housing- tially or fully by adminis- aster the program as they do for other participat- Provides Aourtnn assistance pa trative costs through oro�ran Ing corrmnities. The disadvantage in administering Yrents to oar- through County Housinn Authority is that the City, ticipating private owners and Public Housinn has little control over the use of bonus (addit�� Agencies Oncludinn Indian Housinq Authort- certificates. and has Tess control over adpinis ties) to provide decent, safe and sanitary Lion and rep rting procedures. housing for lower and very tow-incere fam- lies at rents they can afford. Housing assistance nayrents are used to make up the difference between the maxinxl approved rent due to the owner for the dweilinq unit which Is reasonable in relation to coraarable market units and the occupant farilv's re- quired contrih,ation towards rent. Assisted families am "-,sired to contribute not less than 15. nor mm than 311 percent of their adjusted family incore toward rent. f ^+ i Mtn TABLE U - Continued PROGRAM TITLE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION COSTS COMMENTS CITY NON—CITY UDAG-Urban Development To assist severely distressed cities and 1. Planning costs. Private investments. This pronram offers project grants for approved Action Grant severely distressed urban counties in al- orojects denonstratinq stronm cormitments leviating physical and econonic deteriora- 2. Staff administration, from the private sector. Funding is relatively (HUD) tion through economic development, neigh- scarce and therefore projects are highly borhood revitalization, job creation and competitive. strengthening the local tax base; and to t assist cities and urban counties tontaininn severely distressed pockets of poverty. Grants must be in support of discrete pro- jects for economic development and/or _ neighborhood revitalization. in addition _ to activities elinible under the Comaimt_v _ Development Block Grant (except as noted below), assistance may be used for other - i econonic development and neighborhood re- A vitalization activities including new hous- e ing construction when other resources are not adequate. Cities and urban counties which do not qualify as distressed communities but which contain pockets of poverty nay qualify for the program by meeting the criteria pertain- ' ing only to pockets of poverty. Public Housing-Low Income To provide decent, safe, and sanitary hous- None, unless PHA requests City Administrative costs Project requires approval by the City and the Housing Assistance Program ing and related facilities for families of assistance on Proqran planning. and program planning electorate pursuant to 4rticle 34 of the low income through an authorized Public by PHA. California Constitution. Housing Agency, To assist public housing aggencies in provid- ing low-income housing by (I) acquiring ex- isting housing from the Private marlet (acquisition); (2) procurino construction by competitive bidding where the public housing agency acts as the developer (con- ventional); or (3) letting contracts to Private developers (turnkey). Annual con- tributions are made to public housinn aren- ties to provide debt service pay-ents- to ' assure the loe-income character of the Pru- Jects, and to achieve and maintain adequate , operating and maintenance services and reserve funds. TABLE U - Continued PROGRAM TITLE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION COSTS COMMENTS CITY NON-CITY 275 - interest Reduction To orovide good quality rental and coonera- Staff costs associated with pro- 1. Anolication tine assistance oanments are made monthly by OID to Payments Cf ve housing for persons of low and jet[ planning if City takes ac- and materials. the mortgagee, and may bring the effective in- moderate income by orovidinq interest tive role. terest rate paid by the mortgagor down to as (IUD) reduction payments in order to lower 2. Accounting and low as one percent. Benefits received in this their housing costs. records. way are passed on to those families oualifyino for assistance. Assisted families are require HUD insures tenders against losses on to nay for rent at least 25 oercent of their mortnage loans. Insured mortoanes may be adjusted income (income after certain allowable used to finance the construction or re- deductions), but not in excess of the fair habilitation of rental or coonerative market rent. This program has maintenance of detacved. semidetached, row. walk-up, or effort ("n4) requirements. elevator-tvpe structures. Eligible costs ray be too low to qualify for projects in grange without additional assistance In the farm of land writedowns pr other cost i savings derived from a joint nrivate/public � venture. Section 245 - Graduated To facilitate early hom otnershin for house- Staff costs associated with pro- 1. Application tine Pro?ram available to private homeowners. City Payment mortgage Pronram holds that expect their incomes to rise. Jett planning if City takes and materials. involvement ray,vary frax none to active infer- Proeram allows homeowners to hake smaller active role. nation distribution and project coordination. (HUD) monthly payments initially and to increase 2. Accounting and their size oradually over time. records. HUD insures lenders against loss an Nmrtnane loans. These mortgage loans ray be used i by owner-occupant mortgagors to finance the purchase of proposed, under construc- tion, or existing singly-family housinn. 1 r JES a TABLE U - Continued PROGRAM TITLE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION COSTS COMMENTS CITY NON-CITY Home Ownership Assistance Provides up to 49_ of the eurchase price of !lone. Eauity partnership. Equity partnership provides the State with a Program a dwelling unit in the fom of mortgame revolving fund account to finance this oro ran. Participation with an institutional lender. The current EBB million budget is now allocated (California Department of to enable eligible households to purchase and outstanding, moo new nrnietts available far 1ICD) housing which they would otherwise be unable to acquire. Assistance provided to renters funding until additional moneys become able labl affected by condomoniun conversion, and mobile home residents affected by conversion. General Obligation Sondz Bonds are secured by the taxing authority of the City, effectively nrnhibited by the Passaqe of Jarvis- Bann Tax Limitation (nronositian 13). 1 'mortgage Revenue Bonds Bonds are secured by the returns from low- Administrative, accounting, and Debt service. Bonds for sale on the open market are competing 1 interest mortgages issued to homeowners. bond counsel costs. with other tax sheltered and hiqh interest (a) SB 99 - Permits redevelopmentYielding investments. As a result bands become to issue mortgage revenue bonds ds to agencies less marketable at lower-interest rates and un- finance low-, moderate-, and upper- productive er high-interest rates. Congress has income housing if the dwellings are also considered-thlegie placing a If limitation on the Issuance of bonds. If such located within the uctreded to project a measure passes, it becomes questionable area and are constructed to meet a public purpose. whether a community could feasibly develop a successful bond program. (b) Harks - Foram Rehabilitation Financing - Cities, housing authorities, etc., are Permitted to make long-tem low-interest residential rehabilitation loans funded by revenue bonds. Loans can also be used for in-fill construction. Tax Increment Financing Hithin a redevelopment area property tax Administrative costs. Propositions I3 and 4 have limited the revenue assessments are frozen upon adoption of a generation of this finance mechanism but it redevelopment plan. Increases beyond frozen still remains a viable approach for many titles. assessments are considered an incremental to Redevelopment programs are nest successful when assessed value and are allocated to the they encompass commercial and industrial areas redevelopment agency to service tax altpca-Lion bonds. thereby yielding greater tax increments. TABLE , U - Continued PROGRAM TITLE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION COSTS COMME(ITS CITY NOH-CITY Hortnage Insurance HUD insures against lass on mortnage and (tone. Ooplication costs. Mortnane insurance programs orovlde APusinp rehabilitation loans in various projects opportunities to investments which otherwise O follow'Pend depending upon the specific program, as would Likely receive no support from tenders. In manv cases a mortnane insurance program fs 203(b)(i) - Home Ownership and Construction used in conjunction with another subsidy or 203(k) - Rehabilitation Grant program deoendinn upon the intended 234(d) - rnndorinfum recipient, land and project costs. Conditions 213 - Cooperative Projects to nortgane insurance usually require a cecrat- 207 - tbbile HPme Parks rent to retain the use of the property for the 221(d)(2) - Displaced, Low- and'oderate- intended market for the term of the loan, I Income Families 234(C) - Condoninfum 221(d)(4) - Rental Housinq i 221(d)(3) - 'lentat Housing v 231 - Elderly, Rental Housinq Title 1 - 'bbile Home Lot Loans 307 - Single-Famfly Coinsurance Deferred Payment Rehabflita- Provides deferred Payment loans to local Reimbursement of loans. None.tion Loan Fund governmental agencies. nonprofit corpora- Provide uo-front moneys for olanntmi and asso- iions that are operatfno housing reaabilt- ciated professional costs to developinq a (California Department of tation Programs for low- specific program. Fundinn is quite lirited Housinq and Community income residents. and moderate- and may likely deter new program oarticioation. Development) Urban Development Loan Fund provides re t very ow-interest rate (3S) loans Loan reoavrent 1f to City. Loan renavrent. Limited to very scarce funding available. to local govermpnts. nonprofit oroaniza- (California Department of tions, and cooperative housinn corpnra- HCO) Mons for Preliminary costs of developing assisted housing for low-income families, elderly, and handicanned. f Z -A a A ; x Is M ,*7 TABLE U - Continued PROGRAM TITLE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CITY cows NON-CITY COMMENTS Housing for the Elderly Direct loans to provide for rental or Hone, except as a sub-grantor Maintenance of effort This oroaram provides funding assistance in the or Handicapped-Section 2:12 cooperative housingand related facilities t es at the option of the City. on the part of the form of direct loans to on vote sponsors. The (such as central dining) for the elderly private sponsor. advantages of this oronran include the efforts (HUD) or handicapped. by private sponsors at the local level which a rnre often than not coordinated with local rehabilitation construction or h • Direct loans nay e used to finance the public housin progranslpolicies. Constructed abilitation of rental units are obligated to the specified use for or cooperative detached, semidetached, row, the tern of the loan. Funding is limited and walk-up or elevator-type structures. therefore projects are awarded on a competitive basis. Section 312 These loans may be used to finance the 1. Staff administrative Costs rehabilitation of property located in Interest rate and in fiscal year 2980. 10.091 loans were approved, Rehabilitation Loans y which may be offset par- principal by owner, financinn the rehabilitation of 16.756 dwelling federally assisted code enforcement areas, tiallv or fully by CDR, units. More than 700 localities received pro- (HUD) urban renewal areas. Community Development Funding, gran assistance in fiscal year 1980. Block Grant (CDBC) areas, and Section 810 Urban homesteading areas. Properties at This is a suool emental oronran to CDBG or other a mimrun, must be brought up to local code approved urinary programs. standards. Loans are made available on a sliding scale of 3. 6. or 9 percent for single family (1-4 units) properties and 3 percent for multifamily and commercial properties. The program is administered by the local government or its designee_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA June 10, 1982 - 2:00 p.m. Item #1 Housing Element Implementation (Discussion) Staff Report Attached a) Housing Element Implementation summary and overview. b) Presentation of alternative financing concepts. c) Discussion of remaining undeveloped sites. d) Conclusion - determine future meeting dates. Item #2 Items which the Commission and Staff may wish to discuss which are not on the Agenda. "' �L i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION STUDY SESSION MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND INFOPMATION June 10, 1982 1. Who can issue bonds? 2. Required bond issue size. 3. Term of bond issue. 4. Interest rate of bond issue. 5. Timing on interest payments. (cash flow) 6. Price limitation of houses. 7. Percentage down payment. 8. Interest rate on mortgage. 9. Monthly payments for maximum loan amount. •10. Monthly payment cost differential compared to market rate. 11. Who gets these loans and how do they get them? 12. Are resale controls required? 13. What is the residential requirement? 14. Is a local election required? 15. Can a bond issue be handled by an outside agency? 16. Who has used the bond program? 17. How many times and what projects? 18. City's financial liability. CTB:nma 6/9/82 • NEWPORT BALBOA 3/2/ Subsidy Program Yc Rate% Payment (107,000) Cost % Payment Increase �17.00% $1525.48 6.02% 16.00% 1438.89 $ 86.59 6.35% 15.00% 1352.96 85.93 6.72% 7 14.00% 1267.81 85.15 19.08% 257.67 x 12 = $3,092.04 (2.89%) ---,—�-,�-�3/3/3 Subsidy Program C 17.00% 1525.48 20.32 �L7 14.00% 1267.81 257.67 257.67 x 36 = $9276.12 (8.69%) FNMA R&R Program %� — T-' Existing Loan = $50,000 @ 8% 9% 10% 11% New Loan = 100,000 @ 12.875% 13.3% 13.7% 14.2% Sleeping Second Program (60/30/10) Loan Amount Rate . Payment Amount 1st T.D. $120,000 16.50% $1662.18 2nd T.D. 300i0 60,000 17.50% -0- for first ,3/years 2nd T.D. After 3 years 91 ,500 1341 .69 (due starting 4th year) Payment lst 3 years 1662.18 Payment next 4 years 3003.87 Balloon after 7 years on 2nd T.D. $90,996.60 G.P.M. Program (See Attachment) I Westcliff Plaza, 1100 Irvine Avenue. Post Office Box 2415, Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 645-6505 Corona del Mar, 3021 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, California 92625 (714) 675-8060 GPM LOAN EXAMPLE BASED ON ACTUAL T-BILL RATES Let 's assume that a borrower applied for a ' Smart ' loan in October of 1975, when the T-Bill rates were 6 ,385%. Assuming 6 .5% for the last weekly auction in September, the borrower would have had a qualifying .rate of -5. 25% and a note rate of 10.25%. Assuming the loan closed in �I December of 1975, the adjustments to the note rate would have occurred in January and July of each year. We cannot think of a WORSE time to have secured a 'Smart ' loan, since T-Bill rates were at a LOW POINT, and had , virtually no way to go but UP. The example given below is intended to demonstrate what past performance for the first 5 years would have been, �• based on a loan of $80,000. Buyers Payments : Year 1 $441 .76 Year 2 $474 . 89 Year 3 $510.51 Year 4 $548. 80 Year 5 $589 .96 Negative Amortization: Year 1 $2, 724 . 93 Year 2 $1, 488. 91 Year 3 $2,844. 88 Year 4 $4,968 . 46 Year 5 $5 ,540 . 01 Total Negative Amortization for Five Year Period : $17,367 .19 Now, we must consider the alternative to the buyer in 1975, which would have been a fixed rate loan of approximately 9% with payments of $643. 70 . The total payments made on a 9% fixed rate loan for the illustrated 5 year period would have been $7 , 830 .96 MORE than the total payments made on the ' SMART ' loan. This factor must be considered when looking at the above example, plus , of course, the fact that the b'uyer possibly COULD NOT HAVE QUALIFIED for the 9% fixed rate loan. Now we must also consider the factor of housing appreciation during the period from December 1975 to December 1980 . Housing values increased by 79 . 92% during that time period . This means that our buyer, assuming . that the original sales price of the home was $100 ,000 . would have a home worth $179 , 920 ** with a• 1•pan balance of• $97;567 . 19 (54% LTV) . Now, let 's consider the fact that we are currently at HIGH levels of T-Bill rates . There could not be a BETTER time to consider the benefits of the ' SMART ' loan. • In fact , the higher the T-Bill rates at closing, the better the buyers opportunity to participate in ACCELERATED amortization due to lower rates later while still retaining the advantage of payments based on BELOW MARKET QUALIFYING RATES ! ! ! ! No matter how you look at it, this IS a ' SMART' loan ** Home appreciation statistics are based on figures compiled by Regional Data Associates , Berkeley, Ca. and are based on existing and new housing value increases . i * See reverse for history of 6 month T-Bill auction results . Public Notice Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a Public Hearing to discuss implementation of the recently adopted Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Among the Housing Programs to be considered will be a planning study involving the increasing of residential densities on some of the remaining undeveloped sites. The Planning Study will also involve discussion of housing types, minimum unit sizes, forms of avnership and financing. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will' be held on the loth day of June 1182, at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 W. Newport Boulevard, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE: Received for publication STUDY SESSION AGENDA A) Housing Element Implementation and Overview 1. On May 6 the Planning Commission held a Study Session to discuss increased residential densities. As a result of that meeting North Ford was recommended for density increase. At the May 24 City Council meeting the City Council initiated the recommended General Plan Amendment. 2. Four additional sites are currently being considered for density increase as part of General Plan Amendment 81-2. 3. Possible density increases for six additional sites remain to be considered. B) The primary focuses of this meeting will be on Housing Financing Alternatives. 1. Financing programs offered by the private industry will be discussed by Kate Keller from Newport Beach Balboa Savings and Faye Wilson from Security Pacific National Bank. 2. Mortgage Bond Programs will be discussed by Robert Smart and Al Wanamaker from Kevin Leventhal and Co. 3. Community Development Block Grant program and the Section 8 program will be discussed by Ward Connerly of Connerly and Associates. C) Discussion of Specific Funding Programs, their applications to specific projects, and discussion of increased residential densities. s 0 �� C fin. Lr� �'yfJf� ri�^ �. THE DOUGLAS ALLRED COMPANY 1660 North Hotel Circle Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92108 Date: April 10, 1982 To: Newport Beach Planning Commission Members The attached article describes the creative loan programs which are currently in use in the market place today. WBS:lkm Attachment A LOOK Af C lDNE ,, TIlt MORYGAG E LbAVIS - �` _I ? It must be stated here that we who By Daniel R. Condrick r work in the-most volatile industry in the U.S. don't always have a major voice capable of making mortgage payments buyer. The advantage to the builder is about what occurs in the day-to-day without being overextended to the that this upgrading of interest rate over maneuvers of the nation's economy. point of near bankruptcy after the the years Increases his opportunity to True, there are the "movers and creative loan program is completed. sell the AITD for a larger profit. shakers" such as the East Coast Briefly, the most creative forms of • 5 Year Interest Only AITD. The bankers and Wall Street gurus who, mortgage programs used today are: builder creates a five year AITD with with a snap of the fingers, can in- • All Inclusive Trust Deed (AITD). the buyer calling for interest only fluence our nation's monetary policy, The lender originates a loan to the payments at a specified rate. Because but we in San Diego must adhere to the builder at the prevailing rates and of the five year due date, the builder is hope that we will all come out of this terms. The builder, in turn, makes a guaranteed that he will recover his pro- housing slump much wiser and with larger loan to the homebuyer at a fit. just a few feathers burned. below market rate. The payment from • principal Only AITD.The builder's The purpose of this article is to the buyer to the builder is used to make AITD loan amount is divided by the highlight some of the most beneficial the payment on the underlying loan. term of the loan. The buyer makes and profitable mortgage Instruments • Buy Down. This loan program equal monthly payments to the builder available to the builder.There are an in- allows the builder to "buy down" the until the end of term,at which time the finite number of mortgage programs interest rate with the lender during the loan is paid in full.The builder loses all available to home buyers,and it should first few years of the loan,enabling the profit between the AITD and Underly- be noted that the most successful are homebuyer to qualify with more ease ing Trust Deed (UTD), but he moves those that reflect the buyer image of and the builder to offer below market houses.This program works best when i the product and payments that will rates.This is the most common type of yp the buyer puts up a large down pay- match the buyer's income. financing program being used In the ment. >; Mortgage brokers act as loan market place today. a 30 Year Buy Down. The builder originators on behalf of individual piggyback Loan. The lender buys down the prevailing rate for a full financial Institutions, each with a makes a traditional first trust deed(TD) 30 year period. The cost of this pro- unique set of requirements for approv- loan to the buyer, combined with a se- gram is approximately one-and-one- Ing various types of construction and cond trust deed loan made by the half points per one-quarter per cent in- homeowner loans. From the moment a builder. Normally, the builder will offer terest rate reduction. This program broker receives a verbal commitment this loan at a much lower rate of in- works best when the builder feels it is from a lender, any aspect of the terest for purposes of offering a below only necessary to buy down the rate economy may alter those commit- market effective rate on the combined one or two per cent below market.Any ments before they are put in writing. loans. further buy down is too costly. The variables include, but are not All of these loan programs are Short Term Buy Down. As men- limited to, availability of funds for the designed to create an affordable tioned previously, under this 30 year lender, past sales success of the pro]- monthly payment for the homebuyer, loan the builder may buy down the rate ,act and credit worthiness of the satisfy lenders qualifying re- for the first two or three years.The cost buyers. In addition, other considera- quirements and offer the builder an op- is one point per one per cent buy down lions are foreclosure levels in the cur- portunity to make a sale and profit. per year. Normally, the maximum buy A rent marketplace and the ability of sell- Some variations of these three down allowed Is three per cent per ing loans versus retaining them in the basic mortgage programs are: year.Major advantages of this program lender's portfolio. • 30 Year AITD. This AITD program are that the buyer qualifies more easily Working with a professional broker enables the builder to offer his buyer a and the builder does not have to defer 'that has a choice of lenders has 30-year fixed rate loan at a low interest profit. distinct advantages. Knowing each rate by leaving a portion or all of his A variation of this Is a graduated 'lender's idiosyncrasies Is always profit "on the table." The builder must buy down where the builder may, for r helpful In ensuring loan approvals for assume that the rates will decline at example, buy down the rate three per f' both the builder and the buyer. Of some point in the future so that he can cent the first year,two per cent the see- course, there are limitations to the sell the AITD to realize his profit. If and year and one per cent the third types of mortgage programs any mort- rates do not decline and the buyer year. This eases the buyer Into higher } ; gage broker or lender may offer. There never sells the home or refinances, the monthly payments as his Income S q are existing mortgage plans which will profit that has been left on the table grows. r virtually guarantee loan approval for will never be recovered. If the buyer sells his home or Is homebuyers, but it Is the ultimate • Graduated AITD. Under this varia- refinanced during the buy down period, 'responsibility of the lender and the tion, the builder graduates the interest the builder may be able to recover part t builder to ensure that the buyer is rate each year on his AITD loan to the of his buy down costs. ` age number 16 BUILDER Magazine/December 1981 i f ,. kw • 5 Year Loan Buy Down. This pro- gram enables the builder to offer a five year loan at below market rates by buy- F_r Ci �\ ing down the rate of the full five year term. Payments may be amortized overr_1 0 n r T r 30 years with a five year due date or in• t�^ t r�� ( r Sterest only. The cost of the buy down �=-•'��for the five year term is three to three• y �and-one-half points per one per cent `„ �� ®©� reduction in rate. Again, the main ad•vantage to the.buiider is that he doesnot have to defer profit.Piggyback or Low Interest Second + - TrustDeed.The lenderwillmakeafirst " +TD and the builder will make the secand 7D at a very low interest rate.Thebuilder has the option to adjust thesecond TD in order to qualify a poten• }:, 1 �J tiai buyer or may simply adjust the rate _ to create the desired effective Interest 'sy,r-,,.y.,,- .y rate to satisfy the buyer. Either way, , • the builder has a better opportunity to sell the product. Under normal cir- cumstances, the second TD Is due in ` five years or less. • Direct Subsidy Program. The builder sends a monthly payment directly to the buyer for a short period Claudette Ferrell advantage of a specialized of time. The disadvantage to the is just one of our insurance insurance program which can builder Is the buyer must qualify at the professionals whose skills pay cash dividends and is prevailing rate because most lenders have helped the Robert F. available only to you, the will not add the subsidy income. Driver Company solve BCA member. Please check with the Department of contractors' insurance For the insurance you need Real Estate on requirements for this problems for more than half a and the alone service you your BCAeserve, program. century. Variations on these basic mortgage With a new program representatives at (714) 238- Instruments could be cited forever, but designed for BCA members 1828. Serving the construction these different programs depend on and their liability insurance Servindustry since 1925. too many factors to be mentioned here. needs, you have tfie The most successful programs are those that provide a potential homeowner with a number of choices 'O under one forward loan commitment. The builder is the absolute last word when it -comes to selecting the best Robert F. Driver Company, Inc. possible combination to match his 400 Cedar Street I San Diego, Ca. 921121 (714) 238.1828 buyer profile. Daniel R. Condrick Is executive vice president of Conventional Funding Corporation. FOPTECHJOI AL �JZX TPLO TSATION IAA`,.BCA CLASSIFIEDSy.;• SOIu & fDUNDATION HJGINEERV4GTER - GEDPHY-9CS • NGtNEEr:ING GEOLOGY Spread Your Wordl pG=tATIO•^t TWINC & SEPTIC SYSTEM LItOUY ' $5/11ne. Any category. Call Debbie p BCA, 280-8200 q h SALESPERSON WANTED GEOTECMICAI.BXPLMATI N, INC. vv 1oD71 Wi lbw Creek Road For North County sign company sm Dom. CA 92131 ru Advertising and sign (714)560-008 , graphics a must Mr. Brenner, 271.6561,8 a.m.-6 p.m. page number 17 BUILDER Magazine/December 1981 • NEWPORT BALBOA 3/2/l ubsidy Program � Rate% Cr �dRayment (107,000) Cost % Payment Increag_e 17.00% of $1525.48 6.02% 16.00% 2 1438.89 $ 86.59 6.35% 15.00% 1352.96 85.93 6.72% 14.00% 1267.81 85.15 19.08% 257.67 x 12 = $3,092.04 (2.89%) 3/3/3 Subsidy Program 17.00% 1525.48 20.32 14.00% 1267.81 257.67 257.67 x 36 = $9276.12 (8.69%) `C fk FNMA R&R Program Existing Loan = $50,000 @ 8% 9% 10% 11% New Loan = 100,000 @ 12.875% 13.3% 13.7% 14.2% Sleeping Second Program (60/30/10) w� ,\�O f 1 Loan Amount Rate Payment Amount 3� r,�U� 1st T.D. $120,000 16.50% $1662.18 2nd T.D. 60,000 3° �� 17.50% -0- for first 3 years t c 2nd T.D. After 3 years 91 ,500 1341 .69 (due starting 4th year) Payment 1st 3 years 1662.18 Payment next 4 years 3003.87 Balloon after 7 .years on 2nd T.D. $90,996.60 G.P.M. Program (See Attachment) Westcliff Plaza, 1100 Irvine Avenue, Post Office Box 2415, Newport Beach, California 92663' (714) 645-6505 Corona del Mar, 3021 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, California 92625 (714) 675-8060 GPM LOAN EXAMPLE BASED ON ACTUAL T-BILL RATES Let 's assume that a borrower applied for a ' Smart ' loan in October of 19750 when the T-Bill rates were 6 . 385%. Assuming 6 .5% for the last weekly auction in September, the borrower would have had a qualifying rate of •5. 25% and a note rate of 10.25%. Assuming the loan closed in December of 1975 , the adjustments to the note rate would have occurred in January and July of each year; We cannot think of a WORSE time to have secured a 'Smart ' loan, since T-Bill rates were at a LOW POINT, and had , virtually no way to go but UP. The example given below is intended to demonstrate what past performance for the first 5 years would have been, based on a loan of $80,000. Buyers Payments : 1� lJ Year 1 $441.76 Year 2 $474 . 89 Year .3 $510.51 710" t Year 4 $548 . 80 Year 5 $589 . 96 Negative Amortization: Year 1 $2, 724 . 93 Year 2 $1,488 . 91 Year 3 $2, 844 . 88 Year 4 $4, 968 .46 Year 5 $5 , 540 .01 Total Negative Amortization for Five Year Period : $17,567.19 Now, we must consider the alternative to the buyer in 1975, which would have been a fixed rate loan of approximately 9% with payments of $643. 70 . The total payments made on a 9% fixed rate loan for the illustrated 5 year period would have been $7 ,830 . 96 MORE than the total payments made on the 'SMART ' loan. This factor must be considered when looking at the above example, plus , of course, the fact that the buyer possibly COULD NOT HAVE QUALIFIED for the 9% fixed rate loan. Now we must also consider the factor of housing appreciation during the period from December 1975 to December 1980 . Housing values increased by 79 . 92% during that time period. This means that our buyer, assuming that the original sales price of the home was $100,000 . would have a home worth $179 , 920 ** with a• I'Pan balance of• $97;567 . 19 (54% LTV) . Now, let ' s consider the fact that we are currently at HIGH levels of T-Bill rates . There could not be a BETTER time to consider the benefits of the ' SMART' loan. ' In fact, the higher the T-Bill rates at closing , the better the buyers opportunity to participate in ACCELERATED amortization due to lower rates later while still retaining the advantage of payments based on BELOW MARKET QUALIFYING RATES No matter how you look at it, this IS a ' SMART' loan ** Home appreciation statistics are based on figures compiled by Regional Data Associates , Berkeley, Ca. and are based on existing and new housing value increases . * See reverse for history of 6 month T-Sill auction results . ',+ee+:i..iStA3+*%m'1xwh.SYA :E.w'W+d..".aY•UO+�k.9CXt9"+e'.+1c1�2e�' ^.c`Sty:TwL'uTid:7Lhidlir:GL91:i+:aT:.iAiGt7W7.�P...twr.onwt'Chcx...w:.r-..6.e-..,..7,.a'.'i:�.:...Ydf]D.x Kenneth Leventhal& Company Certified Public Accountants 660 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640-5000 li A .fi CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1982 «7 ;t �rt SALES PRICE/REVENUE CALCULATOR 4 --=--------------------------- ` • ASSUMPTIONS ALT 1 s -------------------------------------- 34000 MEDIAN INCOME .8 G OF MEDIAN PYMNT TO HDUSNG (L-M) L HDUSNG PYMNT LIMIT (L-M) 1 '/. OF MEDIAN PYMNT TO HDUSNG (M-I) .35 HDUSNG PYMNT LIMIT (M-I&II) 1.2 % OF MEDIAN PYMNT TO HDUSNG (M-II) .215 % OF PAYMENT TO T%I 360 NUMBER OF LOAN PERIODS 75 OTHER HOUSING EXPENSES 13875 L-M MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE .9 INCOME REDUCTION FACTOR (L-M) . 13875 MED-I MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE 1 . 1 INCOME BONUS FACTOR (hl-II) . 13875 MED-II MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE .9 LOAN TO VALUE RATIO AVERAGE PRICE MAXIMUM MONTHLY MONTHLY PER UNIT BY: AWN DUAL HOUSING PRIM&INT MORTGAGE SELLING NO. OF ------------------- INC. CAT. UNIT INCOME PAYMENT LIMIT -= VALUE PRICE UNITS REVENUE INCM CAT UNIT TYPE -- • --------------------------------- ---------- ------------------------------------------------------ LOW-MOD: ONE BDRM 24480 673.20 479.07 40773 45.303 16 724849 -------- TWO BDRM 27200 748. 00 540. 64 46012 51125 9 460123 THREE BRM 27200 748.00 540. 64 46012 (�51125 ) 0 7 S_o u7 � SUB-TOTAL 25 1184973 47399 ONE BDRM: - MED-I: ONE BDRM 34000 991 .67 741 . 19 63081 70089 0 45303 ------ TWO BDRM 34000 991.67 741 . 19 63081 70089 25 1752237 THREE BRM 14000 991 .67 741. 19 63081 t70069 0 TWO BDRM: 78-t:81 SUB-TOTAL 25 1752237 70089 THR BDRM: MED-II : ONE BDRM 40800 1190.00 904:42 76973 85526 0 94786 ------- TWO BDRM 4O800 1190.00 904.42 76973 �52 62 5302600 THREE BRM 44880 1309.00 1002. 37 S5309 478 r 12 11'=7451 • SUB-TOTAL 74 6440052 67028 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 124 9377261 75623 VALUE PER SO FT. 8=. 05 SAMPLE KENNETH LEVENTHAL & CO SALES PRICE/REVENUE CALCULATOR ` . ASSUMPTIONS ALT 2 -------------------------------------- 34000 MEDIAN INCOME .7 OF MEDIAN PYMNT TO HOUSNG (L-M) .33 HOUSNG PYMNT LIMIT (L-M) .9 7 OF MEDIAN PYMNT TO HOUSNG (M-I) .35 HOUSNG PYMNT LIMIT (M-I&II) 1 . 05 % OF MEDIAN PYMNT TO HOUSNG (M-II) .215 % OF PAYMENT TO T%I 360 NUMBER OF LOAN PERIODS 75 OTHER HOUSING EXPENSES . 13875 L-M MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE . 9 INCOME REDUCTION FACTOR (L-M) . 13875 MED-I MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE 1 . 1 INCOME BONUS FACTOR (M-II) . i3S75 MED-II MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE .9 LOAN TO VALUE RATIO AVERAGE PRICE MAXIMUM MONTHLY MONTHLY PER UNIT BY: ANN QUAL HOUSING PRIN&INT MORTGAGE SELLING NO. OF ------------------ INC. CAT. UNIT INCOME PAYMENT LIMIT VALUE PRICE UNITS REVENUE INCM CAT UNIT TYPE ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------_----- LOW-MOD: ONE BDRM 24480 589.05 409.81 34878 38754 16 620059 -------- TWO BDRM 27200 651 .50 463.68 09463 40848 9 394629 THREE BRM 27200 654. 50 463. 68 3946.3 43848 C, SUB-TOTAL 25 10146BB 40588 ONE BDRM: MED-I : ONE BDRM 34000 892.50 659. 57 56134 62371 0 33754 ------ TWO BDRM 34000 892. 50 659. 57 56134 62371 25 1559282 THREE BRM 34000 892. 50 659.57 56134 62371 0 TWO BDRM: 60112 SUB-TOTAL 25 1559282 62371 THR BDRM: MED-II: ONE BDRM 40800 1041 .25 782&0 66554 73949 0 62053 ------- TWO BDRM 40800 1041 .25 782. 00 66554 7Z949 62 4584810 THREE BRM 44880 1145.37 867.70 73847 82053 12 984652 • SUB-TOTAL 74 5569442 75263 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 124 8143411 65673 VALUE PER SO FT. 72. 12 SAMPLE KENNETH LEVE^TTHAL & CO SALES PRICE/REVENUE CALCULATOR i } • ASSUMPTIONS ALT 3 - -------------------------------------- 34000 MEDIAN INCOME .7 % OF MEDIAN PYMNT TO HOUSNG (L-M) .33 HOUSNG PYMNT LIMIT (L-M) . 9 % OF MEDIAN PYMNT TO HOUSNG (M-I) .35 HOUSNG PYMNT LIMIT (M-I&cII) 1.05 OF MEDIAN PYM14T TO HOUSNG (M-II) .215 OF PAYMENT TO T%I 360 NUMBER OF LOAN PERIODS 75 OTHER HOUSING EXPENSES . 145 L-M MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE .9 INCOME REDUCTION FAC70R (L-M) . 145 MED-I MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE 1. 1 INCOME BONUS FACTOR (M-II) . 145 MED-II MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE . 9 LOAN TO VALUE RATIO AVERAGE PRICE MAXIMUM MONTHLY MONTHLY PER UNIT BY: ANN DUAL HOUSING PRIN&cINT MORTGAGE SELLING NO. OF ------------------ • INC. CAT. UNIT INCOME PAYMENT LIMIT VALUE PRICE UNITS REVENUE INCM- CAT UNIT TYPE ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- LOW-MOD: ONE BDRM 24480 589.05 409.81 33466 37185 16 594958 -------- TWO DDRM 27200 654. 50 463.68 37665 42073 9 378654 THREE BRM 27200 654.50 463. 68 37865 42073 0 SUB-TOTAL 25 973612 38944 ONE BDRM: MED-I: ONE BDRM 34000 092. 50 659.57 53862 59846 0 37185 ------ TWO BDRM 34000 892. 50 659. 57 5.3862 59846 25 1496161 THREE BRM 34000 692.50 659.57 53862 59846 0 TWO BDRM: 65354 SUB-TOTAL 25 1496161 59846 THR BDRM; MED-II: ONE BDRM 40800 1041 .25 782NO 63860 70955 0 78731 ------- TWO BDRM 40800 1041. 25 782.00 63860 70955 62 4399213 THREE BRM 44880 1145.37 867. 70 70858 76731 12 944773 • SUB-TOTAL 74 5343986 72216 -------•----------•--------------------- TOTAL 124 7813760 63014 VALUE PER SD FT. 69.20 SAMPLE KENNETH LEVENTHAL &CO STUDY SESSION AGENDA A) Housing Element Implementation and Overview 1. On May 6 the Planning Commission held a Study Session to discuss increased residential densities. As a result of that meeting North Ford was recommended for density increase. At the May 24 City Council meeting the City Council initiated the recommended General Plan Amendment. 2. Four additional sites are currently being considered for density increase as part of General Plan Amendment 81-2. 3. Possible density increases for six additional sites remain to be considered. B) The primary focuses of this meeting will be on Housing Financing Alternatives. 1. Financing programs offered by the private industry will be discussed by Kate Keller frm Newport Beach Balboa Savings and Faye Wilson from Security Pacific National Bank. 2. Mortgage Bond Programs will be discussed by Robert Smart and Al Wanamaker from Kevin Leventhal and Co. 3. Community Development Block Grant program and the Section 8 program will be discussed by Ward Connerly of Connerly and Associates. C) Discussion of Specific Funding Programs, their applications to specific projects, and discussion of increased residential densities. City Council&ting May 24, 1982 Agenda Item No. 1-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Proposed General Plan Amendment (Discussion) Proposed amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan to increase the allowable number of residential units on the North Ford Site and to designate a park northerly of Eastbluff Drive extended. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action If desired, a) Initiate the requested General Plan Amendment and direct staff to set this item for public hearing before the Planning Commission after preparation of any necessary environmental documents; or b) Defer action on the proposed amendment to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department workloads and project priorities. Background City Council Policy Q-1 allows the Planning Commission to recommend initiation of General Plan Amendments to the City Council. Consistent with this policy, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed General Plan Amendment at the May 6, 1982 meeting and recommended initiation by the City Council. Discussion The Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan states: "The Planning Commission shall conduct public hearings designed to identify which of the non-cemmitted sites will be appropriate for increased levels of allowable density without engendering adverse environmental and other ccnuunity conditions." Consistent with the above, it is proposed that a General Plan Amendment be initiated by the City of Newport Beach to increase the allowed number of residential units on the North Ford Planned Community site as well as designate a park on the site northerly of Eastbluff Drive extended. TO: City Coil - 2 • It is proposed that the existing General Plan limitation of 120 residential units be changed to allow "Multiple-Family Residential" uses on the ±35 gross acre site at a density not to exceed 25 du's per "buildable acre". It is estimated that there are approximately 29.5 buildable acres on the site. Staff will prepare additional information on a range of density alternatives not to exceed 25 du's per buildable acre. Included in the additional infonmation will be a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of ownership vs. rental for this project. As part of the proposal, staff is suggesting that a ±6 acre park site be designated in the area northerly of Eastbluff Drive. The stipulations of the settlement agreement for the lawsuit resulting from the disapproval of Tentative Tract No. 10019 (North Ford) , prohibits The Irvine Company from requesting an increase from the 120 dwelling units permitted on the North Ford site. Consequently, any proposal to amend the General Plan for this area must be initiated by the City. It appears that, within the density range of 20 to 25 du's per buildable acre, The Irvine Ccgmny can offer "market rate" ownership and rental units that would be affordable for "moderate" and "middle" income families. Additionally, it may be possible to construct som units approaching the "upper end" of the affordability range for "Icw Income" families. 1982 General Plan Amendments On March 12, 1982 General Plan Amendment 81-1 (Banning) was approved by the City Council. General Plan Amendment 81-2 (CalTrans West, 5th Ave. , Big Canyon 16, Block 400 Newport Center, Campus Drive) will begin the public hearing process before the Planning Comission in approximately 30 days. General Plan Amendment 81-3 (Marriott Hotel) was initiated by the City Council on February 22, 1982. General Plan Amendment 82-1 (Adkinson, Irvine Company) was recotmended for initiation by the Planning Comussion on February 18, 1982. At the March 22, 1982 City Council meeting action was deferred on the proposed amendment to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department workloads and project priorities. Section 65361 (a) of the Government Code limits the frequency of General Plan Amendments to 3 times per year. Since Newport Beach is a Charter City we are not legally required to comply with this section of the Government Code, however Council Policy Q-1 reflects the general intent of the City to conform to this provision. Section 65361(b) excludes from the 3 time per year requirement, projects where 25% of the units will be made available for low or moderate income families. TO: city 0041 - 3 • It is possible that a General Plan Amendment for North Ford would be the 4th Amendment for 1982, however the project in its currently contemplated configuration would probably be consistent with the State Legislature's intent [65361(b)] to allow more than 3 Amendments per year for projects which will provide low or moderate income housing. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTHM DAMES D, HEWICKER, Director By4 P. ROBERT P. LENVM Advance Planning Administrator RPL:nma Attachment: Draft May 6, 1982 Planning Cannission Minutes COMMISSIONERS May 6, 1982 • MINUTES � d ` to DRAFT x y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Proposed amendment to the Nec•:oort Beach General Pian i-n Item #16 increase the allowable number of residential units on the North Ford Site and to designate a park northerly of Eastbluff Drive extended. PROPOSED GENERAL INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach PLAN ARENDMENT The discussion opened in connection with this item and Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, presented background information relating to this item. RECOMMENDED TO CITY Commissioner Beek asked why this one parcel is being COUNCIL singled out for consideration of a density increase at THAT THE this time. Mr. Lenard stated that some of the Planning GENERAL Commission members and City Council members have PLAN expressed an interest on the North Ford site during the AMENDMENT past year for a possible general plan amendment. He gE further stated that this particular site would be INITIATED considered to have fewer, serious environmental constraints. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Lenard stated that the property owner, The Irvine Company, has not requested the general plan amendment. Mr. Lenard stated that staff has suggested the general plan amendment process for this site. Commissioner Allen asked how the 25 percent density increase, as referred to in the Housing Element, relates to the proposed general plan amendment. Mr. Lenard stated that the proposed density increase on the North Ford site would more than satisfy the five year goal as set by the Housing Element. He further stated that this would not preclude the Commission from considering other sites. Commissioner Allen suggested that the Commission receive information relating to legislation which affects the other undeveloped sites, and how a density increase on this site will fulfill the commitment City-wide on the undeveloped sites for affordable housing. -1- COMMISSIONERS May 6, 1982 MINUTES � r � a � m N. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I INDEX Motion X Motion was made to recommend to the City Council that Ayes yX X X X the proposed General Plan Amendment be initiated and Noes X that staff be directed to set this item for public hearing before the Planning commission after preparation of any necessary environmental documents, which MOTION CARRIED. -2- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPAR`IIMIENT May 21, 1982 TO: Craig Bluell, Senior Planner FROM: Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Housing Element Implementation/Financing At the Planning Commission meeting of May 6, 1982 the issue of Housing Element Implementation and Density Increases was continued to the adjourned meeting of June 10, 1982 with direction from the Commission to focus on the issue of Financing. I have written letters to the participants of the May 6 meeting thanking them for their contributions to the program and requesting their attendance at the June 10 meeting where the issue of Finance was to be discussed. Please follow-up and telephone each of the participants to verify whether or not they will be able to attend. You should talk to Bernard Manascalco at The Irvine Company about any suggestions for additional participants. Be sure to prepare all the necessary legal and display ad notices. .r I would suggest you prepare an outline as soon as possible so that we could discuss has to 'structure the discussion and the staff report. I think specifically that you need to include information in the report describing the various financing alternatives. It would also be helpful to think up some addi. ion s who would be particularly qualified to address the financing alternatives. The staff report will go out on Friday, June 4, therefore, I would like a smooth (as opposed to rough) draft by Wednesday, June 2. I am attending an all day conference on June 3, so we will have to schedule our time carefully. Please put your thoughts together as quickly as possible so that you, Jim, and I can agree on a game plan. &::LA B0$ LENARD BL:mma HOUSING 1109 VT INDIEMENTATIS AGEXIDA May 6, 1982 A / Progress report on Housing Element Inplementation Liaison Condo Conversion Mobile Hare Zone Z Examples of higher-density nuderate priced projets a) Agar and Gafeller 44'±e - y° b)' Barrett (TIC) Slides 7 c_ c) Tan Neilson {TIC) Woodbridge d) Costa,Mesa v� 3 cuss of Sites a) Si to be considered Z ) What density levels are most efficient 1 c) Minimum size of units d) Differences in population factors with various densities e) Requirements of the Subdivision Map Act fl Requirements of Mello Bill 5. Zees of Housing a) Owner vs. Rental '04- c) conventional vs. pre-fabricated AA RPL:nma 4/21/82 HOUSING ELF= IMPT ATI* AGENDA May 16, 1982 1. Support of new mortgage instruments. (Objective 2, Pg. 100) 2. Increased levels of allowable density on non-committed sites. (Objective 3, Pg. 101) a. Which sites b. What density levels are most efficient c. Minimum size of units d. Differences in population factors with various densities e. Requirements of the Subdivision Map Act f. Requirements of the Mello Bill 3. Use of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. (Objective 7a, Pg. 105) 4. Possible renewed participation in the CDBG Program. (Objective 7b, Pg. 105) a. Use of CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation. (Objective 9b, Pg. 109) b. Use of CDBG funds for infrastructure development. c. Use of CDBG funds for direct subsidy. d. Appointment of Council Ad Hoc Committee 5. Incentives to spur the construction of rental units. (Objective 7c, Pg. 105) a. Increased density b. Unit size c. -Subsidy d. Reduced development requirements CM:nma 4/21/82 t 1 1' HWKiNG as Fr U IMP M=ATICN STAMMIPEPORP May 6, 1982 A. Introductory paragraphs about the history of AE2853 and the adoption of the Hazsing Element. B. Housing Element Inplementation progress report 1) Liaison a) Housing Element reference b) Bob Lenard-apq&ii d Housing Liaison 02 meetings A d) This Public Hear e) Housing Industry Report proposed for the City Council Study Session of June 14, 1982 2) Condo Conversion I a) Housing Element reference b) Staff report background c) Current status 3) Mobile Home Zone a) Housing Element reference b) Staff report background C) Current status C. Density Increases 1) Housing Element reference Qb7) Barrett les of higher-density moderate prices projects gid and Gafeller (TIC) aff Neilson (TIC) Vbodbridgeosta Mesa _. 3) Discussion of undeveloped sites Requirements of the Subdivision Map Act Requirements of Mellow Bill Sites to be considered +That density levels are most efficient C 7 1 G AJ\Mlnimum size of units. - cz f) II Differences in population factors with various densities 4) Publicly owned sites k a) School district land A b) City vaned land i D) Types of Housing 1) Housing Element references 2) owner vs. Rental 3) Conventional vs. prefabricated Crll� Clt� E) Conclusion 1) Direction on density increases 2) Direction on housing financiaWing study session CTB:nma 4/22/82 H&NG >•rFrMU IMPr UgUMION STA IbWOIRT May 6, 1982 A. Introductory paragraphs about the history of AB2853 and the adoption of the Housing Element. B. Housing Element Implementation progress report. 1) Liaison a) Housing Element reference b) Bob Lenard appointed Housing Liaison c) 2 meetings d) This Public Hearing e) Housing Industry Report proposed for the City Council Study Session of June 14, 1982 2) Condo Conversion a) Housing Element reference b) Staff report background c) Current status 3) Mobile Hone Zone a) Housing Element reference b) Staff report background c) Current status C. Density Increases 1) Housing Element reference 2) Examples of higher-density moderate prices projects a) Agid and Gafeller b) Barrett (TIC) c) Ton Neilson (TIC) Woodbridge d) Costa Mesa 3) Discussion of undeveloped sites a) Requirements of the Subdivision Map Act b) Requirements of Mellow Bill c) Sites to be considered d) What density levels are most efficient e) MinimLun size of units f) Differences in population factors with various densities 4) Publicly owned sites , a) School district land b) City owned land i D) Types of Housing 1) Housing Element references 2) owner vs. Rental 3) Conventional vs. prefabricated E) Conclusion 1) Direction on density increases 2) Direction on housing financianing study session GTB:rm[ia 4/22/82 Planning Commission MIIIIkLng May 6, 1982 Agenda Item No. 16 CITY OF NSWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Proposed General Plan Amendment (Discussion) Proposed amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan to increase the allowable number of residential units on the North Ford Site and to designate a park northerly of Eastbluff Drive extended. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Background City Council Policy Q-1 allows the Planning Commission to recommend initiation of General Plan Amendments to the City Council. If the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission reccmTendation, they will initiate the proposed amendment and direct the Planning Commission to set the matter for public hearing. Discussion The Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan states: "The Planning Commission shall conduct public hearings designed to identify which of the non-committed sites will be appropriate for increased levels of allowable density without engendering adverse environmental and other comiunity conditions." Consistent with the above, it is proposed that a General Plan Amendment be initiated by the City of Newport Beach to increase the allowed number of residential units on the North Ford Planned Co nMity site as well as designate a park on the site northerly of Eastbluff Drive extended. It is proposed that the existing General Plan limitation of 120 residential units be changed to allow "Multiple-Family Residential" uses on the ±35 gross acre site at a density not to exceed 25 dues per "buildable acre". It is estimated that there are approximately 29.5 buildable acres on the site. Staff will prepare additional information on a range of density alternatives not to exceed 25 dues per buildable acre. included in the additional information will be a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of ownership vs. rental for this project. As part of the proposal, staff is suggesting that a ±6 acre park site be designated in the area northerly of Eastbluff Drive. TO: Planning Comnissico 2 The stipulations of the settlement agreement for the lawsuit resulting from the disapproval Tentative Tract No. 10019 (North Ford) prohibits The Irvine CcaqDany from requesting an increase from the 120 dwelling units permitted on the North Ford site. Consequently, any proposal to amend the General Plan for this area must be initiated by the City. It appears that, within the density range of 20 to 25 du's per buildable acre, The Irvine Company can offer "market rate" ownership and rental units that would be affordable for "moderate" and "middle" income families. Additionally, it may be possible to construct some units approaching the "upper end" of the affordability range for "Low Income" families. Suggested Action If desired, a) Recommend to the City Council that the proposed General Plan Amendment be initiated and that staff be directed to set this item for public hearing before the Planning Commission after preparation of any necessary environmental documents; or b) Recomrend to the City Council that the proposed General Plan Amendment is unwarranted; or c) Recommnd to the City Council that action on the proposed amendment be deferred to future hearing sessions based on Planning Department workloads and project priorities. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. BEX7ICKER, Director BY ROBERT P. LENARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL:nma Planning Comnission Study Se&n May 6, 1982 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Housing Element Implementation Attached is the information which discusses the privately owned sites identified for possible density increases. As the meetings regarding density increases progress, additional information will be gathered and provided to the Planning Commission. PLANNING DEPA JAMES D. HEWICIM, Director BY CRAIG T. 'L ' Senior r er CTB:nma Attachment Site Discussion Westbay Site No. 1. The Westbay site is a large vacant parcel of approximately 71 acres. It is located at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and University Drive. The General Plan designation for the site is low density residential with a requirement that 750 of the units be transferred to Newport Center. The Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program designates the site for a mixture of recreational and environmental open space uses and low-density residential uses at a maximum of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre, with 75% of the allowable units transferred to Newport Center. A County owned property located within the site is designated for recreational and environmental open space. Also located within the site is a City owned park which is designated for recreational and environmental open space and governmental, educational and institutional use to permit the construction of a Natural History Museum. The General Plan will be amended to reflect the designations contained in the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program. The current zoning designation is Planned Community however, no development plan exists at this time. The 6.4 acre County owned parcel used for flood control purposes is located at the southern end of the site. The 6.0 acre City park also located within the site is near the extension of Monte Vista Avenue. This park was dedicated as a part of the requirements for construction of the Sea Island Condominium project. A ten foot wide relocatable pedestrian and bike easement extends along the bluff top with two access easements from Irvine Avenue and a third from University Drive. The east side of the site borders the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and a wetland area which originates at Irvine Avenue opposite 23rd Street follows an oblique swale across the site to the bay. Riparian vegetation located in the upper reaches of the swale intergrades with other species to form a freshwater marsh. To a large extent this area is part of the 6.4 acre County owned flood control channel. According to the most recent information available a large portion of the northern corner of the site is within the 65 CNEG noise contour created by jet noise. It is estimated that 161 dwelling units would be allowed on the site using the maximum low density of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre. After 75% of the units (121 dwelling units) are transferred to Newport Center 40 dwelling units remain as the total development for Westbay. The City's General Plan Policy on "Location of Structures" would prohibit structures from being built on natural slope areas greater than two to one (2:1) and greater than 25 feet high, requiring the 40 units to be clustered on the remaining areas of the site. There are no immediate proposals for development. Newporter North Site No. 3. This site is approximately 85.5 acres in size and is located between Bayside Drive and Jamboree Road north of the Newporter Inn. The General Plan shows 77.5 acres of the site for low density residential development with 25% of the allowable units transferable to either Newport Center or North Ford at the option of the property owner. It also requires that the structures be clustered to accommodate archaeological sites and marsh sites. Eight acres located at the southern end of the site, along Bayside Drive, adjacent to the Newporter Inn are designated for Recreation and Marine Commercial uses. A small area of the site is shown for Recreational and Environmental open Space because it is a sensitive habitat area. The Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program has the same designations as the General Plan. In addition to the environmental open space area a public bikeway/walkway is proposed for the site. The western boundary of the site is located adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. At the maximum low density of four dwelling units per buildable acre approximately 212 dwelling units would be allowed on the site. If 25% of the units (53 units) are transferred off the site the remaining 159 units would be located on site. There are no imrediate plans for development. Fifth Avenue Parcels Site No. 6 The Fifth Avenue Parcels consist of three separate parcels identified as Sites A, B, and C. Site A is approximately 6.5 acres in size and is located at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and 5th Avenue. The General Plan designates Site A for low density residential development which is a maximum of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre. It is estimated that 25 dwelling units would be allowed on the site. Since the site is located near the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard traffic noise may effect the location of the permitted dwelling units. The Irvine CoITpany has requested a General Plan Amendment to increase Site A to medium density residential; however, it has been deferred. Site A is zoned Planned Ccmnmity, but no development plan exists. Site B is 9.6 acres in size and is located on the northwest side of the intersection of Marguerite Avenue and 5th Avenue. The General Plan also designates Site B for law density residential development. It is estimated that 6.8 acres of the site are buildable acres. Therefore, 27 dwelling units would be allowed on the site. General Plan Amendment 81-2 which is currently being processed by the City would redesignate the site for medium density residential development. This would increase the allowed number of units by 41 increasing the total dwelling units to 68. The General Plan Amendment is proposed for hearing in mid-year 1982. Site B is zoned R-1-B. Site C is 13.2 acres in size and is located along 5th Avenue, east of Marguerite Avenue. The General Plan designates Site C for low density residential development. It is estimated that 10.0 acres of the site are buildable acres. At 4 dwelling units per acre 40 dwelling units would be allowed on the site. General Plan Amendment 81-2 also includes a request to change Site C to medium density residential. A\General Plan redesignation to medium density residential would increase the al owed number of units by 60, increasing the total dwelling units to 100. Site is zoned R-1-B. Freeway Rds located Site No. 7. This site is approximately 10.9 acres in size an t i 1 ated on the southwest side of the >n er section of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The General Plan currently designates the site for recreational and environmental open space. General Plan Amendment 78-2 allocated an additional 100 units to Big Canyon with the requirement that they be built at a location other than area 10. Freeway reservation - west is the only location within Big Canyon that could accommodate 100 dwelling units. This site is currently being processed as part of General Plan Amendment 81-2 to redesignate the site for medium density residential development. It is estimated that 8.7 acres of the site are buildable acres. Therefore, 87 dwelling units would be allowed. The General Plan Amendment is proposed for hearing mid-year 1982. This site is zoned Planned Community. Freeway Reservation - East Site No. 8. This site is approximately 25 acres in size and is located on the southeast side of the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The General Plan designates this site for low density residential development which is a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre. It is estimated that 76 dwelling units would be allowed on this site. This site is zoned Planned Community, however no development plan exists for this site and there are no immediate plans for development. Baywood Expansion Site No. 9. The Baywood site -is 10.6 acres in size and is located at the northeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. This site is adjacent to the existing Baywood Apartments. The General Plan designates this site for medium density residential development with a maximum of 68 dwelling units. It is estimated that 7.3 acres of the site are buildable acres. At the maximun medium density of 10 dwelling units per acre 73 units would have been allowed on the site. This site is zoned Planned Community. A planned community text, traffic study, resubdivision and environmental document were approved by the City, however construction is not currently contemplated. North Ford Site No. 22. This site is 68.0 acres in size and is located on the northeast side of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bison Avenue. The General Plan designates the site for a mixture of uses which include general industrial uses, administrative, professional and financial ccnmrcial uses, retail and service commercial uses, governmental, educational and institutional facilities and residential uses. The non-residential development permitted by the general plan includes 295,000 square feet of industrial uses and 28,500 square feet of retail uses. The retail uses are subject to a traffic phasing plan. The current permitted residential development is limited to 120 units. The estimated residential portion of the site is ±35 gross acres. There are no known major environmental factors that would effect development. The residential development may be near a freeway offramp which could effect the location of structures. Newport Center Site No. 26. Newport Center is a 530 acre regional center divided into several large blocks by the internal traffic circulation system. These blocks are developed with a variety of land uses which include both residential and non-residential development. The General Plan addresses the site as a single unit. Under the General Plan the remaining allowable development includes 66,350 square feet of office, 58,750 square feet of conuercial, 650 theater seats and 505 residential units. Allocation of the remaining development will involve the intensification of currently developed sites as well as the development of vacant sites. The sites that are currently vacant are as follows: Location Acres Avocado and MacArthur 10.0 Newport Village 25.0 Corporate Plaza West 10.0 Pacific Coast Highway Frontage 10.0 Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree 9.0 Block 600 10.0 Residential development in Newport Center may be near enough to sources of traffic noise to effect the location of structures. AOL 'qw 13 REC. & E Westbay NV. OPEN SPACE SITE 1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/OPEN SPACE MIXTURE OF REC. & ENV. OPEN SPACE AND GOV'T., EDUC. ...., & INST. ` APPROX. •65 CNEL CONTOUR .RI , 'RI 4 �it:1 ST.RI t RI Z "aM. .^. .'.rd. Al . ::. MEd04 '�/E'P'PA / RIB > II \ RI RI ST � Newporter North LOW DENSITY SITE 3 LLLLLL RESIDENTIAL L L L L LLLLL RECREATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE po LL a LLLLL L L L LLLLLLLLLLL -LLLL L L L L LLLLLLLaLL / \ LIILLLIIIIL LL LLLLLLLLL / _ L L IILLL a LLL I L LL LLLL LLLL LLLLLL LLL LL LL L L LL L'L 1 .�LLLL LL LL LLLL LLLLLL L LL I .L LL LL LLLLLL LLL LLLLLLLLLL } L L LLLL L L IL IL LL LLLL LL 1 L LLLLLL LLLL LLLLLLLL / LLLLLLL LLLL LLLL LLLLLLLLLL LLL LLLLL LLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL L L L L l L L L L L L L L l L L L L L L L l L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L LLLLLLLLLLL L LLLLLLLLL LLLLLL L'LLLLI'LLL(r�C•LLLLLLL LLLLL L L LLLLLLLLLL II•ILLL LLL LLLL L L L L ' L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L I L L L L L a L L L L L L L L LLL L L L L L L L L L L L L L L I L L L I L L L L L L L L L L L L l L L L L L 1. 1 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L LLL L L L ' I :.• .1�. •.' . ' LLLL LLLLL LL LLL LLLL LL I+ Lt�L•s^�L.i.. L L L L L L LLL .1. I LLLLL LLLL a L LL LLLLLL a L L L L 0. 1 \I LLLLL LLL LI LL LL LaLL LLLLLLLL LL`LL LLL • L L L L LLLLLLLLL L L L L L L L L a L L L L l L L L L L L I L L L L•I L L L t L L L L L L U L L L L L a L a L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L LLL LL LI.LI.L I.L L LL LLLaLL LLLa IL L L LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLLLLLLLLL L LLL L LLL LL LL LL LLLLL- 111 L L V L I L L L L L I LL'LL L '. PC fee C r.� Fifth Avenue Parcels SITE 6 LLLL` LOW DENSITY LLL L L U111 , RESIDENTIAL T,Y o .PE7Ti o u OR Q p-C g • V RIB y J� ti• � oe� a c,v. dop /E ° o` tlP P� X, RIB •�� I+ RlB LW'/Y LL`L L L� 0 S'G �/ Sao ,veer is�e L N ) L L L n` � e•• LLL 9 (\-� • .r ` LLL`LL``LLL �`- L L LL L L •q .. LLL ��+��1�. Y�C.•� L L L `LLLLLL`L O F ��KC , 'pLLLLLLL (\V /�C>. C�� O�P �•i; LLLLLLLL LL L SC,Vp04RY LLLLL ^ �'LQv� R/B�r\ GpN >•. V6 Rl8'•LLLLL�}LRLLLLLLLLLL G LLLLLLLL ''tt'�•• A� �I J .•. L L L LL LLLLLLL�A LL R3B LL�LyLLLL .;C! .'VC%. / `'Y /Lp C L L L'LLLLLL `:V L`L l L 6�•gflJ 'c Py , l � �fj ,a GR . L LL ''L L" L �}p LLLL Cf �0•Iq�p /' L LLLLLLL `L{,LLLLLLLLL`L`LL�G�L�LLLLLLLLLLLLL'\/\/,L:.�L/yt�_v/ R` , s- • LLLLLL LL LL J :L RZ 5�r� O LLLLLLLL[[L}}L55�L{L�yLy-LLLL-LLLLLLLLLL C C /lG S `LLLLLLL•�.Li Y L CLLLLLLLLLLI I l 174 R LL LLLL LLLLLLLL L L L L LLLLLLLL G L L L L L LLL L L L L L L L L� L L L L L L L L L L L L L o Re R2 R2 L L LLLLLLLL LLLLLL LL LL� u Q C/ RZ R. RZ RZ LL , L , b R; Rz RI ' Freeway Reservation-West SITE 7 RECREATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE SI II 7 < <<S II ,�L1� PINFN< � vP�Ci.• i F �J, ap AP ..ucua 1 ♦ Q• 0 !� cogµfsOR Y•- couRSe 01 c ' Freeway Reservation -East SITE 8 ELL , f L� oQ LLL`L`LLLLLLLLLL PO!t �B8 L`L`I LL`L`L`L f F G• P-C LL`LLL`L`LLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL V~f ` "• vy P� LLLLLLLLL, P CN.tF�' ` PL• LLLLLLL .;•; iaf !' p�,FN • LLLLLL PB `fit pc. Ll`` •o✓rN P-0 LLL`L pBQ BAa� ' LLLLL •I�O^f Z ✓ P''. J FOR Y e pGE! LLLLL``` LLLLL e L`1 LL L• t 5f`r .�L `LLLLLL �LLLIL L L L l L l • L L�L i��J J` .CELL` .I P.0 '•1 LiLL ll: LLLLL LOW DENSITY ' RLgL PAP L LLLLLLLLL (LLLLL ' L i) p Pp RESIDENTIAL L .•; ,. LLLLL � LLL( pp LLLL L J P.0 •< . 1 Li`�` .� Dopy Q s l 5.•.. N `LLL L Y '..• o PO I `L`L`l 4 „\ Py�lN •gyp e <,b i cy a 3 . �a ��- COH R3 Bayw ood SITE 9 ==-= MEDIUM DENSITY __= RESIDENTIAL •o�zr scy a ,i..,.•.• `crc I • i V � RJQ GNRI � 0 T,r, •< � •.n, POPr I I �•i.�, t� P°QT II rN 1.0 Po �� North Ford SITE 22 s° U / J��E •ref� ,�, y. a NON—RESIDENTIAL � o°D; RESIDENTIAL' DDT / 'tl0000 • •000ao'o'ao ' /,• i000'D0000 �• ' • yl. '0000004 ti0 ��• '11/ 10 tl•V OtiOtiO jnm r�J Q OOti000 QQ11 +�1 ^tlY00008�D� 'tl;¢•o•oh�o a as o;Doa dj �� •oio'ti o'o• e yki D D'o tl'tl' �� t• ,� •e d o d � z 000ti I` tiro ZF la v z Ii�,�R ! •° I 4 W n (jl i i'vl F. yl ✓` \ �g3 � I Cl.-'P/ i R 'v 0 6 phi Val I� ♦il 9 a - P4fei- 1 I Newport Center SITE 26 Location Acres 1 . Avocado and MacArthur 10.0 2. Newport Village 25.0 3. Corporate Plaza West 10.0 4. Pacific Coast Highway Frontage 10.0 5. Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree 9.0 6. Block 600 10.0 S +� �icc3 .toe a BLOCK 600 �ENr6 A ° GLE Ga•. �f0 BLOCK 500 It LOCK 900 •f' , i� a�5AN ,y�000$S NEcyppRT = a BLOCK 400 N BLOCK e60 a . e ,, :•� WN QSoti •eaP4 r0 • z GE/JrER � o`a. • llj BLOCK 300 a i v BLOCK 900 �-p 'I t BLOCK soo • t � BLOCK 100 _� � IUCL6J CIO R✓ G`uU V�i�� CORPunATE \ PLAZA \ i ct l\ y; v I R+ • Planning Commission Study Session May 6, 1982 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department MWEICTc Housing Element Implementation Suggested Action If desired, a) Set a date for a future Study Session for continued discussion of increased residential density and discussion of financing alternatives. b) At the evening meeting recommend to the City Council that a General Plan Amendment to increase the residential density on the North Ford Site be initiated. Background During September of 1980, the State approved AB 2853 (FCOS) . The bill amended Section 65302(c) of the California Government Code by requiring that local housing elements ,be in conformance with Article 10.6. Article 10.6 contains the requirements for the content of a housing element and sets a housing element conformance deadline of October 1, 1981. The City of Newport Beach amended the Housing Element of the General Plan on September 28, 1981,, in accordance with Article 10.6. The new Housing Element consists of four sections: Section One presents an analysis of the Com ni ity Housing Market. Section Two is the .housing needs assessment portion, of the element. Section Three discusses the constraints to housing production. Section Four contains the housing program/strategy the City intends to use to provide housing in the City of Newport Beach. Section Four consists of three parts. The first part entitled, "Housing Program, Goals and Policies", discusses the general goals and policies the City has adopted regarding the production of housing. The second part called, "Program Objectives" lists 13 specific Objectives designed to meet the housing needs of the City. The third part, called "Performance Objectives", is a quantification of the projected results of the 13 program objectives. HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS REPORT The new Housing Element has been in effect for six months. Since the Housing Element's adoption .the City has taken numerous actions to implement the "Program Objectives" contained in the Housing Element. These actions have been carefully considered to ensure the City's carmitment to its general Goals and Policies and progress towards meeting the "Performance Objectives" contained in the Element. Following is a discussion of some of these actions. TO: Planning sion - 2 Improved Housing Production. Housing Element Objective 1 is aimed at prawting and facilitating the housing industry's ability to produce housing. As stated in the implementation plan, the Planning Department is monitoring the housing delivery system and Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Adnunistrator, is acting as staff liaison to the housing industry. To date two meetings involving City Council Menbers, Planning Cannissioners, City Staff, developers, realtors, lenders, employers and the local press have been held, This meeting will be the 3rd such effort the City has undertaken under Objective 1. The semi-annual report to the City Council, concerning the housing industry with possible suggestions for actions to be taken by the City, will be prepared and submitted in the near future. Condam nium Conversion. The Housing Element cants the City to preservation of existing rental units in projects of five or more units by restricting conversion of such units to condominiums thru maintenance of the vacancy rate provision. In addition, it is intended to expand opportunities for first time buyers and encourage private rehabilitation of the housing stock through homeownership by removing the vacancy rate provision for condominium conversions of 4 or less units. After four public hearings the Planning Camussion reeamiended approval of proposed revisions to the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The proposed ordinance restricts the conversion of projects of five or more units when the vacancy rate is less than 5% and permits the conversion of rental projects of 4 or less units. Several concerns involving the structure and site, status of the tenant and rate at which rental units convert are also covered by the proposed ordinance. The City Council has set the proposed Condominium Ordinance for public hearing on June 14, 1982, Mobile Hare Park Zoning. The Housing Element ccatmits the City to the adoption of a Mobile Hare Park Zone in order to preserve an existing source of affordable housing. On January 11, 1982 the City adopted a Mobile Hare Park zoning district. The Planning C=Assion has set for public hearing on June 10, 1982 the application of the Mobile Home Park zone to the De Anza Mobile Hans Park. This will result in the preservation of 291 mobile home units. CkTTMUA FOR DENSITY INCREASES HousingElement. Housing Element Objective 3 is directed at promoting the developmenan increased level of new housing production. This objective is to be iplemented by holding public hearings to identify which non-cam-atted sites are appropriate for increased residential density, and amending the Land Use Element to effect the density increases. As a "Performance Objective" the City has projected an overall increase of 25% (290 units) on these sites. These units can be located on any of the sites, or clustered on one site. Government Code. Section 65915 of the Government Code states, that when a developer of housing agrees to construct at least 25 percent of the total units of a housing developmeht for families of law or moderate incase (incases less than 120% of median income) a City shall enter into an agreement with the developer to either grant a density bonus or provide not less than two other bonus incentives for the project. TO: Planning CamNsion - 3 For purposes of the requirements established by Chapter 4.3. , "density bonus" means a density increase of at least 25 percent over the otherwise allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance. Other bonus incentives include the following: 1) Exemption frcm (Section 66477 of the Subdivision Map Act) requirements of park dedication and certain other land dedications. 2) Construction of the infrastructure by the City. 3) Federal or State grant moneys. 4) Exemption from provisions of local ordinances which may cause indirect increases in housing costs. These requirements are not intended to preclude any greater density increase or incentives. Senate Bill 626 (Mello) . Section 65590(d) of the Government Code states that new housing developments constructed within the coastal zone shall, where feasible, provide housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income (incomes less than 120% of the median income) . If it is not feasible to provide the housing in the proposed new housing development the developer shall be required, if feasible, to do so at another location in the City either within the Coastal Zone or with three miles thereof. In order to assist in providing the housing units density bonuses or other incentives must be offered. "Feasible" is defined as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technical factors. Determinations of "feasibility" can be reviewed pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedures. Unit Size. Currently the City's Zoning Code permits -a minimum unit size of 600 square feet. A benefit of reduced unit size might be a reduction in the original sales price. Additionally, reduced unit size might have a secondary benefit of retaining the reduced price at the time of resale. However, there is a point at which further reductions in unit size will not result in further reductions in ori.gir�al construction cost, but may effect the rate of appreciation for resale. ' This type of determination can only be made on a project by project basis. Since most of the major undeveloped sites .are zoned P.C., any reduction in minimum unit size can be accomplished through the adoption or amendment of the Planned Community Text for a particular site. Residential Population Characteristics. Statistical information collected by the 1976 specigl census shows that the persons per household factors in high density projects are significantly lower than those in medium or law density developments. Additionally, projects with the smaller units have the lowest person per household factors. Therefore, an increase in density does ,not always result in proportionate increase in population. Park Newport ApartWnts at 24.5 dwelling units per acre has a persons per household factor of 1.43 and a total population of 1,732 people. Oakwood Apartments has a total population of 1,819, a 1.38 person per household factor and is developed at 45 dwelling units per acre. Newport Crest at 12.6 dwelling units per acre has a person per household factor of 2.4 persons and an estimated total population of 1,000. Lower density development like that found in Westcliff M: Planning Caosion 4 " :'^- or East Bluff (approximately 6 dwelling units/acre) have a person per household factor of 3.5. Park Newport Apartments at 2 times the density of Newport Crest has only 1.8 times the total population. Oakwood Apartments at 4 times the density of Newport Crest has only 1.8 times the total population of Newport Crest, due to the large number of smaller units. When compared to lower density develcpmnts the density of the two apartment projects are 4 and 8 times greater while the total population is only 3 times greater. Approval of a higher density project with an appropriate unit size mix could minimize population .related impacts. These impact "trade-offs" would have to be evaluated when a project was being proposed in order that unit size, their percentage of the project mix and density were known. City Densities. The following table is a list of the various densities found in the City. Table of City Densities PRo= ACREAGE UNITS DENSITY Newport Crest 37.3 476 12.6 Lido Condominiums 1.1 54 49.1 Oakwood 32.3 1,450 44.9 Mariners Square 6.2 114 18.4 Park Newport 53.2 11302 24.5 Promontory Point 32.8 520 15.8 Haywood Apartment 27.4 310 11.3 Grenville Apartments 10.16 67 6.59 Old Corona del Mar* 190.00 31664 19.3 Balboa island* 80.0 2,614 23.1 Balboa Peninsula* 140.0 31434 24.5 West Newport* 225.0 41409 19.6 * estimates based on available data. TYPES OF HOUSING An additional residential consideration is unit . The Housing g Element identifies rental housing as a significant source of housing for law- and moderate-income households. In order to provide more rental units the Housing Element has a goal of exploring the feasibility of incentives to increase the construction of new rental units. One possible program that the City might wish to consider is control over the form of housing ownership. This could be acomplished through a rental housing zone. This type of zone is most useful in cities where rental housing is in short supply and rent rates are consequently high. The 1980 Federal Census shows that Newport Beach's housing stock consists of 47.2% rental units with a median rent of $443 per month. An important consideration in the composition of a community is the balance of ownership and rental housing. Staff has contacted other jurisdictions regarding rental zoning however, no adopted rental zones were discovered. Y' • TO: Planning Callsion - 5 It should be pointed out that the City's park dedication ordinance does not i require dedication of park land or payment of in-lieu fees for the development of rental projects. Density increases as previously discussed could also be an incentive for the construction of rental housing. SITES MR, nKMF SED DENSITY CONSIDERATION Public Owned Sites. Sites such as those owned by the Newport-Mesa School District might be potential sites for residential development if the Newport-Mesa Board of Education determines that they no longer wish to hold an under-utilized site. However,' Ray Schnierer, Business Manager of the Newport-Mesa School District told staff that the Board of Education has chosen to lease under-utilized schools' on a short term basis in order to generate revenues and preserve the schools for possible future district use rather than selling the sites or converting them permanently to other uses. If the School Board did decide to dispose of any of their sites it would require a public hearing before the Board of Education and a public bid sale. The City owns several parcels of land which could be evaluated as potential sites for future residential development. These sites would require evaluation in terms of their current uses, existing use agreements, size, location and suitability for residential use. There are also State owned properties in the City which might be appropriate for residential development. These sites would also require proper evaluation prior to being committed to residential land uses. If the Planning Commission wishes to consider any of the publicly arced parcels for residential land uses, staff should be directed to prepare additional information on these sites. Privately vaned Sites. The following residentially designated sites are identified in the Housing Element as sites to be considered for increased density. Based on an overall 25% density increase the 1,161 total units would increase by 290 units to a new total of 1,451 units. Site # Name Acres Intensity Units 1 Westbay 71 4 du/a 10 3 Newporter North 88 212 6 Fifth Avenue Parcels 35 to108 7 Freeway Reservation West 0 10 du/a 100 8 Freeway Reservation East 25 4 du/a 76 22 North Ford 37.5 120 26 Newport Center 40.0 505 TOTAL 296.5 1,161 The Bayview Landing site is designated for residential uses as an alternate to Recreational and Marine Camercial uses in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and included among the Housing Element sites for density increases. However, this site has been effectively eliminated as a potential residential T0: Planning CaSion - 6 '= site by the City Council approval of the conditionally certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is no longer eligible for consideration. If the Planning Commission wishes to add other sites to the list of those eligible for density increases this is the appropriate time to give that direction to staff. One site the Planning Com fission might wish to add to the list of sites to be considered for a density increase is the Haywood expansion site. The Baywood expansion site (9 acres) was previously shown for Multiple-Family Residential development (maximum 140 units) with the intent that the Baywood Apartments would be expanded at a density similar to to the existing project (11.3 dwelling units per gross acre) . General Plan Amendment 79-1 reduced the site density to 10 dwelling units per buildable acre with a maximum of 68 dwelling units. Since this site could be approved for and developed with rental housing increased residential density on this site might result in the construction of new rental units. This site is zoned Planned Ccm=dty. Additional Information. Additional information evaluating the undeveloped sites will be forwarded to the Planning Commission prior to the May 6 Study Session. PLANNING DEPART<+OM JAMES D. MaCKERR, Director T. Senior P CTB:nma Attachment: Map of privately owned undeveloped parcels SITES FOR POSSIBLE DENSITY INCREASES site # Nam - I Westbay _ � � �pO ^ ` ' /'� - North � t 't �! 6 Fifth Avenue Parcels i '.:�� ® �'� 7 Freeway Reservation West i 'MIX C� Q� � 8 Freeway Reservation East i ' 22 NOYtIl Ford 2Baort Cpans9 ayw d Expansionion 0% IqE -10 NK �—.�- '._ � � '�� .w••. � ��---�r::;�ii'i Yi—ii,_.li.C."a�ii '�•_. �G:vSAj'i+"e'Cy:S C�..\:�f.4�-v_._ �4''.Q.1EEJa•ce�G('jpCCti;wti'f�,L-Q'!7`,t;pr7"p7'r.tfar•l Wit NO, za.- �b�` 7Ta �!�W zrl' 1. CITYOF NEWPONf BEACH/1 % •\' • Planning Commission Study Seen May 6, 1982 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY of NffMRT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUB=: Housing Element Implementation Attached is the information which discusses the privately owned sites identified for possible density increases. As the meetings regarding density increases progress, additional' information will be gathered and provided to the Planning Catmni,ssion. PLANNING DEPARTEW JAMES D. HEWICEER, Director By CRAIG T. Senior P er CTB:nma Attachment Site Discussion Westbay Site No. 1. The Westbay site is a large vacant parcel of approximately 71 acres. It is located at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and University Drive. The General Plan designation for the site is low density residential with a requirement that 75% of the units be transferred to Newport Center. The Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program designates the site for a mixture of recreational and environmental open space uses and loci-density residential uses at a maxitmun of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre, with 75% of the allowable units transferred to Newport Center. A County owned property located within the site is designated for recreational and environmehtal open space. Also located within the site is a City owned park which is designated for recreational and environmental open space and governmental, educational and institutional use to permit the construction of a Natural History Museum. The General Plan will be amended to reflect the designations contained in the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program. The current zoning designation is Planned Community however, no development plan exists at this time. The 6.4 acre County awned parcel used for flood control purposes is located at the southern end of the site. The 6.0 acre City park also located within the site is near the extension of Monte Vista Avenue. This park was dedicated as a part of the requirements for construction of the Sea Island Condominium project. A ten foot wide relocatable pedestrian and bike easement extends along the bluff top with two access easements from Irvine Avenue and a third from University Drive. The east side of the site borders the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and a wetland area which originates at Irvine Avenue opposite 23rd Street follows an oblique swale across the site to the bay. Riparian vegetation located in the upper reaches of the swale intergrades with other species to form a freshwater marsh. To a large extent this area is part of the 6.4 acre County owned flood control channel. According to the most recent information available a large portion of the northern corner of the site is within the 65 CM noise contour created by jet noise. It is estimated that 161 dwelling units would be allowed on the site using the maximum law density of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre. After 75% of the units (121 dwelling units) are transferred to Newport Center 40 dwelling units remain as the total development for Westbay. The City's General Plan Policy on "Location of Structures" would prohibit structures from being built on natural slope areas greater than two to one (2:1) and greater than 25 feet high, requiring the 40 units to be clustered on the remaining areas of the site. There are no immediate proposals for development. Newporter North Site No. 3. This site is approximately 85.5 acres in size and is located between Bayside Drive and Jamboree Road north of the Newporter Inn. The General Plan shows 77.5 acres of the site for low density residential development with 25% of the allowable units transferable to either Newport Center or North Ford at the option of the property owner. It also requires that the structures be clustered to accommodate archaeological sites and marsh sites. Eight acres located at the southern end of the site, along Bayside Drive, adjacent to the Newporter Inn are designated for Recreation and Marine • 0 Camiercial uses. A small area of the site is shoran for Recreational and Environmental Open Space because it is a sensitive habitat area. The Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program has the same designations as the General Plan. In addition to the environmental open space area a public bikeway/walkway is proposed for the site. The western boundary of the site is located adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. At the maximum low density of four dwelling units per buildable acre approximately 212 dwelling units would be allowed on the site. If 25% of the units (53 units) are transferred off the site the remaining 159 units would be located on site. There are no immediate plans for development. Fifth Avenue Parcels Site No. 6 The Fifth Avenue Parcels consist of three separate parcels identified as Sites A. B, and C. Site A is approximately 6.5 acres in size and is located at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and 5th Avenue. The General Plan designates Site A for low density residential development which is a maximum of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre. It is estimated that 25 dwelling units would be allowed on the site. Since the site is located near the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard traffic noise may effect the location of the permitted dwelling units. The Irvine Company has requested a General Plan Amendment to increase Site A to medium density residential; however, it has been deferred. Site A is zoned Planned Comiunity, but no development plan exists. Site B is 9.6 acres in size and is located on the northwest side of the intersection of Marguerite Avenue and 5th Avenue. The General Plan also designates Site B for low density residential development. It is estimated that 6.8 acres of the site are buildable acres. Therefore, 27 dowelling units would be allowed on the site. General Plan Amendment 81-2 which is currently being processed by the City would redesignate the site for medium density residential development. This would increase the allowed number of units by 41 increasing the total dwelling units to 68. The General Plan Amendment is proposed for hearing in mid-year 1982. Site B is zoned R-1-B. Site C is 13.2 acres in size and is located along 5th Avenue, east of Marguerite Avenue. The General Plan designates Site C for low density residential developrent. It is estimated that 10.0 acres of the site are buildable acres. At 4 dwelling units per acre 40 dwelling units would be allowed on the site. General Plan Amendment 81-2 also includes a request to change Site C to madium density residential. A •General Plan redesignation to medium density residential would increase the allowed number of units by 60, increasing the total dwelling units to 100. Site C is zoned R-1-B. FYeewze Reservation-6Vest Site No. 7. This site is approximately 10.9 acres in size and is located on the southwest side of the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The General Plan currently designates the site for recreational and environmental open space. General Plan Amendment 78-2 allocated an additional 100 units to Big Canyon with the requirement that they be built at a location other than area 10. Freeway reservation - west is the only location within Big Canyon that could accommodate 100 dwelling units. This site is currently being processed as part of General Plan Amendment 81-2 to redesignate the site for medium density residential development. It is estimated that 8.7 acres of the site are buildable acres. Therefore, 87 dwelling units would be allowed. The General Plan Amendment is proposed for hearing mid-year 1982. This site is zoned Planned Community. Freeway Reservation - East Site No. 8. This site is approximately 25 acres in size and is located on the southeast side of the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The General Plan designates this site for low density residential development which is a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre. It is estimated that 76 dwelling units would be allowed on this site. This site is zoned Planned Community, however no development plan exists for this site and there are no immediate plans for development. Baywood Expansion Site No. 9. The Baywood site is 10.6 acres in size and is located at the northeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. This site is adjacent to the existing Baywood Apartments. The General Plan designates this site for medium density residential development with a maximum of 68 dwelling units. It is estimated that 7.3 acres of the site are buildable acres. At the maximum medium density of 10 dwelling units per acre 73 units would have been allowed on the site. This site is zoned Planned Community. A planned comm>nity text, traffic study, resubdivision and environmental document were approved by the City, however construction is not currently contemplated. North Ford Site No. 22. This site is 68.0 acres in size and is located on the northeast side of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bison Avenue. The General Plan designates the site for a mixture of uses which include general industrial uses, administrative, professional and financial commercial uses, retail and service commercial uses, governmental, educational and institutional facilities and residential uses. The non-residential development permitted by the general plan includes 295,000 square feet of industrial uses and 28,500 square feet of retail uses. The retail uses are subject to a traffic phasing plan. The current permitted residential development is limited to 120 units. The estimated residential portion of the site is ±35 gross acres. There are no known major environmental factors that would effect development. The residential development may be near a freeway o£framp which could effect the location of structures. Newport Center Site No. 26. Newport Center is a 530 acre regional center divided into several large blocks by the internal traffic circulation system. These blocks are developed with a variety of land uses which include both residential and non-residential development. The General Plan addresses the site as a single unit. Under the General Plan the remaining allowable development includes 66,350 square feet of office, 58,750 square feet of commercial, 650 theater seats and 505 residential units. Allocation of the remaining development will involve the intensification of currently developed sites as well as the development of vacant sites. The sites that are currently vacant are as follows: Location Acres Avocado and MacArthur 10.0 Newport Village 25.0 Corporate Plaza West 10.0 Pacific Coast Highway Frontage 10.0 Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree 9.0 Block 600 10.0 Residential development in Newport Center may be near enough to sources of traffic noise to effect the location of structures. Westbay El REC. & ENV. OPEN SPACE SITE 1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/OPEN SPACE "^ MIXTURE OF REC. & ENV. OPEN SPACE AND GOV'T., EDUC. & INST. f r APPROX. - 65 CNEL CONTOUR f 1 4Ny dyrg RI \ vR ODrop zi. ST.RI fir. t Ril VZ J%EkPA ! RIB P� MEd00 ,. rrrr q�r RI RI �Ill,r ST ,2 Adlk FNemwporter North LOW DENSITY LL L L SITE 3 RESIDENTIAL immomm RECREATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE I`L`L`I L`L`L`L �`I`I`L`L````` L`l`LLL`L`L`t`L`L`L`L •\ L l L L L ILLLILLLL`L /• L`l`L`L`L`L`L L •G L L L L L l L L L L L LLLIIILIIIIILILILILILLL } L L L l L L L L l L 1 LLLILI`LLLLILLLLLLLLLLLLI I CLL`LLLLLL`LL`L LLLL LLLLLL .LL LLLLLL LLLL LLLLLL L`L`LLL LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL L L L l L l L L L L L L L j L L L L L L l L l L L L L L �.v L L L l L L L L L L L L L L L L .. L l ILA L l L L L L L L`L`L`1.`L`L C`L`l`LLL`L`L` >' LLLLLLLLL LLLL LVLLI`LLIL LLLL LLL L L L L l L L L l L L l L L L L L L L L L L l L L l L l L L L L L L l L L L L l L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L a L L L L L`L`L L L L L L L L L 1 1 L l L L L L L L L l L L 1111 ! a l L • L.`l`LLL`LLl`LLL`L`L`L`L I I\L L ,••`LL L`L`L`L`L`LLL`t `�.••. v L LL I l`L`L` L LLLL UL. L`LLLL LLLLL L`LILIIIL`L LL•L L'L`L`L LLLL�Lt I 1 / LLLLLL I L L`LL ILL LL LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL LLL L LLLL LL L L L I L L LL LL LLL l L l L a I L L L L i L L IL LLLLL l L`'`'L `l IL LLLL LL LL`LLLLLL LL LL LL LLLL LL LL LLLLLLLLLLI I L L •LLL L L LL L L LL L L L L LLLL LLLL L I LIL 11 L I LLLL I L LLLL LLLLLLI L L IV ` ` `L L L L L L L L L L L I L I L L ` Adlk Fifth Avenue Parcels SITE 6 LLLL LOW DENSITY t L L L L t LLLLLL RESIDENTIAL LLLLLt �✓.. � sEni o u D.P. a P�C �++' �„�,�.a+,lg Q" Fw � G � o RIB •,� ✓ R/g [K'/Y L � �° � SG 9j '�•o ivecr �s�o L`LLLL LLLLL bLL`L`La vI W / `_ •' �s L. L,ILL`I D�ILLLL LL LLL oG' LL`Li`L �•J(�/E R/g C S .. �v6 RIB L t L LF L L L L A L L l 1 L L L L L F L`1 L q ` L L L GL.�♦� L't ILL `LL ,yy��//'��.. V�•l1 L\T L L L L I L L-L'LCWLL^ �LL L tL` L L L L L L L LLL`� 1LLL L LLL`LLILLL LLL CI L �— HCNACD LLL L L L L L LLLL L L L L L L L I L L L L L L L L L L t L L RQ v R 8� L LLLLLLLLLLLLLtLL L L L L t L G Q LLLLLLLLk 1 L LL L/L�LLLLLLLLLiL, J L 1 lLCy C! CI • RZ R•G R Qy LLLLLLLLLLLL LLLL L `ILLL`L`L LLL j 2 L 00 R`1 Rl 1 2 .L L L LLLL L`I"I' Lt`LLLLLtL�, u , C/ Rt R: C RC Rz ILLL,LL 4 ? R� RZ R2 R1BL RI ' Freeway Reservation-West SITE 7 E ] OPEN RECREATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPACE 1ta U ��S ..�•'."e '.a E 6 R 4' s: aP . cup °uNin,Q �,4y COURSE Freeway Reservation -East SITE 8 ``iL LL`LLLLLLLLLL va A7 A A8A`1 �• P'C :. :LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL v pRf F 6 t L OR r LLLLLLL C ° lAAa.:;: P LiLLULLL�L P�Rt Leg P ` A002 NAF E v `LLILL LL L Plat ` puKN P LLLLLLL L,L LLLLLLL 8� I.LILLLLL ..,PoaT t NCE� pc• raR • 'LLLLLL LLLL �.Z. LL4 uR �C poor saq `I LLLLLL JL�G•�-Cgl L I L'LI LLL (V/ LLLLLLL LLL LLLLL P-c LLLLLL y E LOW DENSITY LLLL"LLLL RESIDENTIAL LLLLLL ,,.. LLLLL N LLLL P�f LLLL_LLL ' o T P LLL � P LLLLLL4 L y pa LLLLLL T Te N LLLLL P-C ��. L L r,y • �M <C Y 3 . A .ai RA' co R3 � 1 FBaywood SITE 9 == MEDIUM ,DENSITY == RESIDENTIAL ��A'bith N�• • rq�%Cq.� <v ��ql •�' POPt . f v s•..i Ny u� J/ r kkN PUPt P gVPr• �l]�I� A�. 71 = er aPQV' F� V IT North Ford SITE 22 \� Y� V i �L z i 1 Ord E N'• y,. NON--RESIDENTIAL ooi RESIDENTIAL* 0 0; •o'o o ti o o•o'o C•� i o'o'o'a'o'o 0 0 '• ' h}, 'o o,o o'o'o'a o o� �S�• �� ti00000aoa :n,.. �;; ••' �a;o'oo'otlto Jd�o'o•.o o'o' ,i5•i � I _0000'o' ' 'ti0000 v a p �'^', CeiP oo4,ao ti• Q c �. n \ 4� 'v F I rti \ I ' w�� i i cu<f••• fQ J , W I.�, 1 a� j•�cl I 6,55��''9C� . cP q •' F-'4� nave _ Newport Center SITE 26 Location Acres 1 . Avocado and MacArthur 10.0 2. Newport Village 25.0 3. Corporate Plaza west 10.0 4. Pacific Coast Highway Frontage 10.0 5. Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree 9.0 6. Block 600 10.0 I S v �i�c3 Qoe p n' BLOCK 600 g, A� OR�J BLOCK B00 ,t 'noa 900 ` Jj f AN ,y/COG.7S BLOCK $00 BLOCK 400 . � � ••�. N Qsc •e,4q row = .0, z CENTER oo. A L!j BLOCK 000 � J O V BLOCK 900 L � BLOCK 00D .a + % > BLOCK 100 — J 007' >�\ CORf'VKATE \ PLAZA 'L \ Pi 1 I • Planning Commission Stud�ession May 6, 1982 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEVORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FWDI: Planning Department SUBJEM Housing Element Implementation Suggested Action �� estred, at the evening meeting recommend to the City Council that a General Plan Amendment to consider-- nereased- residential density the North Ford Site be initiated and that staff be directed to—set—,this item for public hearing before the Planning Commission after the preparation of any necessaryndociments. Z. Give--staff•—direction—on—f-utur-e meetings—eonceming—the—fisancing--of_ �^-�-�-a-- Li Background Background During September of 1980, the State approved AB 2833 (ROOS) . The bill amended Section 65302(c) of the California Government Code by requiring that local housing elements be in conformance with Article 10.6 �e-10,& contains the requirements for the content of a housing element and seto a housing element conformance deadline of October 1, 1981. The City of Newport Beach amended the Housing Element of the General Plan on September 28, 1981 This-- -a nent—gav-- e—Gity—.a—new—Housing--EY repared in accordance with Article 10.6. TO: Planning ssion - 2 • The new Housing Element consists of four sections: Section One presents an analysis of the Cot: =ity Housing Market. Section Two is a housing needs assessment. Section Three discusses the constraints to housing production. Section Four contains the housing program/strategy the City intends to use to provide housing in the City of Newport Beach. Section Four consists of three parts. The first part entitled, "Housing Program, Goals and Policies", discusses the general goals and policies the City has adopted regarding the production of housing. The second part called, "Program Objectives" lists 13 specific Objectives designed to meet the housing needs of the City. �The �third part, called "Performance Objectives", is en dam. -estimate-ofww =,Qy T�cccmviished-by,the-l3-program-objectives. HOUSING Ear IMPIET4ENTATION PROGRESS REPORT The new Housing Element has been in effect for six months. Since the Housing u Elements adoption the City has taken numerous actions to implement the%ogram Objectives acontained in the Housing Element. These actions have been carefully considered to ensure the City''-s _com-mitment��tjo its general goals and Policies and�the-achievement-of-maximum-i�iousrxg e€rt: 1 Cx- Improved Housing Production; ` Housing Element Objective 1 is aime2d dt promoting and facilitating the housing industry Y to's ability produce housing. As stated in the implementation plan, TO: Planning Cission - 3 • the Planner n g Department nitorinq the housing delivery system and Robert Lenar5,^is acting as staff liaison to the housing industry. To date two meetings involving City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, City Staff, developers, realtoor-se,, lenders, employees ndd the lgcal press have been helzom�mtd s stud =-T wi� �� effJo��rtg the City has to^under Objective 1. The semi-annual report to the City Council concerning the housing industrywith possible suggestions for actions to be taken by the lFity will be,,submitted aaong-w-ith +he ndation-for-a-- Gener-a,l-Plan-Amendment: I^i+ U-Q r--� !, Program Objective 7 is directed epromoting and assisting the development of fi housing for low- and moderate-income households. Program Objective 9 is aimed at the conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of the existing housing inventory. Both Program Objectives'7 and 9 involve more than one implementation action. !7ef City actions have involved implementationat action Items 7b, 9a and Condominium Conversion ' fflementation-Actions 7b-and 9a-involve-rental-housing-and-the--conversion of-_ t��h,e,.�!s__e�-�u��nits-to-con�Tomi-niums.—ebjective 7b- i eet-ed-at-t-he Preservation of ,,rental-units in projects of five or more units by restricting conversion of such units to condominium) Objective-9a-is Intended to expand opport ties TO: Planning ssion - 4 • for first tin-e buyers and encourage private rehabilitation of the housing stock through homeamership' -, * w�',J19- -i••��• of Lf After four public hearings the Planning Con¢niI ssion recommended approval of Jar- proposed��ondom U[n conversion �grdinance. The proposed ordinance restricts the conversion of projects of five or more units when the vacancy rate is less than 5% and permits the conversion of rental projects less-than-5-,anits-i-n- sizeo Several concerns involving the structure 'and site, status of the tenant and rate at which rental units convert are also covered by the proposed ordinance. The City Council has set the proposed Condominium Ordinance for public hearing on June 14, 1982. fig ^U Y Mobile Home Park Zoning .ram y * ,,,�„�ry Y-G�.o l: e Cr- 4ru2r:A4 4r}pr,n Pw - n�JrQ`L-e inplementation-Action-7e-is-directed-at.-ttia preservation of nubile home parks through the-adoption-of-a-niabi-le-home-park-zone: On January 11, 1982 the City adopted a Mobile Home Park zoning district. The Planning Commission has set for public hearing on June 10, 1982 the application of the Mobile Herne Park zone to the De Anza Mobile Home Park. This is--the-City'-s•first-McbHe-Home- Park-rezoning-action. Lj%-4 TXA—k "n F/.,o DENSITY INCREASES --,2 M r �`a'^ � `- r �) (0 ousing Eft Objective 3 is directed at promoting the development of an increased level of new housing production. This objective is to be To: Planning Clission - 5 153• , implemented by holding a public hearinO to identify which non-camnitted sites U" '�Qo, C. cal,-G -CAI L ��2 are appropriate Uiate fore sedd rre idential density, As-a-per-€o - the- ^_ ~as--'ad f'—inc asi:ng—zlen ema =gg ..y ted--srtes-by-at�e-as3t--�3$: � o rs d;otheC�� ' xr iu ` tn,. ,ry�' 7of r 4.3. of the California Planning, Zoning and Development Laws 'discusses y Bonuses and other incentives. Section 65915 states, when a developer 'p&co� sing agrees to construct AN25 percent of the total units of a housing development for families of low or moderate income (incomes less than 120% of median income) a City shall enter into an agreement with the developer to Ito )e-%5 kaM J•wo 041L,L, bDYu(S j ne .<<.� I✓�� either grant a density bonus or providevfor the project. For purposes of this Chapter "density bonus" means a density increase of at least 25 percent over the otherwise allowable residential density under the ' applicable zoning ordinance. other bonus incentives include the following: �►� 1) Exemption from (Section 66477 of the Subdivision Map Act) lO requirements of park dedication and certain other land V ko a- dedications. 2) Construction of the infrastructure by the City. 3) Federal or State grant moneys. " TO: Planning ssion - 6 • 4) Exemption from provisions of local ordinances which may cause indirect increases in housing costs. hese requirements are not intended to preclude any greater density increase r incentives. Senate Bill 626 (Mello), Section 65590(d)rstates that new housing develop ents constructed within the coastal zone shall, where feasible, provide housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income (incomes less than 120% of the median income) . If it is not feasible to provide the housing in C" the proposed new housing development the developer shall be required, if P feasible, to do so at another location in the City either within the Coastal Zone or with three miles thereof. In order to assist in providing the housing units density bonuses or other incentives must be offered. Determinations of "feasibility" must be reviewed pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedures. Site3for consideration of increased dens The follaaing residentially designated site Otified in the Housing Element as sites to be considered foe5 _ cr-aL _sew" N Site # Name Acres Intensity Units 2t% Total i 1 Westbay 71 4:du/a 10 0 0 3 Newporter North 88 " 212 5 6 Fifth Avenue Parcels 35 " 108 5 7 Freeway Reservation West 0 10 du/a 100 ,� 5 8 Freeway Reservation East 25 4 du/a 76 5 22 North Ford 37.5 120a 0 26 Newport Center 40.0 505 1 `S�T 1 AL 296.5 1,161 2�0 1 4 O�� TO: Planning Wssion - 7 . t The Bayview Landing sate-was-previcusly�designated for residential uses as an 9 alternate to Recreational and Marine Comrercial uses and included among Zre sites for density increases. However, this site has been',,eliminat d as a r4- _ potential residential site by e,,conditionally certified Local Coastal--Plan; Land Use Plan and is no longer eligible for consideration. If the Planning Commission wishes to add other sites to the list of those eligible for density increases this is the appropriate time to give that direction tq,§taff. Among the sites that the Planning Commission might wish to consider for a density increase is the Baywood expansion site. n-2 � � a Other sites such as those owned by the Newport-Mesa School District which could 1 become surplus sites might be potential .sites for residential development. j However, Ray Schnierer, Business Manager of the Newport-Mesa School District told staff that the Board of Education has chosen to lease under. utilized schools on a short asis ordeX.— enerate revenues and preserve the schools for possible e stri-of u e �If tne'—'Sci�iool—Boar eci e o dispose of any of their sites it would require a public hearing by the Board and a public bid sale. C y n The City owns several parcels of land which could be evaluated as potential sites for future residential development. These sites sho uld be evaluated in terms of their current use, any use agreements, size)location and suitability for residential use. ' TO: Planning C*ssion - 8 • There are also State owned properties in the City which might be appropriate for residential development. These sites would also require proper evaluation �prior_.to being committed to residential land "uses. / 4��'rf3.q Unit Size: Curr tly the City Zoning Code permits a minimum unit size of 600 square feet. If-mt~shou-ld-become-desirable.-- ppr-ave-uirits_smaller-tliara-600-square1 feet,,- thi-s-can be accomplished through the adoption�pf•-zan amendment o£�e cs�'1'Lar ' s- Ilanned gxvunity{£ext;5forpro-ject-un"der-eonsideratica, Residential Population Characteristics: Statistical information collected by the 1976 special census shows that the persons per household in high density projects are significantly lower than -those in medium or low density developments. Additionally, -projects-.with--the, smaller units have the lowest person per household factors. 1 Therefore, a higher density project with an appropriate unit size mix could minimize population related impacts. Additionally, reduced unit size could have the secondary benefit of retaining a lower unit resale price. " To: Planning Co*sion - 9 • Most Efficient Densi/ty;, p�,n e — ' rJt Q�.e.�1Jr Ur Froject density is influenced by several considerations such as site size, f configuration and topography, access, cost of structured parking and project impacts. These considerations lead to the design of the east efficient project • density. Analysis of these considerations is best handled by the developer of a project on a site by site basis since it is the housing industry that is most familiar with the current cost of construction. tA c� It TYPES OF HOUSING. An additional residential consideration is unit type. one possible program that the City might wish to consider is control over the form of housing ownership. This could be accomplished through a rental housing zone. This F one is most useful in cities where rental housing is in short supply rates are consequently high. The 1980 Federal Census shows that ach's housing stock consists of 47.2% rental units with a median rent per month. An important consideration in the composition of a is the balance of ownership and rental housing. Staff has contacted isdictions regarding rental zoning however, no adopted rental zones vered. Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds, Including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court % of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September,1961,and A-24831,dated 11 June, 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA • /y fi,: ,yjrr ,4 County of Orange public Nolic• Advarebine �l coverall by thiselliit.,1Is s•1 in { polo! with 10 pica column Width. I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, pOBLIC NOTICE County of Orange, State of California, and that a PUBLIC NOTICE Public Hearing NOTICE OF Notice Of PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF NEWPORT RFA I Notice Is hereby given that the Planning commission will o the City of Pubic Newport Beech will hall a Public Hearing to discussimplementation of the recently adopted Housing ' of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete Element of the Newport peach copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, P ograms to be coonsidered Housing a I planning atuayy Involving the increa. Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, sing of real ardial densities on some of the remaining undeveloped Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna sltec The Planning Study will also Beach issues of said newspaper for one niche rn unit Sizes, s housing types, finv lmum cult on of housing forms of s. Issue(g) of ownershlpp. Notice Is hereby further given that ,eald public hearing will be held on the 6th day of May 1982,at the hour Hof 2.00 p.m. In the Council Cham- bers of the NeiMporl Beach City April 26 2 Hell, 3300 W. Newport Boulevard, 198 at which time and place any and all persons Interested may appear and be heard thereon. Joan Wlnburn,Secretary 198— Planning Commluelon City of Newport Beech Published Orange Coast Deily Pilot,April 26,1982 1655-62 , 198— 198- 198— I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the (_ 20 �foregoing is true and correct.Executed on Apxil 26198at Costa Mesa, California. 80 L.LA (/ x5AatqA P. I ��/ fiZ CJ Signature �-1 �� PROOF OF PUBLICATION THEN EW PORT ENSIGN This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) A STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 9B, County of Orange, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Proof of Publication of County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled I PUBLICNOncE matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the NOTICE OFPUBWC HEARING Newport Harbor Ensign newspaper of general circule- Nolme,a hereby q,yen thal the Plan mn9 comtnmman ui the Cnv of tion, printed and published weekly in the city of Newporl Beach will hold a Pubh. I, Newport Beach, County of Orange, and which news- iHear,nq to decnaa tmplemenlmmn of the recently adepled Hounnq Eh,mam paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general PI the Newpea Beach Ganeral Pfan circulation by the Superioi Court of the County of Or- Amen, the Houaa,q Program. 1.. bn eonsdered will be a Plam,n,g mudv m ange, State of California, under the date of May 14 valm, Ina mgeaaa,,,q of renoiamlal 1951, CASE NUMBER A-20178 that the notice, of deaa,hga qp eama of 'I"' undovalgped area The Plammliq Sh,dv which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not will alae+„yamg dmamr,en of harm, smaller than nonpareil) has been published in each type,,• mm,mam eml „i,•. a"d loom of ewnerelnp regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in Npl,ce .a hereby I„nhar 9 m, aiod public Leann,will be held oe it,,any supplement thereof on the following dates to-wit: ew day of May. 1982, at the hear of 2,00 P m m We Cuuned Chamber of Iho Nowpgrt Beach cuy,Hall.3,100 W I !NewpaN Blvd m which „inn oed g place any and all per.e, mla,n,led Apr i 1••28, 1982 Imihaap ...and a Hnmmgrd we,rprayromly iouhoed wdh ae n,po,nd date el if,..,61h of tune. 1987 mid r helebv cor rected will,Ilu. ,•noldmahou lea„ Wmbun, Suennarv. Plann,ml •• Cammnawn.Cnv of Newpu,I B-ach Pubh%h Apnl 28. 1987 in The Newpg,l Enmgu NE107 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, Dated at Newport Beach,California,this28 day of Apr i 119 82 01 Signature iti.. tip' S THE NEWPORT ENSIGN 2721 E Coast Hwy,Corona del Mar,California 92625. PROOF OF PUBLICATION ml This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp THE NEW PORT ENSIGN PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) k A STATE OF CALIFORNIA, as County of Orange, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Proof of Publication of County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Newport Harbor Ensign newspaper of general circula- tion, printed and published weekly in the city of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and which news- PUBLIC NOTICE paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING circulation b the Superior Court of the County of Or- The Planning Commission of the City y p t ei Newport Beach will hold a public ange, State of California, under the date of May 14, hearing to dieeuae Implem on enlall of the rocanily adopted Housing Element 1951 CASE NUMBER A-20178 that the notice, of I of the Newport Beech General Plan. which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not Among the HousingPrograms to be smaller than nonpareil) has been published in each considered will be.a planning dy In• tl residentialsi valuing the Incroanq of sidsmtel regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not In densities on soma of ilia remaining undeveloped silos The Planning Study any supplement thereof on the following dates to-wit: will also involve discussion o/housing Innis, minimum unit eises, end form. 71I of awoarehip. Notice Is hereby further given that i said public hearing Will be held on the April 21 , 1982 6th day of Juno,1962,at the hour of 2 •• p the CouncilChambers o the Newport Beech City Hell, W. Ind Newport Blvd, whin. me end place any and all ❑--parsons hit unI'd may ap pear and be heard Ihareo loonWlnbum, Baerai Planning ing Commission,Cdvof .I1Huch Publish- 21. 1982 in The Newport Ensign NE124 I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Is true and correct. Dated at Newport Beach,California,this 21 day of Ap r 1119 La^f /-_ y t� Q Signature THE NEWPORT ENSIGN , 2721 E Coast Hwy.,Corona del Mar,California 92625. PROOF OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC HEARING Concerning City of Newport Beach HOUSING ELEMENT Notice is'hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a Public Hearing to discuss implementation of the recently adopted Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Among the items to be considered will be residential densities and the possibility of increasing densities on some of the remaining undeveloped sites. Housing types, minimum unit sizes, and forms of cwnership will also be discussed. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 6th day of May 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 W. Newport Boulevard, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. 4\ Vy v PUBLICATION DATE: Received 1 'q i n By Public Notice Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a Public Hearing to discuss implementation of the recently adopted Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Among the •Housing Programs to be considered will be a planning study involving the increasing of residential densities on some of the remaining undeveloped sites. The Planning Study will also involve discussion of housing types, minimum unit sizes, and forms of ownership. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 6th day of May 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 W. Newport Boulevard, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. This Public Hearing was previously noticed with an incorrect date of the 6th of June 1982 and is hereby corrected with this renotification. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE: Rece or li tion 22 S Z By ..nnr.' V `FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE Public Notice Notice of Public Hearing The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a Public Hearing to discuss implementation of the recently adopted Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Among the Housing Programs to be considered will be a planning study involving the increasing of residential densities on some of the remaining undeveloped sites. The Planning Study will also involve discussion of housing types, minimum unit sizes, and forms of ownership. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 6th day of June 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 W. Newport Boulevard, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE: Received f9r Pub 'M 2-05 BY r )04� Al - CTB:nma 4/20/82 THE NEWPORT ENSIGN - April 28 , 1982 PUBLIC HEARING Concerning City of Newport Beach HOUSING ELEMENT Notice Is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a Public Hearing to discuss Imple- mentation of the recently adopted Hous- Ing Element of the Newport Beach Gener- al Plan. Among the items to be consid- ered will be residential densities and the possibility of increasing densities on some of the remalning undeveloped sites. Hous- ing types, minimum unit sizes, and-forms of ownership will also be discussed. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 6th day I of May 1982, at the hour of 2 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 W. Newport Blvd„ at.which time and place any and all persons inter- ested may appear and be heard thereon. A 4 PUBLIC HEARING w Concerning City of Newport .Beach HOUSING ELEMENT Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a Public Hearing to discuss implementation of the recently adopted Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Among the items to be considered will be residential densities and the possibility of increasing densities on some of the remaining undeveloped sites. Housing types, minimum unit sizes, and forms of ownership will also be discussed. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 6th day of May 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 W. Newport Boulevard, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. PUBLICATION DATE: Received for Publication Public Notice Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a Public Hearing to discuss implementation of the recently adopted Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Among the Housing Programs to be considered will be a planning study involving the increasing of residential densities on some of the remaining undeveloped sites. The Planning Study will also involve discussion of housing types, minimum unit sizes, and forms of ownership. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 6th day of May 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 W. Newport Boulevard, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE: Received for publication ` By �� d �� 1 I N V O I C'E' Ice Number DISPLAY One Number . Orange Coast Dail piio� • Newport Beach • Laguna Beach • Costa Mesa • Fountain Valley • Huntington Beach • San Clemente • Irvine • San Juan Capistrano P.O. BOX 1SW•COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 9262"560•6424321 Paewport death City hall 3300 Pievjport Blvd. ldewpo:rt Beach, Ca. 92663 PLEASE RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE Purchase Order No. DESCRIPTION CODE DATE TIMES RATE LINES INCHES CHARGES PUBLIC NOTICE Planning Commission Ad 4/27/ 2 1 6.69 15 AIM0.35 (`Pear Sheet Er closed' / V1- cri .9 ; RE EIS'cp AUG 1982�,-OF �: . l PUBLISHED: All Public Nolice Advertising invoices are Dueand Payable Upon Racelpto/Invoice. CODE: 1. BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT 6. BULKTRANSFER 11. DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP 2. NOTICE OF DEATH 7. TRUSTEE'S SALE 12. NOTICEOFSUMMONS 3.NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING a. NOTICE OF PUBLIC AUCTION 13.ANNUALSTATEMENT 6• SALE OF REAL PROPERTY-PROBATE 9. MARSHAL'S SALE 16. MISCELLANEOUS S. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES APPLICATION 10, ORDER TOSHOW CAUSE P.O. BOX 1560 Orange Coast DAILY PILOT COSTA MESA, 642•OMI 92626-0560 PUBLISHED BY ORANGE COAST PUBLISHING COMPANY DATE TO: [I'MAYOR D LIBRARY ❑ COUNCIL U MARINE E] MANAGER EYPARKS & REC. 0 ASST, TO MGR, U PERSONNEL M ATTORNEY rIPLANNING E2 BUILDING EI POLICE 17 CITY CLERK 17 PUBLIC WORKS n DATA PROCESS. 13 PURCHASING U FINANCE 13 TRAFFIC 13 FIRE A UTILITIES EI GENERAL SERV, FOR: 0 ACTION & DISPOSITION U FILE EZ INFORMATION CI REVIEW & COMMENT tl RETURN REMARKS: '; _ ' ' :✓ ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT April 27, 1982 Orange Coast DAILY PILOT/Tuesday, April 27, 1982 I � PUBLIC HEARING Concerning € City of Newport Beach ii HOUSING ELEMENT I Notice Is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a Public Hearing to discuss implementation of the recently adopted Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Among the items to be considered will be residential densities and the possibility of increasing densities on some of the re- maining undeveloped sites. Housing types, minimum unit sizes, and forms of ownership will also be discussed. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will R be held on the 6th day of May 1982; at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport'Beach City Hall, 3300 W. Newport Boulevard, at which time and place'any and all persons interested may appear and be. heard thereon. Public Notice Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that the Planning CaRnission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a Public Hearing to discuss implementation of the recently adopted Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Among the items to be considered will be residential densities and the possibility of increasing densities on some of the remaining undeveloped sites. Housing types, minimum unit sizes, and forms of ownership will also be discussed. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 6th•day of May 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 W. Newport Boulevard, at which time and place any and all persons interested may .appear and be heard thereon. If there are any further questions, please contact Craig Bluell, Senior Planner, Advance Planning Division, (714) 640-2261. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Caanission City of Newport Beach ��aE`w�gp PLANNING DEPARTMENT _ CITY HAIL FO 330Q Newport Boulevard °{ 'zyy7�- 20 � = P .O. Box 1768 6e19 3 • �« Newport Beach , CA 92663-39V N IP � 2 I Avi � •' 6 ,r Robert QTg 318 S. L' o010/Blvd. Venice, 90291 IMPORTANT Public Hearing Notice T, ,s i ! i Public Notice Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a Public Hearing to discuss implementation of the recently adopted Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Among the items to be considered will be residential densities and the possibility of increasing densities on some of the remaining undeveloped sites. Housing types, minimum unit sizes, and forms of ownership will also be discussed. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 6th day of May 1982, at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 W. Newport Boulevard, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If there are any further questions, please contact Craig Bluell, Senior Planner, Advance Planning Division, (714) 640-2261. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach I 1 Balboa Coves Comm. Assoc. Balboa Improvement Association Balboa Island Business Mr. Tan Orlando, President. Mr. James Person, Jr. Presid* Mr. Tex Griffity, Pres. #15 Balboa Coves P.O. Box 825 315 Marine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa, CA 92661 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa Island Improvement Bay Island Club, Inc. Bayshores Community Asso. Mr. Gene Baum, President Pat Eichenhofer, President Mrs. C.E. Lindsley, Pres. 106 Diamond 106 Collins Avenue #15 Bay Island 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa ISland,CA 92662 Balboa, CA 92661 Bayshores Community Assoc. Beacon Bay Community Assoc. Big Canyon CommnAy Al Smith, President Mr. Ralph J. Overend, President Mr. Ray Geiler, President P.O. Box 4708 #7 Beacon Bay c/o Profess. Comm. Mgmt. Z Irvine, CA 92716 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1101 Dove St. , St. 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 X The Bluffs Homeowner's Conan. Broadmoor Hills Comm. Assoc. Broadmoor Seaview Harare. gMr. Gene Dasaro, President Mrs. Russell Greengard, Pres. Joann Brock, President 2414 Vista del Oro 2814 Lighthouse Lane P.O. Box 4708 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine, CA 92716 Breakers Drive Assoc, Inc. Cameo Community Assoc. Canyon Crest Comm. Assoc. Dr. W.F. Rcbinson, President Mrs. Beverly White, President Robert Mooney, President 3002 Breakers Drive 4501 Hampden Road P.O. Box 4708 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine, CA 927.16 Canyon Crest Estates Canyon Hills Comm. Assoc. Canyon Island Community Mr. Iry Sheldon, President Mrs. Melinda Moiso, President Mr. William McClcy, Pres P.O. Box 4708 P.O. Box 4708 c/o Devine Properties Irvine, CA 92716 Irvine, CA 92716 3301 W. MacArthur Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92704 Canyon Lakes Comm. Assoc. Canyon Point Comm. Assoc. Canyon Mesa Comm. Assoc. Mrs. Lynne Lang, President Sam Yngve, President Isidore Meyers, President P.O. Box 4708 P.O. Box 4708 10 Rue Grand Ducal Irvine, CA 92716 Irvine, CA 92716 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Canyon View Comm. Assoc. Central Newport Beach Cliff Haven Comm. Assoc. Jack L. Hanson, President Community Association Ms. Edna Knickerbocker 14 Rue Cannes Mr. Richard B. Park, Pres. 2100 Coral Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 1128 W. Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa, CA 92661 Corona del Mar Corona del Mar Civic Assoc. Corona Highlands Property Chamber of Commerce Mr. Richard Nichols, President Mr. Les Munson, President Mr. T. Duncan Stewart, Pres. P.O. Box 510 456 Cabrillo Terrace 2855 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dover Shores Community Assoc. Eastbluff Apartments Owners' Eastbluff Homeowners Comm Mr. Seth Oberg, President Community Association Assoc. c/o Condo Mgmt. c/o Devine Properties, Inc. Ms. Dorothy Uhlig, President Jerry Robinson 3301 W. MacArthur Blvd. P.O. Box 4708 1111 Town & Country #48 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Irvine, CA 92716 Orange, CA 92668 Fashion Island Mgmt. Assoc. Four Fours Association Harbor Island Comm. Assoc Ms. Barbara Roppolo, Gen. Mgr. Ms. Margaret Bartz, President Mr. James Rodgers, Pres. 62 Fashion Island 2502 University Drive 10 Harbor Island Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Ridge Community Ass Harbor Ridge Crest Associatio Harbor Ridge Estates Mathew Chafnitz, President Frank Swenson, President Maintenance Association W P.O. Box 4708 P.O. Box 4708 P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Irvine, CA 92716 Irvine, CA 92716 Harbor View Cow=ty Assoc. Harbor View Broadmoor Comm. Assoc Harbor View Hills Comm. Mr. Bruce Froehlich, Pres. Mr. Bill Bracey, President Mr. Gary Ponercy, Pres. 1727 Port Barmouth 2601 Windover 2907 Ebbtide Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Harbor View Hills Homeowners Harbor View Knoll Comm. Assoc. Irvine Cove Comm. Assoc. Mr. Robert A. Stine, Pres. John Fisher, President Mr. Bruce Del Mar, Pres. 877 Sandcastle Dr. P.O. Box 4708 2471 Riviera Dr. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine, CA 92716 Laguna Beach, CA 92657 Irvine Terrace Comm. Assoc. Jasmine Creek Comm. Association Lido Isle Comm. Assoc. Mr. Joe Winkelmznn Robert Johnson, President Mrs. Emily Barrett, Pres 1318 Santanella Terrace P.O. Box 4708 c/o Lido Isle Canm. Assoc Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine, CA 92716 701 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lido Sands Comm. Association Linda Isle Comm. Association Little Balboa Island Prop Mr. David A. Goff, President H. Plug White, President owners' Association P.O. Box 1373 63 Linda Isle Drive Mr. Wm. A. Allen, Pres. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 P.O. Box 74 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Mariners Camunity Assoc. Newport Beach Townhouse Newport Center Assoc. Mr. Tan Edwards, President Owners Association Ms. Leonore Penfil 1533 Anita Lane Ron Rogers, President 120 Newport Cen, Ste 260 Newport Beach, CA 92660 #9 Surfside Court Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Crest Homemmers Newport Harbor Area Newport Harbor-Costa Mesa George Bloecker, President Chamber of Commerce Board of Realtors 201 Intrepid St. Michael Gering, President Paul Franklin, President Newport Beach, CA 92663 1470 Jamboree Rd. 401 N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92653 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Heights Improvement Newport Hills Conn. Assoc. Newport Island Incor. Ms. Pat Strang, President Mr. Taylor Grant Mr. Wm. S. Aldridge, Pres 351 Catalina Dr. 1985 Port Edward Circle 3711 Channel Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Shores Comm. Assoc. Newport Terrace Homeowners' Newport Upper Bay Estates Mr. Ray Quinn, President Mr. Chanciford Mouce, Pres. Mr. Tim P. Shepard, Pres. 477 Prospect St. #7 Sumnerwalk 2215 Anniversary Lane Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 North Bluff Bay View Comm. North Bluff Park Comm. Assoc. North Bluff Villa Coma. Mr. Filbert T. Jones, Pres. Arleigh Hupp, President Chuck Colesworthy, Pres. Professional Comm. Mgmt. 426 Vista Roma P.O. Box 4708 1101 Dove St., Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine, CA 92716 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Plaza Homeowners Comm. Assoc. Pramntory Bay Homeowners Assoc. Sea Island Come. Assoc. George Ci Mr. Charles Stine, President Mr. David Trumbull, President Mr. angaa, Pres. 2231 Vista Huerta 633 Bayside Dr. 23726 Birtcher Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 E1 Toro, CA 92630 Sea Pine ComTrunity Assoc. Sea Wind Community Associatio Seaview Community Assoc. Loomis Properties •Mr. Russ Hofer, President Mr. Jim Beneventi, Pres. ` P.O. Box 11785 2301 Port Lerwick Place 2033 Yacht Defender Santa Ana, CA 92711 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Shorecliffs Comm. Assoc. Spyglass Hill Community Assoc. Spyglass Ridge Community Mr. Tan Pitcher, President Carl Willgeroth, President Mr. Jim Conway, President 356 Evening Canyon Road P.O. Box 4708 1629 Harbor Crest Circle Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine, CA 92716 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Villa Granada Condo Assoc W. Newport Beach Improvement LC Ms. Ginny McFarland, Pres Ms. Cathy Anderson, Pres. c/o Devine Properties, Inc. 5403 Seashore Drive 3301 W. MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Ruth Kahn Lucille Kuehn Elaine Li.nhoff 300 East Coast Hwy., #239 1831 Seadrift 1700 Ocean Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Balboa, CA 92660 Connie Ar&ord Joan Petty Barbara Stabler 1840 Commodore Road 1720 Kings Road 123 Via Undine Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beau, CA 92663 Per Trebler Jeanne Wanlass Dept. of Housing & 177 Shorecliff Road 1700 Candlestick Lane Ccmmmity Development Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 921 Tenth Street Sacranmto, CA 95814 John Sindelar Crystal C. Sims Aviva K. Bobb 104 Highland Avenue Legal Aid Society Robert M. Myerg Newport Beach, CA 92660 2700 N. Main St., llth Fl. 318 S. Lincoln Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Venice, CA 90291 Toby J. Rothschile Michael R. Valentine John E. MG7exm7tt 4790 E. Pacific Coast Hwy. Legal Aid Society of S.D. 3535 West Sixth Street Long Beach, CA 90804 216 South Tremont Los Angeles, CA 90020 . Oceanside, CA 92701 Kateri.ne R. Wolff Richard W. Petherbridge George Deukmejian O.C. Fair Housing Council 1722 North Broadway Attorney General 1525 East 17th Street Santa Ana., CA 92706 3580 Wilshire Blvd'. Santa Ana, CA Los Angeles, CA 90010 Guy Dillow Tricia Harrigan i I Chas Mallinson 1830 Iowe st. 1 Hampshire G'irare 17 Stiatmerwind Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Newport Beach, CA 92610 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Colene B. Powell John H. Mani✓iing Doug Orr 4615 Wayne Rd. 300' 71 E. Coast Hwy. 2324 Pacific Dr. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Azar, CA 92625 Doug Hockett Diane Grable Paul Franklin 1600 Dove St., St. 408 220 Nice Lane, #306 633 Rockford Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Diane Pattison Louise Greeley Maxine Spellman 1235 Santiago Dr. 16 Swift Ct. State Dept. of Housing Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 921 - 10th St., 5th F1. Sac+ranmto, CA 95814 Nancy Hendee Connerly & Associates Bobby Lovell. City of Milpitas 2215 - 21st Street 1242 W. Ocean Front 455 E. Calaveias Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95818 Newport Beach, CA 92661 Milpitas, CA 95035 Mrs. Jean Watt Ruth Plum-or Beverly Nestande SPON . 419 - 38th St. . Chamber of Comrerce P.O. Box 102 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1470 Jamboree Rd. Balboa Island, CA 92662 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission Meng April 22, 1982 Agenda Item No. Additional Business CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Application of the Mobile Home Park Zoning District to DeAnza Mobile Home Park INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action L If desired, set for public hearing on June V0, 1982, the amendment of a portion of Districting Map No. 65 involving specific parcels at 300 E. Coast Highway, known as the DeAnza Mobile Home Park, from the P-C zoning district to the P-C/MHP zoning district. Background On July 27th, 1981 the City Council requested that the Planning Commission a) prepare a Mobile Home Park Zoning District, and b) apply the zoning district to the DeAnza Mobile Home Park. On November 19, 1981, after several public hearings, the Planning Commission recommended a proposed Mobile Home Park Zone to the City Council. The City Council held two additional public hearings and adopted a Mobile Home Park Zoning District on January 11, 1982. The public hearing proposed for June 10, 1982 will begin the second phase of the Mobile Hans Park Zoning process, the application of the Mobile Home Park District to specific sites. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By deeZ4 CRAIG T. gLUELL Senior PYAnner CTB:nma i I � l CITY OF NEWPOM BEACH PLANNING DEPAJR7W2U March 22, 1982 TO: Craig Bluell, Senior Planner FR M: Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator SOa7ECT: Housing Element Implementation - Density Increases At the March 18 Planning Catmission meeting this matter was set for discussion at the April 22, 1982 Study Session. I am not sure yet whether we call it a "public hearing" or not. We need to advertise this one well. The Planning Camssion specifically mentioned all associations and the League of Wanes Voters. Perhaps we can use the same list as the Housing Element plus a display ad in the paper. You need to start working on the background information, graphics, .etc. for the report. Maybe we could update the undeveloped parcels report and excerpt the specific sites? We will need a thorough discussion of the preliminary "constraints" on each site. k The Planning Ccamission also mentioned discussing other Housing Element policies cn April 22nd. Get a copy of the draft minutes from Pam and see what they say. Please prepare a draft report (on the machine) by April 9, 1982. BL:nmaLQg, — )J •' COMMISSIONERS • March 18, 1982 MINUTES p F N City of Newport Beach ROLL LL INDEX Proposed amendments to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure as they pertain to late submittals of Item #16 material by applicants and the establishment of firm ime limits for applicants' presentations. INITI D BY: City of Newport Beach AMENDMENT Motion X Motion was m by Commissioner Beek to add paragraph 0-RULES ALES G to Section IX, onduct of Meetings, as follows: If OF PRO- an applicant submi additional written or printed CEDURE material for the Plann' Commission's consideration less than seven (7) workin ays prior to the date of the hearing on the matter, the anning Commission may continue the matter and the appli t shall be deemed to have consented to such a continuant APPROVED All Ayes X X X X X X Motion by Commissioner Beek as stated abov for an amendment to the Rules of Procedure was now vot on, which MOTION CARRIED. Housing Element Implementation - Density Increases Item #17 Request to set for public hearing on April 22, 1982, a planning study to determine appropriate sites for density increases, as described in the Housing Element. Set for Motion X Study All Ayes X X X X X X Motion was made to set this item on the Planning SeSSion Commission Study Session Agenda on April 22, 1982, on April which MOTION CARRIED. 22, 1982 * * x Motion Motion was made for an excused absence for Commissioner All Ayes X X X X Winburn for the April 8, 1982, Planning Commission Meeting, which MOTION CARRIED. There eing no further business, the Planning Commission djourned at 11:45 p.m. x J Winburn, Secretary Planni Commission City of Ne ort Beach -44- Planning Commission Me* March 18, 1982 Agenda Item No. 17 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 11, 1982 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Housing Element Inplementation - Density Increases Request to set for Public Hearing on April 22, 1982, a planning study to determine appropriate sites for density increases, as described in the Housing Element. Suggested Action If desired, set for Public Hearing on April 22, 1982, a planning study to determine appropriate sites for density increases. Environmental DocLmientation The proposed Planning study is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , which provides that "Feasibility and Planning Studies" for possible future actions where there has not been a project approved, adopted or funded, does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report, but does require consideration of environmental factors as required by CEQA. At such time as the City may desire to amend the General Plan or zoning designations as a result of the findings of the planning study appropriate environmental documentation will need to be prepared. Background The City of Newport Beach has recently amended its Housing Element so that it' conforms to Sections 65580-65589 of the Government Code (AB2853 Roos) . The new Housing Element contains 13 program objectives designed to accomplish the requirements stated in these Sections of the Government Code. One of these objectives, Objective 3, is aimed at "promoting the ' development of an increased level of new housing production consistent with sound planning and environmental standards." The implementation action associated with Objective 3 is as follows: "The Planning Conni.ssion shall conduct public hearings designed to identify which of the non-committed sites will be appropriate for increased levels ,of allowable density without engendering adverse environmental and other community conditions." F y TO: Planning Ccasion - 2 The Housing Element also establishes a target date of six months after the adoption of the Housing Element for the Planning Commission to submit its recomTendations to the City Council. The density increase is also discussed in the Performance Objective section of the Housing Element. This section of the Housing Element contains the required quantification of the City's housing objectives. Performance Objective 1 describes the City's intent regarding density increases as follows: "To increase the ultimate allowable density on the remaining 297 acres of non-committed, undeveloped land by 25%. This increase need not be uniformly applied to all sites; rather densities designated will cumulatively total a 25% increase in residential capacity of remaining sites. This could potentially increase new housing construction from the annual average of 357 to 446 units." The following residentially designated sites are identified in the Housing Element as sites to be considered for the 25% density increase. Site # Name Acres Intensity Units 25% Total 1 Westbay 71 4 du/a 10 40 50 3 Newporter North 88 " 212 53 265 6 Fifth Ave. Parcels 35 108 27 135 7 Freeway Reservation West 0 10 du/a 100 25 125 8 Freeway Reservation East 25 4 du/a 76 19 95 22 North Ford 37.5 120 30 150 26 Newport Center 40.0 505 126 631 TOTAL 296.5 1,161 290 1,451 The Hayview Landing site was previously designated for residential uses as an alternate to Recreational and Marine Commercial uses and included among the sites for density increases. However, this site has been eliminated as a potential residential site by the conditionally certified Local Coastal Plan, Land Use Plan and is no longer eligible for consideration. If the Planning Condssion wishes to add other sites to the list of those eligible for density increases this is the appropriate time to give that direction to Staff. Since the Housing Element was adopted on September 28, 1981, five and one-half months ago, this study should be completed as soon as possible. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Z S D. TI C�R, Director . i Director TPSenor CM:nma CITY OF NE[nTPORT PIANNING ➢EPAFdNENT March 8, 1982 TO: Craig Bluell, Senior Planner FROM: Bob Lenard, Advance Plaruvng Administrator SU&TE=: Staff Report of Housing Element Implementation Please prepare a staff report to the Planning Cxxmission on "Housing Faenent Implementation" for the meeting of March 18, 1982. The report should be in draft form on the word processing system no later than 5:00 p.m. Thursday, March 11, 1982. , The s„ G+cod action should be to set for hearing at the 2nd meeting in April a public hearing on the "Planning Study" to determine appropriate sites for density increases per the Housing Element. rl Use your report from March 3, 1982 as the basis, but try to streamline the verbage a little. `Include a copy of the City Council minutes directing the Planning Commission to evaluate the sites immediately. :Make sure this item gets on the agenda with the correct suggested action (talk to Bill Laycock) . Bob Lenard BL:rme CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 3, 1982 TO: Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator FROM: Craig Bluell, Senior Planner SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION The new Housing Element has been in effect for five months. Contained in the Housing Element are twenty-three implementation actions. Eleven of those actions require immediate implementation. IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION 1 . Objective 1 The Planning Department shall assign to one of its staff members the responsibility of continually monitoring the housing delivery system and submitting a semi-annual report to the City Council outlining the basic needs of the industry, and recommending actions to be taken by the City to assist the industry in meeting its objectives. The Planning Department has been collecting information on housing unit delivery and the City has held one meeting with representatives from the local housing industry. The semi-annual report will present the results of the City's findings. The next three implementation actions are policies which will be applied to developments prior to approval of the tentative tracts. The Banning-Newport Ranch will potentially be the first development evaluated with these policies. Objective 4 In major projects involving commercial and industrial uses, the City shall encourage wherever feasible, the development of housing that is geared to the affordability range of the projected labor force. Objective 5 The Planning Commission and the developer of proposed major commercial/industrial projects shall assess the housing impact of such projects during the development review process. Objective 6 The Planning Commission, in proposed developments of ten or more units, shall seek to achieve a price distribution that bears a reasonable relationship to Performance Objective 2. HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION March 3, 1982 Page Two Performance Objective 2 states: "To provide new housing opportunities for low and moderate income households, wherever possible,, and to encourage the industry to allocate at least 10% (45 units) of the annual production goal to affordable housing for low and moderate income households. 'Affordable' housing shall be defined as housing units that sell for no more than three times the City's estimate of City median annual income at the time of project approval, in the case of for-sale housing; and units that rent for no more than 30% of the City's estimate of median income." Objective 7c. The City shall preserve mobile home park land uses through the establishment of a mobile home park zone. The mobile zone has been adopted, however it has not been applied to any mobile home parks. Objective 7d. The City shall seek to maintain rental opportunities in projects of five or more units by restricting conversions of such units to condominiums. Adopted condominium conversion regulations prohibit projects of five or more units from converting to condominiums. Objective 7f. The City shall continue to work in cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance to residents of the community. The City will actively pursue modification of the fair market rent structure limits for the community in order to increase the number of Newport Beach housing units that will be eligible to participate in the program. The City is continuing its cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance. The City will actively pursue modification of the fair market rent structure limits when the regulations for the new Section 8 Rental Assistance Voucher System are available. Objective 9a. The City shall amend its condominium conversion ordinance to permit the conversion of rental units in projects of four units or less to ownership - tenure, because of the expanded opportunities that such conversion provides to first-time homebuyers and new entrants to the housing market. Public hearings are currently being held on this implementation item. Objective 10 The City Planning Department will be available to refer complaints regarding discrimination in the sale or rental of housing in Newport Beach to the proper agency. The Planning Department has been directed to comply with this policy. HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION March 3, 1982 Page Three Objective 12a. Identification of available sites for residential development. This was accomplished in the Housing Element. Objective 12b. The City will permit the installation of mobile homes, factory-built housing, or any other construction technology. Current City regulations and policies do not discriminate against these types of housing units. IMPLEMENTATION AT 6 MONTHS , The following implementation actions are requires six months after adoption (March 1982) . No progress had been made on any of these implementation actions. Objective 2 The first of the semi-annual housing reports. Objective 3 The Planning Commission shall conduct public hearings designed to identify which of the non-committed sites will be appropriate for increased levels of allowable density without engendering adverse environmental and other community conditions. Objective 7b. Consider the renewed participation in the CDBG Program prior to January 21, 1982. Objective 7c. The Planning Department shall explore the feasibility of incentives to spur the construction of rental units. Objective 8 The Planning Department shall develop a Development Review Procedural Guide which outlines and explains the various steps and time demands of the City's housing development review process. Objective 12c. The Planning Department shall review the provisions of SB 1960 (1980 Statutes) and determine whether city criteria for judging "compatibility" are appropriate and necessary, or whether "compatibility" should be left open to interpretation on each project. IMPLEMENTATION AFTER 6 MONTHS The remaining six implementation actions are scheduled for a variety of times. No progress has been made on any of these implementation actions. These implementation actions are as follows: HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION March 3, 1982 Page Four Objective 2 As soon as possible the City Council shall support efforts to design and implement new mortgage instruments which accommodate the consumer's ability to pay, and at the same time satisfy lenders' needs for market rates of return on their investment. One approach toward implementing City involvement in this matter is for the Council to conduct a public hearing, at which representatives of lending institutions, builders, realtors, and consumer organizations are invited to submit testimony. As a result of the public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Council to adopt a policy position and to promote such position through the State Legislative process. Objective 7a. Investigate the use of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds six months after adoption of State enabling legislation. Objective 9b. Use of CDBG funds for rehabilitation done with Objective 7b. Objective 11 . Within eighteen months of adoption, complete a three part program to promote a greater choice in housing opportunities for the elderly. Objective 13a. Annual progress report. Objective 13b. Full revision by July 1, 1984. The following residential sites are eligible for density increase review: Site # Name Acres Intensity Units 25% Total 1 Westbay 71 4 du/a 161 40 201 3 Newporter North 88 " 212 53 262 6 Fifth Ave. Parcels 35 - 108 27 135 7 Freeway Reservation West 10 10 du/a 100 25 125 8 Freeway Reservation East 25 4 du/a 76 19 95 15 Bayview Landing 19 4 du/a 60 15 75 22 North Ford 68 120 30 150 26 Newport Center Block 800 6.3 245 61 306 TOTAL 322.3 1,082 270 1,352 PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Craig Bl ell Senior anner CB/pw 0 March 3, 1982 RECEIVED PLANNING �2 I DEPARTMENT Commissioner Alan Beek �_ MAR4 1982a. Newport Beach Planning Commission CITY or O. Box 1768 <� NEW oRrOSACH, Newport Beach, CA 92663 CALI:. 2 �I 14 w Dear Commissioner: In the course of a recent meeting of the Planning Commission, you inquired about what actual minimum size dwellings have existed and proven practical. This query had something to do with the housing element; which apparently has a minimum size limitation of some sort. There are at least two aspects: 1) Family dwellings; 2) Singles. Dwellings suitable for family occupation exist in the form of apartment, condominium or single detached designs. These, in minimum form, usually can be utilized if the living areas are within the range of 700 to 800 square feet. Typical room counts would be 4 total, 2 bedrooms and 1 bath. In terms of personal experience, my father raised four children in just such a house located in Venice. Yes, it was crowded. It cost my father $7, 000 in 1944. it would now cost about $125, 000 and only the color of the stucco has changed. A survey of small dwellings indicates that "Single" or "Efficiency" units typically range in living area from 450 to 650 square feet. This is about the size of a two or three car garage. These are usually found in large apartment projects. Many of these have been successfully converted to condominium use and buyers are found if the price is not too high. Sales prices of $45,000 to 55,000 have proven popular. Later sales efforts have failed due to developer greed - interest gates are secondary in effect. Finally, a foreign firm that operates under the name of "Barratt" is said to have developed a 235 square foot unit in London, England. It is said to be a great success. I did not confirm this but it could be so. A last source of data could be obtained from some of the Motels in the area that have been in use as apartments. Some of those units may be smaller than 400 s. f. . I hope this information is of use and is timely. Time permitting, I would be willing to provide more such if needed. Meanwhile, it appears that any minimum size should be eliminated from the housing element. The public can decide for itself what it can afford. Sincerely, Maurice e F.McDonell�' 3226 A Broad St Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 731-6921 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 26 , 1982 TO: Craig Bluell , Senior Planner FROM: Bob Lenard , Advance Planning Administrator SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION I am meeting with Jerry King and Helen McLaughlin on Wednesday, March 3 , 1982 , to discuss Housing Element Implementation and, specifically, potential density increases on undeveloped sites . Please prepare a brief report for me which outlines the progress we have made to date , and where we stand with respect to the schedule contained in the Element. I also need a list of the sites outlined in the Element which are eligible for density increases , with location maps and basic permitted uses on each site . The undeveloped parcel report should serve as the basis for this , with updated numbers if there have been changes . Please have the report and attachments completed by Tuesday afternoon in order to allow me time to review the information and discuss it with you . ROBERT P . LENARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL/kk l UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL PARCELS Site # Name Acres Intensity Units 1 Westbay 71 4 d.u./acre 40(1) 3 Newporter North 88 4 d.u./acre 212 5 Castaways 60 4 d.u./acre 151 6 Fifth Avenue 35 4 d.u./acre 108 7 Freeway Res. West 0 - 100(4) 8 Freeway Res. East 25 4 d.u./acre 76 9 Baywood Expansion 9 - 68 10 Caltrans West (2) 17 - 0 22 North Ford 38 - 120(3) 26 Newport Center 40 - 505 (1) 75% of the total units have been transferred to Newport Center. (2) These sites are designated for Open Space. (3) A General Plan Amendment to increase to 584 has been discussed. (4) Subject to approval of GPA 81-2. 4/8/82 RPL/pw CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 26 , 1982 TO: Craig Bluell , Senior Planner FROM: Bob Lenard , Advance Planning Administrator SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION I am meeting with Jerry King and Helen McLaughlin on Wednesday , March 3 , 1982 , to discuss Housing Element Implementation and , specifically, potential density increases on undeveloped sites . Please prepare a brief report for me which outlines the progress we have made to date , and where we stand with respect to the schedule contained in the Element. I also need a list of the sites outlined in the Element which are eligible for density increases , with location maps and basic permitted uses on each site . T.he undeveloped parcel report should serve as the "basis fo•r this , with updated numbers if there have been changes . Please have the report and attachments completed by Tuesday afternoon in order to allow me time to review the information and discuss it with you . ROBERT P . LENARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL/kk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARn4ENP November 2, 1981 TO: Craig Bluell, Senior Planner FROM: Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Housing Element Related Density Increases Last tire, I tried to figure out which sites the City would be considering for density increases I came up with the following: Site Element EIR 1. 5th Ave. X X 2. EWy. Reservation East X X 3. Newport Center X X 4. Newporter North X X 5. North Ford X X 6. Westbay X X 7. Fwy. Reservation West % 8. Bayview Landing % Please straighten this out. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEHTIC ER, Director By. / BOB LENARD Advance Planning Administrator BL:nma DRAFT HOUSING ELII4ENT Suinme�tt� Housing Goals 1. Promote quality residential. 2. Provide a balanced community with housing variety for all economic segments. 3. Extend ownership opportunities for moderate, middle and upper incomes. 4. Preserve- and increase affordability through rental housing, for low- and moderate-income. Housing Policies 1. Assist private industry - Density/Constraints. 2. Assist private industry - Variety of product types. 3. Providing incentives and direct assistance to facilitate low/moderate housing. 4. Providing incentives and direct assistance for rehabilitation. Program Objectives 1. Monitor housing delivery system. 2. Support new mortgage instruments. 3. Increase densities - Specific Sites. 4. Mixed use - Housing geared to projected labor force. 5. Assess housing impact of non-residential developments. 6. 10 units or more - Price distribution like performance objectives. 7. "Low and Moderate" inane proposals. a) Investigate tax exempt Wrtgage revenue bonds. b) Consider renewed C.D.B.G. participation and Housing Opportunity Fund. c) Incentives for rental units. d) Conversion restriction on 5 or more units. e) Preserve mobilehome park land uses - MHP Zone. f) Section 8. 8. Development Review Procedural Guide. 9. a) Amend Condo Conversion Ordinance for 4 or less units to permit condo conversion. b) Use C.D.B.G. for housing rehabilitation. 10. Refer complaints on discrimination. 11. Encourage housing opportunities for elderly. 12. a) ' Residential sites identified. b) Will permit "all housing types" if compatible with comminity. c) Define compatibility. 13. a) Monitor progress of programs - Annual Report. b) Revise element - July 1, 1984. Performance Objectives 1. Increase densities on undeveloped land by 25% thereby increasing housing production from 357-446 per year. 2. 10% of annual new production (±45 units) "low and moderate". 3. Preserve rental housing opportunities 5,537 ±600 MHS and Section 8 rentals. 4. Conserve and rehabilitate 3% of approximately 340 units in beach areas. CTB:nma ----- - - 9/10/81 .P (CUR L Lo 4 a\9 3.1 7 4/o "Yt ? - - — — -- SurCL- S'_S 7 -- -- - ►' m �ara1�� — — — S,rr� -- -)t o 3\-1 — l a� ► 2- 1tFPc'i� --