Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHOUSING LAWSUIT- 1983HOUSING LAWSUIT - 1983 1, A. W RUTAN IIODOIp T11 4AMC5 D. TUCKER. BR. RBB U-I9501 MILFORD W. DAHL' PATRICIA L. ETCARNS M RODGER NEWELL' RENA C. STONE GARVIN E BHALLCNBERDER' WILLIAM J. CAPLAN JAMES R. MOORE' GARY M. LAPE ROBERT L. RISLEY' MICHAEL T. HORNAK H. L. IMIKCI MCCORMICK' JANICE L CELOTTI WILLIAM R BIEL' PHILIP D. KOHN RICHARD A. CURNUTT' JOEL D. KUPERBERG LEONARD A. HAMPEL- CLIZABETH A. NCALE JOHN D. HUPLBUT. JR.- SCOTT R. HOYT MICHAEL W. IMMELL' DE80RAH H. ALLEY MILFORD W. DAHL. JR.- MARY O. MCILLECC THEODORE I. WALLACE. JR.- KATHRYN L. TOBIN RICHARD P. SIMS' PHILIP C. MAYNARD MARSHALL M. PEARLMAN' NEILA R. BCRNSTEIN ROBERT C. BRAUN' EVRIOIKI IVICKII DALLA ROGER A. ORABLC- STEVEN A. NICHOLS EDWARD O. SYBESMA, JR.- HARVEY M. MOORE THOMAS S. SALINOCR' MAURICE SANCHEZ BARRY R. LAUSSCHER- BRUCE HALLETT DAVID C. LARSEN' WILLIAM L ELIOPOULOI CLIFFORD E. FRIEDEN' ERIC R. NEWMAN ARTHUR O. KOMAR. RANDALL M. SASBU5H MICHAEL O RUBIN' CRAIG LASAOIE IRA G. RIVIN' DCNNIS 5. ROY JEFFRCY M. ODERMAN' JEFFREY S. ROVNER E. B. WOLCOTT. III' MATTHEW L. STEIMEL ROBERT L. PIKE' TIMOTHY S. MCCANN ROBERT S. BOWER' THOMAS J. CRANE LAWRENCE C. BERTINO' SCOTT O. ROGERS MARCIA A. FOR5YTH DAVID H. HOCHNER WILLIAM M. MARTICORENA MARK FRAEIER BRUCE D. WALLACE KARIN T. KROGIUS ROGER H. SCMNAPP HEATMCR A. MAHOOD LAWRCNCC J. ORCYFUSS OADRICLLC WIRTH ANNE NELSON LANPHAR 'A FABHUH MAC COnABRAD. I RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS CENTRAL BANK TOWER. SUITE 1400 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER 611 ANTON BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 August 17, 1983 Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Esq. WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY 3535 West Sixth Street Los Angeles, California 90020 RECEIVED PkInning lnolv- OU.0 I a619 Mr. Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach, et al. Dear Mr. Lehrer-Graiwer: TELEPHONE (714) 641-SI00 (2131 625-7S66 TELECOPIER (714) 546.903S TWK 910 595.1083 CABLE ADORE55 RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO This will confirm our telephone conversation in the first week of August regarding the City's response to your Request for Production of Documents dated July 21, 1983. You agreed to extend the City's time to serve a written response to the Request to the time set for the production of documents, i.e., August 23, 1983. This extension was subject to the City's notifying you by August 16, 1983, if there were any documents set forth in the Request which the City did not have in its possession or would not produce. On August 16, 1983, I telephoned your office and learned that you are on vacation until August 29, 1983. Your co -counsel, Ms. Sims, is also on vacation. Accordingly, I had no one to notify as to those documents which the City would not be producing. While it would appear to me that no purpose will be served by giving you the prior notice of those documents which the City will not be producing, in order to adhere to the letter of our earlier telephonic agreement, I am notifying you by mail of the documents listed in your Request which we are unable to locate. Here goes: RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORA Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Esq. August 17, 1983 Page -2- 1. Item 10(c). No such letters and documents have been located. According to the City staff, Mr. Kraemer read a written statement in the record, but apparently did not give a copy of any letter to the City for filing. 2. Item 10(d). The report referred to was verbal, not written. The tape of the City Council's September 12, 1977, meeting has been destroyed in accordance with normal City practice relating to old records and files. 3. Item 15. The City will produce the staff report summarizing the results of the survey. The survey itself is contained on some 7,000 individual sheets.which I presume you do not wish to review or have us copy for you (at your expense). 4. Item 20. The Planning Commission did not hold any hearings subsequent to October 4, 1979, regarding GPA 79-1. It was on that date that the Commission recommended approval to the City Council. If the Request was intended more broadly to cover any subsequent reference to GPA 79-1 (a construction which we'have not given to the Request), we do not intend to read through every single set of Planning Commission meeting minutes since that date to locate such references. 5. Item 21. There was no City Council meeting on January 12, 1979. 6. Items 26 and 27. The City is currently in the process of incorporating the amendments referred to in a new revised text for the Land Use Element and Residential Growth Element. To date, those documents have not been prepared and are not available. I believe that the City has already pro- vided you with all of the amendments to these two elements of the General Plan. if you have any further question about this, please identify those amendments which you do have and we will check to see whether there are any others. P A. RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING Of PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Esq. August 17, 1983 Page -3- Your attention to this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER Je 4 M. Oderman JMO:jb cc: Cryst 1 Sims, Esq. bcc: aig Bluell Joel Kuperberg A. W RUTAN IIODO-I.T21 JAMES ..TUCKER. SR. II B SO-19501 H. ROBBER HOWELL I10.15.0.31 MILFORD W. DAHL' PATRICIA L. STICARNS GARVIN F SHALLENBERGER' WILLIAM J. CAPLAN JAMES R. MOORE' BART M. LAPE H. L. IMIKE) MCCORMIEK' MICHAEL T HORNAK WILLIAM R. BIEL' JANICE L CELOTTI RICHARD A. CURNUTT' JUDITH WOODWARD LEONARD A. HAMPEL' M. TONI PERRY JOHN B. HURLBUT, JR.- MICHAEL C DRAFFIN MICHAEL W. IMMELL' PHILIP D. KOHN MILFORD W. DAHL. JR.- JOEL O KUPERBERG THEODORE I. WALLACE. JR.- ELIZABETH A NEALE RONALD P. ARRINGTON' DEBORAH H ALLEY RICHARD P SINS' MARY M. GREEN MARSHALL M. PEARLMAN' KATHRYN L TOBIN ROBERT C. BRAUN' PHILIP C. MAYNARD ROGER A. GRABLE' NEILA R. SERNSTEIN EDWARD D. SYBESMA. JR.' EVRIDIKI(VICKI) DALLAS THOMAS S. SALINGER' STEVEN A. NICHOLS BARRY R. LAUBSCHER' THOMAS O. BROCKINGTON DAVID C. LARSEN' HARVEY M MOORE CLIFFORD E. FRIEDEN' MAURICE SANCHEZ ARTHUR O. KIDMAN' BRUCE HALLETT MICHAEL D. RUBIN' WILLIAM T ELIOPOULOS IRA O. RIVIN' ERIC R. NEWMAN JEFFREY M OBERMAN' RANDALL M. BABBUSH STAN WOLCOTT' CRAIG LASADIE ROBERT S. BOWER' TIMOTHY S. MCCANN LAWRENCE E. DEFYING' SCOTT D ROGERS MARCIA A. FORSYTH DAVID H HOCHNER WILLIAM M. MARTICORENA MARK B. FRAMER BRUCE D. WALLACE KARIN T. KROGIUS ROGER H. SCHNAPP HEATHER A. MAHOOD ROBERT W. ALBERTS GABRIELLE M WIRTH JOSEPH D. CARRUTH STEVEN T. GRAHAM ANNE NELSON LANPHAR A P .CPS.KA. MRCOw. K RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS CENTRAL BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER 611 ANTON BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 19SO COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628 Mr. Craig Bluell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Davis v Dear Craig: February 14, 1984 City of Newport Beach TELEPHONE (714) 641.5100 (2131 625-7S86 TELECOPIER (714) 546.9035 TWX 910 598.1883 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO HAND -DELIVERED The following items were left off the document request which I sent to you this morning. Please note that most of the documents are enclosed herewith and are certified; the only thing I need with respect to these documents is conpletion of the voting record of the Council members or Planning Commission members, or some indica- tion that the resolution or ordinance was signed: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1021, 10/19/78, re GPA 78-2 (needs date, votes and signature on page 5). 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1046, 10/4/79, re GPA 79-1 (needs votes and signature on page 5). 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1071, 9/10/81, re GPA 81-1(H) (needs resolution number on first page, date, votes and signature on page 2). RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNEPSXIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Mr, Craig Bluell February 14, 1984 Page Two Staff report for 9/28/83 Planning Commission meeting re GPA 82-]L(b) (I do not yet have a copy of this staff report). 5, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1054, 8/21/80, re GPA 80-2 (needs date and sig- nature on page 3). 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1069, 6/18/81, re GPA 81-1 (needs votes and signature on page 4). 7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1070, 6/18/81, re GPA 810-1 (needs votes and signature on page 4). Once again, thank you in advance for your help on this matter If at all possible, please bring these documents when we meet this coming Friday. Very truly yours, RUT N & TUCKER Jo 1 D. Kuperberg JDK:bc Enclosures zo ME COPY RESOLUTION NO. 1021 CD PiOT E?o"UVE A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CERTAIN PROPOSED --- AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BE ADOPTED (AMENDMENT NO. 78-2) WHEREAS, a portion of the development and implemen- tation of the City's General Plan Program has involved the preparation of the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements; and WHEREAS, said Elements and General Plan set forth objectives and supporting policies which will serve as a guide for the future planning and development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Chater of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider certain fmendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the Newport Beach City Council that the following amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan be adopted as hereinafter set forth: 78-2: An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements as follows: 1. NEWPORT CENTER (a) Amend General Plan for Newport Center to provide that total development shall not exceed the following limits for each category of development: 0 L W . (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Office/Medical Comm/Retail & Rest. Theater Hotel Residential Civic/Cultural Automotive Golf Club Tennis Club 31750,000 sq. ft. 11250,000 sq. ft. 4,400 Seats 377 rooms 800 DU'S 100,000 sq. ft. 5 acres 18 holes 24 courts (b) Prior to any development in addition to Corporate Plaza, Civic Plaza, and buildings which were in plan check by October 1, 1978, or which are specifically approved by the Planning Commission or City Council, an analysis of traffic impact of the full development of Newport Center, Newporter North, Bayview Landing, Big Canyon, and the residential development at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San aoaquin,Hill� Road shall be made and mitigation measures shall be proposed to assure that adequate traffic capacity will be available upon completion of the development. In addition, a traffic phasing program shall be prepared to accommodate development as it proceeds. (c) Changes to the types and location of uses may be made provided that an analysis of both location and intensity demonstrates that the traffic system is not adversely affected and that traffic generation as it affects the major intersections during critical peak periods does not exceed the capacities provided in the approved street development plan. -2- 2. CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE (25 a.) (a) Amend General Plan to provide for alternate use of Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 100 dwellings on approximately 20 acres of the site. (b) Recreational and Marine Commercial would remain on approximately 5 acres of the site adjacent to Dover and Coast Highway. (c) Design shall make provision for public access consistent with Coastal Act policies and ordinances of the City. (d) EIR for any proposed development shall examine alternative land uses and clearly set forth impacts of those uses and possible mitigation measures to relieve adverse impacts. 3. BAYVIEW LANDING SITE (a) Amend General Plan to provide for alternate use of Medium Density Residential or a combination of Medium Density Residential and Recreational and Marine Commercial. Maximum number of residential units shall not exceed 85. (b) Design shall make provisions for public access consistent with Coastal Act policies and ordinances of the City. (c) EIR for any proposed development shall examine alternative land uses and clearly set forth impacts of those uses and possible mitigation measures to relieve adverse impacts. -3- 4. SAN DIEGO CREEK SITES No change to General Plan at this time. 5. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/JAMBOREE SITE No change to General Plan at this time. 6. WESTBAY Reduce allowable dwellings from 426 to 348 consistent with the straw vote of October 51 1978. 7. NEWPORTER NORTH Reduce allowable dwellings from 704 to 400 consistent with straw vote of October 5, 1978. 8. FREEWAY RESERVATION EAST Limit maximum number of dwellings to 100. 9. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS I No change to General Plan at this time. 10. CALTRANS WEST Amend designation from Multiple -Family Residential to Medium Density Residential, with the maximum number of dwellings not to exceed 64. 11. BEECO PROPERTY No change to General Plan at this time. 12. ROGER'S GARDENS AND RESIDENTIAL TRIANGLE No change to General Plan, 13. CASTAWAYS RESIDENTIAL SITE (40 a.) Reduce allowable dwellings from 320 to 225 consistent with straw vote of October 51 1978. .4- 14. NEWPORT CENTER CONDOS SITE Reduce allowable dwellings from 315 to 245 consistent with straw vote of October 5, 1978 (reflected in Newport Center above). 15. EASTBLUFF REMNANT Reduce allowable dwellings from 84 to 42 consistent with straw vote of October 5, 1978. 16. BIG CANYON Reduce allowable dwellings from 338 to 260 consistent with the straw vote of October 5, 1978. Applies to total remaining development of Big Canyon. 17. BAYWOOD EXPANSION Limit maximum number of dwellings to 140. -- REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the Cityof Newport Beach, State of California, on the day of 1 /�J(` 660- Y-- , 1978. AYES f�oda //',S C,OkuSjB&g& e O NOES / ABSENT Chairman Secretary 7CETRUE AND, CO RMT COPY !fl CITY•CtERK OF THE CITY OF MWWPOV Wo -5- DAM HRC/kb 12/5/78 0 _7X RESOLUTION NO. 1046 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CERTAIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BE ADOPTED (Amendment No. 79-1) WHEREAS, as a portion of the development and•imple- - mentation of the City's General Plan program, the Land Usey Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements have been prepared; and WHEREAS, said Elements and General Plan set forth objectives and supporting policies which will serve as•a guide for the future planning and development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, purs�ant ;to Section1707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider certain amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the following amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan be•adopted as -hereinafter set forth: e I. SITE NO. 1 - KOLL CENTER A. Text. Allow development of 30% of the remaining allowable square footage, as of October 1, 1978, prior to the adoption of a traffic phasing plan. Reduce the remaining 70% by 30%, and require a traffic phasing plan prior to the construction of this additional square footage. Following is a summary of the recommended reducations as they apply to each individual,property- owner wi `C.=ti A B C (A & C) Property Additional 10/1/78 10/1/78 70% less Proposed Owner Allowable 10/1/78 30% 70% 30% Allowable Koll/Aetna 476,803 143,041 333,762 233,633 376,6741 + Hotel + Hotel Irvine Company 358,200 107,460 250,740 175,518 282,978 Akulian/White/ Houlihan's 90,000 27,000 63,000 44,100 71,0002 Rockwell 31,775 9,532 22,243 15,570 25,102 Courthouse 25,625 - - - 25,625 Ten Eyck/Wells (5,725)3 - - - -o-3 Cal Can. Bank (43,855)3 - - - -0- The total remaining allowable (as of September 1, 1979) development for Koll Center was 869,090 sq. ft. plus the hotel (f 400,000 sq. ft.). The effect of the proposed action by the Planning Camdssion was to reduce this remaining allowable to 618,565 sq. ft. plus the hotel (f 400,000 sq. ft.). This repre- sents a 28.8% reduction, excluding the hotel. llncludes 143,014 sq. ft. of existing development by Koll/Aetna constructed since 10/1/78. 21ncludes 19,800 sq. ft. of existing development constructed since 10/1/78. 'These sites are underbuilt by the amounts shown in parentheses. 41ncludes 162,814 sq. ft. constructed since 10/l/78. II. SITE 2 - JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR Change the existing land use designation to "Public Works Reserve," with allowable uses -of a freeway loop ramp and/or a "park and ride" facility. The site would have a secondary alter- nate land use of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial uses (consistent with the existing General Plan designation), with density limitations to be established in the P-C Development Plan.+ III. SITE 3 - SAN DIEGO CREEK Change the existing land use designation to "Public Works Reserve," with an allowable use of a ''park and ride" facility on the northerly 12 acres and a desilting basin on the southerly 47 acres. The northerly 12 acres would have an alternate land use of Retail'and Service Commercial (consistent with the existing General Plan designation), with density limitations to be established in the P-C Development Plan. IV. SITE 4•- NORTH FORD Maintain the existing Commercial, Industrial and Office Use designation and -reduce the remaining allowable develop- ment.by 30% to 539,519 sq. ft. 'In addition, residential densities -2- can be transferred from Westbay and Eastbluff Remnant to this site or Newport Center, at the option of the property owner. V. SITE 5 - AERONUTRONIC FORD Industrial and Residential uses consistent with the P-C Development Plan approved by the City Council on August 27, 1979. This would allow a total of Industrial 1,331,000 sq. ft., " Residential 300 DU's. 1• _. VI. SITE 6 - NEWPORT CENTER, Reduce the remaining allowable development as follows: Block 800 Delete 105,000 sq. ft. consistent with P-C Development Plan adopted April 231 1979. Sea Island Delete excess 94 DU's allowed -by General. {{Plan. ; Newport Center ](no specific site) - Delete 170,000 sq. ft. Newport,Center (no specific site) - Add 290 DU's. Newport Center (ho•specific site) - Add units transferred from Eastbluff Remnant and Westbay to this site and/or North Ford, at option of the property owner. VII. SITE 7 - BAYVIEW LANDING Designate the site for "Public Recreation" uses with a view park and bike path on upper portion and R.V. camping on lower portion, or similar recreational uses of no greater intensity. As an alternate use, 4 DU's per buildable acre with all buildings to be located on the lower portion of the site to preserve'existing public views. VIII. SITE 8 - CASTAWAYS 60 acres of residential at 4 DU's per buildable acre, and 5 acres of Recreation and Marine Commercial uses, -excluding any hotels or motels at the southerly portion of the site. It is estimated that this will reduce the number of DU's allowed from 325 to approximately 132 (59%). - 3- IX. SITE 9 - WESTBAY. Residential at 4 DU's per buildable acre, with 75% of the allowable units to be transferred to either Newport Center or North Ford. It is estimated that this will reduce the number of dwellings allowed from 348 to approximately 161 (54% reduction). X.' SITE 10 - EASTBLUFF REMNANT Residential at 4 DU's per buildable acre, to be transferred to either Newport Center or North Ford. XI. SITE 11 - NEWPORTER NORTH Residential at 4 DU's per buildable acre, with 25% of the allowable units transferrable to either Newport Center or North Ford at the option of the property owner. It is estima- ted that this will reduce the number of dwelling units allowed from 440 to approximately 212 (52% reduction). 'XII. SITE•12 - BIG CANYON (Area 10) Designate for 10 DU' S per buildable acre. This will reduce the'160 DU's allowed to approximately 113 (29% reduction) although this estimate may be further reduced because of the portions of the site containing'areas of slope g�eater than 2:1. XIII. SITE 13-'BAYWOOD EXPANSION Designate for 10 DU's per buildable acre. This will reduce the 140 DU's allowed to approximately 68 DU's (51% reduction). XIV. SITE 14 - FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS Designate.for 5 DU's per buildable acre. This will reduce the 204 DU's allowed to approximately 152 DU's '(25% reduction). XV. SITE 15 - BEECO PROPERTY Designate "Energy Reserve" for oil and other energy production uses. XVI. SITE 16 - MOUTH OF BIG CANYON No change from existing General Plan designation. -4- t XVII. LAND USE ELEMENT Add policy language which would require that the following areas be evaluated during the discretionary review of these sixteen indivual sites, and as a result of this review that no structures shall be built in these areas, as determined by the Planning Commission or City Council: 1. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas; 2. Coastal bluffs areas, ' 3. Blufftop setback areas; 4. Riparian areas; 5. Geologic hazard areas; and 6. Noise -impacted areas exceeding a projected 65 CNEL (residential projects only). Regularly passe and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 4th day of October , 1979, by the following vote, to wit: J Secretary Chairman HRC/kv 10/18/79 -5- J RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT 'PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED AND 'THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THESE AMENDMENTS IS COMPLETE AND HAS BEEN PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEOA AND THE GUIDELINES WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the City of Newport Beach's General Plan, a Housing Element was adopted on February 11, 1974; and WHEREAS, legislation of the State of California has adopted AB2853, known as the Roos Bill (commencing with Government Code Section 65580), which* legislation requires charter cities to conform their Housing Elements iwith its require- ments; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared a Draft ;Housing Element which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has submitted said Draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development of the State of California for their review and comments, as required by the Roos Bill; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has received and considered the comments from the Department of Housing and Community Development prior to making its recommendations; and WHEREAS, in response to the recommendations from the Department of Housing and Community Development, Part IV and and Part V of the Draft Housing Element have been revised and are -shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Draft Housing Element, as revised, is in conformance with the requirements of the Roos Bill; and C�A TRU AND CO RECT COPY v �..... .. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NVNPORT BEACH ? ^. i DATE; ..../� �ti,� 4'. . i , WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has read and considered the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in conjunction with its discussions on the proposed amendment and has determined that the EIR satisfies all of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (GUIDELINES) promulgated pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has held public hearings to consider the proposed amendments to the Rousing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Draft Rousing Element, as described on Exhibits A a B attached hereto •and incorporated herein by reference, be adopted. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission .of the City of Newport Beach on the _ day of September, 1981 by the following vote, to wits Secretary AYES• NOES ABSENT Chairman , 2 - _ i 1� \!Yn'. i.�a'.^m'�r��.'YT Y•+�, fTj..'•''Y. ��••�=-!n+n^R F .Y.-•- *.',' Planning Commission Meetint�September 22, 1983 �~ �}17 Agenda Item Nos. 12,13,14,15,16r`& 18 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: (ll Planning Commission FROM: SUBJECT: INITIATED BY: LOCATION: ZONE: Planning Department Draft Environmental Impact Report (Public Hearing) Acceptance of an environmental document for General Plan Amendment No. 82-2 and related applications, so as to allow the construction of a 198 unit residential condominium development in Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. The City of Newport Beach and General Plan,Amendment No. 82w2--(b) (Belcourt) (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan for Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community from "Low Density Residential" uses to "Multi -Family Residential" uses. Tract No. 11041, located on the southeasterly corner of Bison Avenue and Jamboree Road, commonly known as "Belcourt" Area 8, within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. P-C PROPONENT: J. M. Peters Company, Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach and Amendment No. 2 to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Request to consider an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Traffic Phasing Plan so as to allow a 198 unit residential condominium development in Area 8, within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. LOCATION: Tract No. 11041, located on the southeasterly corner of Bison Avenue and Jamboree Road, commonly known as "Belcourt" Area 8, within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. �17Pp _�& ZONE: P-C 7R AND RR2CTCopy 4i *, CITV XLERK OF THE CITY OF NMPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commissi( 2. C APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant and Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study in conjunction with the construction of a 198 unit residential condominium development in Area 6 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. LOCATION: Tract No. 110410 located on the southeasterly corner of Bison Avenue and Jamboree Road, commonly known as "Belcourt" Area 8, within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant and Amendment No. 591 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community text so as to increase the number of allowable dwelling units in Area 8 and to revise the development standards for Areas No. 1, 61 7, and 8 of the Planned Community. LOCATION: The area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Ford Road, Jamboree Road, and Bison Avenue in the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant and Use Permit No. 3054 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 198 unit residential condominium development and related garage spaces on property located in Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. LOCATION: Tract No. 11041, located on the southeasterly corner of Bison Avenue and Jamboree Road, commonly known 'as "Belcourt" Area 8, within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P-C TO: Planning Commi(,�'$bn 3. ; APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant and Tentative Map of Tract No. 11604 (Revised) (Public Hearing) Request to establish a single lot subdivision for residential condominium purposes where 34 lots now exist in conjunction with the construction of a 198 unit residential condominium development. LOCATION: Tract No. 11041, located on the southeasterly corner of Bison Avenue and Jamboree Road, commonly known as "Belcourt" Area 8, within the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: J. M. Peters Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Van Dell and Associates, Inc., Irvine Suggested Actions Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, 1. Modify and recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project taking separate actions on each subject item as indicated in Exhibit "A". or 2. Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed project taking separate actions on each subject item as indicated in Exhibit "B". or 3. Continue the public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1983, to allow staff an opportunity to respond to questions raised during the hearing. Applications The City of Newport Beach has initiated an amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan [GPA 82-2 (Belcourt)] based upon the request of the J. M. Peters Company. -The several applications which would allow the construction of 198 residential dwelling units, related garage structures, landscaping and recreational areas are outlined below: To: Planning Commissic 4. �•" A. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report. Acceptance of an environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Policy K-31 and certification that the data were considered in final decisions on the project. B. General Plan Amendment No. 82-2(b) (Belcourt). Approval of a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan to allow the construction of 198 residential units in accordance with General Plan Amendment procedures as outlines in Article 6, Section 65350, of the California Government Code and City Policy Q-1. C. Amendment No. 2 to the Aeronutronic Ford Traffic Phasing Plan. The approval of an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Traffic Phasing Plan to revise the permitted remaining development in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 9472, the City Council's action in approving the Traffic Phasing Plan and amendments to said Plan, and the City's definition of the term "reasonableness." D. Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Acceptance `of a traffic study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1, and approval of the project based on data contained therein for the ultimate purpose of issuance of building and grading permits. E. Amendment No. 591. The approval of an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community District Regulations and Map so as to permit the development of 198 residential units in Area No. 8 and establish standards for said development. Also, the amendment of the regulations so as to allow a minimum six foot (61) setback between attached structures where presently eight foot (S') is required. Amendment procedures are outlined in Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. F. Use Permit No. 3054. The approval of Use Permit No. 3054 to allow the construction of a 198 unit residential condominium complex, related garage' spaces, landscaping and recreational areas in Area 8 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community District. Use Permit procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. G. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11604 (Revised). The approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11604 to establish a single lot subdivision for residential condominium purposes where 34 lots now exist in conjunction with the construction of a 198 unit residential condominium development. Tentative and Final subdivision map procedures are as outlined in Chapter 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act. Background At its meeting of November 16, 1982, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that all of the then present requests for General Plan Amendments be deferred to future hearing sessions, based upon 'r TO: Planning CommisC:.m 5. Planning Department workload and project priorities. At the December 9, 1982 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended that the City Council initiate the request of the J. M. Peters Company. At the December 13, 1982 City Council meeting, the Council initiated the request. A detailed history of the development of and J. M. Peters Company properties is Impact Report (Draft EIR) on Pages 4-8. Location this site and the Aeronutronic Ford contained in the Draft Environmental The proposed project is located on 12.0 gross acres at the southeasterly corner of Jamboree Road and Bison Avenue. The project is shown regional context and local setting in the Draft EIR on Pages 12, 13, and 14. The proposed amendment to the P-C District Regulations also amends property bounded by Bison Avenue on the north, MacArthur Boulevard on the east, Ford Road on the south and Jamboree Road on the west. This portion of the project is shown in the Draft EIR on Page 11. Project Characteristics The proposed project entails the construction of 198'residential condominiums. The proposed site plan, floor plans, elevations and sections are attached. Project Statistics The following table statistically describes the proposed project. Unit Type No. Type Size % Total A 20 1 Bedroom 760 sq. ft. 10.1% B 40 1 Bedroom/Den 972 sq. ft. 20.2% C 56 1 Bedroom 917 sq. ft. 28.3% D 60 2 Bedrooms 1160-1251 sq. ft. 30.3% E 22 2 Bedrooms/Den 1518 sq. ft. 11.1% 198 100.0% Gross Area = 12.0 acres Buildable Area = 8.5 acres Density = 16.5 du/gross ac; 23.3 Parking = Required 396 spaces Provided 424 spaces Open 104 spaces Enclosed 320 spaces du/buildable ac sq. ft. % Building Footprint 146,306 28.0 Open Parking 26,135 5.0 Landscaping 140,700 27.0 TO: Planning Commis n 6. Streets & Pedestrian Circulation 164,675 31.5 Perimeter open Spaces 44,870 8.5 522,740 100.0% Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)I the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy, a Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the proposed project. Copies of the Draft EIR prepared by the City's consultants were distributed to the Planning Commission previously and it would be appreciated if the members of the Commission could bring them to the public hearing. An official review period for the Draft EIR was established by the State and has ended. All comments received as of this writing are attached. No additional comments are presently anticipated. The Draft EIR indicates that implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant ,impact on the environment. On a cumulative basis, this project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will contribute to degradation of air resources, and increased noise and traffic generation. The Draft EIR was prepared based upon a 150 unit project. An attachment to the report has been prepared and is attached. The attachment evaluates the changes proposed by the applicant in the 198 unit project. Since the proposed project is within the range of alternatives discussed in the Draft EIR and no additional impacts were discovered when the larger project was analyzed, it is the opinion of staff that the document has been prepared in accordance with City policy and State laws. General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan except for the Land Use Element limitation on the number of units. A detailed history of the property is contained on Pages 4-8 of the Draft EIR. Zoning Code The project site is zoned P-C. If Amendment No. 591 is approved, residential condominiums will be a permitted use in Area No. 8 of the Planned Community, subject to the issuance of a Use Permit. The table below compares the requirements of the proposed amended Planned Community P-C with the proposed project. Requirement Proposed P-C District Standard Proposed Project Building Height 37' Max. Ridge 37' Max. Ridge 32' Average 32' Average TO: Planning CommizC:un 7. ('i Setbacks Public Streets Jamboree/Bison Ave Setbacks Interior Private Streets Front Yard Residential Structures Garages/Residential Structures is, 5' (first story) 0' (second story) 8' 8' Garages 5' to 7' Min. or 20' Min. Avg. 18' w/Roll-up doors Parking Coverage Traffic Phasing Plan 2.0 spaces/unit 50% net site area (185,130 sq. ft.) 14' 5' (first story) 0' (second story) 8' Min. 8' Min. (w/in range of proposed standards) 2.08 spaces/unit 40% (146,360 sq. ft.) The applicants have submitted a proposed revision to the approved Aeronutronic-Ford Traffic Phasing Plan which would allow the development of the project as described in other sections of this report. A copy of this request is attached. Traffic Study (TPO) The applicants have requested the City's approval of a Traffic Study for the purposes of the issuance of building and grading permits in conjunction with the construction of the proposed project. The Traffic Study for the proposed development has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance"). A copy of the Traffic Study prepared for the City by Weston Pringle and Associates is included in the Draft EIR for the General Plan Amendment 82-2 (Belcourt) and revision for the 198 unit project are included in Attachment No. 1 to the Draft EIR which is attached. Any action by the Planning Commission on this Traffic Study should be consistent with those on the General Plan. The City Traffic Engineer determined that twenty-one (21) intersections might be affected by the proposed project based upon its size and location. The following chart summarizes the results of the Traffic Study (TPO) for the intersections where project traffic exceeds one percent (1%) of the traffic generation from existing development, committed projects, and regional growth on any intersection approach during the 2.5-hour peak traffic period. Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue 1982 ICU (existing) 0.619 1986 ICU (existing + committed + regional growth 0.7519 1986 ICU (existing + committed + regional growth + project 0.7603 TO, Planning Commissk.' 8. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11604 (Revised) The applicants have requested approval of the Map of Tentative Tract No. 11604 to subdivide 12.0i gross acres into one lot for residential condominium purposes. Tract map procedures are as outlined by the Subdivision Map Act and Section 19.10 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3054 Use Permit No. 3054, if approved would permit the construction of the proposed project as described in the previous sections of this report. The proposed project as previously noted is consistent with the proposed amended Newport Beach General Plan and P-C District Regulations. The impacts of the project additionally are discussed in the Draft SIR and subsequent sections of this report. Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, moral, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the -general welfare of the City. Staft Analysis General Plan In evaluating an applicant's request for an Amendment to the General Plan, the request must be balanced with planned growth and development within the immediate area and throughout the community. in order to provide the decision makers on this project with the broadest base of information upon which to take action, the Draft SIR provides information on the development potential on other vacant properties within Newport Beach and all Specific Area Plan (SAP) areas. The Newport Beach General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. A majority of the land in the City is developed today and the existing General Plan is reflective of that development. In terms of future allowable development, the Newport Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the City will be developed for low density residential development or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Future allowable high density residential development will be in the older areas of the community or located in close proximity to major commercial and transportation centers. The majority of the future additional allowable development will be incremental increases as presently developed properties recycle. The proposed project, if approved, would appear to be inconsistent with this overall development pattern. Additionally, any approval of this project will use increments of remaining roadway capacities. This capacity will not then be available for developments TO: Planning Commi<I: )n 9. , in the other areas of the community. Potential development in the older areas of the City still needs to be balanced with the transportation system. It appears that the city's ultimate circulation system may not have the capacity to accommodate the cumulative traffic generated by this and other GPA's, in£ill in the older areas of the City, and regional traffic increases. The project more than likely will produce revenues beyond costs to the City, however, it is anticipated that these revenues will not be substantial, and will not greatly contribute to help reduce anticipated deficiencies in the circulation system. Finally, the proposed density (23.3 du/ac 'buildable) does not appear compatible with adjacent residential areas. The areas most immediately adjacent to the project would be Belcourt Area No. 7 (4.8 du/ac buildable) and Eastbluff (Single Family Detached housing). Within the City of Newport Beach along Jamboree Road, only two projects (Park Newport and Promontory Point) are at densities higher than the proposed project. Housing The proposed project (198 units) would, however, provide 40 affordable housing units. The provision of these units warrants the Commission's careful consideration of the applicants' request. The proposed project (198 units) exceeds both of the performance- objectives No. 1 and No. 2 contained in the Housing Element by providing more than twenty-five percent (25%) unit increase in housing production and a more than ten percent (10%) provision of affordable housing. Thereby satisfying program objectives Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11. Amendment No. 591 If the Planning Commission determines that the General Plan should be amended and project approved, staff suggests that the following changes be made to the P-C District Regulations as requested by the applicants. Page 11 a. A minimum setback of five (5) feet shall be required. This setback shall be measured from the back of curb or in the event that sidewalks are constructed, from back of sidewalk. Park Dedication Ordinance The applicants have requested that they be allowed to meet the requirements of the Park Dedication ordinance through the payment of in -lieu fees for the market -rate units only. If the project is approved as requested it is presently ,anticipated that the/,park fee would be $658,967.55 (198 units) or as the applicants have requested $525,842.79 (158 units). TO: Planning Commie m 10. �. 1 "Fair -Share" The applicant has requested that they be required to pay "Fair -Share" contributions for circulation system improvements and noise Walls for market -rate units only (158 of the 198 units). Staff cannot support this request as the City Council has previously required (Allred Condominiums/Seashore Townhomso) affordable units to pay their "Fair -Share" of these types of improvements. PLANNING DEPARTMENT DAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By FRED ICO Environmental Coordinator FT/ig Attachments: 1. Draft EIR (Previously distributed attachment) 2. Exhibit "A" 3. Exhibit "B" 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. S. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. (Amendment No. 591) 6. Letter from J. M. Peters Company - September 7, 1983 Plot Plans, Floor Plans, Elevations, etc. Map No. 11604 7. Vicinity Map 6. Attachment No. 1 to the Draft EIR Plot Plans, Floor Plans, Elevations, etc. Map No. 11604 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-2 (BELCOURT) TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY USE PERMIT NO. 3054 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11604 (REVISED) USE PERMIT NO. 3054 SEPTEMBER 22, 1983 A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1: Approve the Draft EIR, City of Newport Beach, Belcourt Area 6 - General Plan Amendment 82-2 and supportive materials thereto; 2. Recommend that City Council certify the Environmental Document is complete; 3. Direct statf to prepare a Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and 4. Make the findings listed below: 'Findings 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as conditions of approval. The findings made in regards to approval of the "Belcourt Area 8 - GPA 82-2" project EIR apply also to the approval of the General Plan Amendment, Amendment No. 591, the tentative map of Tract No. 11604, the Amendment No. 2 to the Traffic Phasing Plan and Use Permit No. 3054, B. GENERAL PLAN 1. Adopt Resolution No. recommending an amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the of the General Plan to the City Council as proposed by the applicant, further recommending that the J. M. Peters Company contribute a negotiated sum of money approved by the City Council towards the construction of circulation systems improvements, and incorporating all revisions adopted by the Planning Commission and incorporating the Findings listed in "A" above of this Exhibit related to this portion of the project. C. TRAFF%C PHASING PLAN .,, 1. Approve the amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Traffic Phasing Plan as submitted by the applicant with the Findings listed below: Findings 1. That the Findings listed in "A" of this Exhibit are made related to this portion of the project. 2. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Newport Place. 3. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacity of affected intersections. 4. That the applicant has taken into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impact arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. D. TRAFFIC STUDY 1. Approve the Traffic Study, making the following Findings and subject to the Conditions listed below: 1a Findings 1. That the Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will be greater than one percent of existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the critical intersections, but the intersection will not have unsatisfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of - greater than 190. - 3. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary -modified" or "primary" street. Condition 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay their "fair share" of the ultimate improvements to the City's Circulation System as may be determined by the City. E. AMENDMENT NO. 591 1. Adopt Resolution No. recommending that the City Council amend the P-C District Regulations as indicated in Attachment No. 5 modified as indicated on Page 7 of the September 22, 1983 Planning Commission staff report. F. USE PERMIT NO. 3054 Findings 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project will comply with all applicable sttnndard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 13 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4, The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. S. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions I. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, sign plans, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in the conditions of approval. 2. That all conditions of approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No, 11604 (Revised) be met. 3. That the final design of all on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and parking be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Department. 4. That parking space shall be provided as shown on the proposed site plan. S. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent uses Jamboree and Bison Avenue. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been mat, 6. The applicant shall provide energy -conserving street and parking lot lighting and minimize decorative or non-functional lighting in a manner acceptable to Planning Director. 14 I,; 7. The proposed project shall incorporate an internal security system (i.e., security guards, alarms, access limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by the Planning Department. 8. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 9. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 10. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 11. That fire vehicle access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 12. On -site water mains and fire hydrant locations are to be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 13. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 14. The project shall incorporate the use of alternative energy technology into building designs and systems for heating pools and spas at the hotel. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for said the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director -that the concerns of this condition have been met. 15. Prior to the issuance of building permits a program for the sorting of recyclable material from solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. 16. All proposed development shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all surface parking areas. 17. A minimum of forty (40) of the units to be developed in Area 8 or an equal number of off -site units shall be "affordable units" as defined by the City's Housing Element. 18. That prior to the recordation of the final map, an agreement shall be executed that 15' guarantees the provisions of "affordable units" on -site or off -site in a manner and in a reasonable time frame related to the construction of other on�site units. Said agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning Director and City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Council. 19. That in order to reduce any adverse environmental effects of development of this site, preference in the rental or sale of the "affordable units" shall be given to those persons employed in the City of Newport Beach or residents of the City of Newport Beach in a manner approved by the City Planning Director and City Attorney. 20. Prior to the occupancy of any unit, a qualified acoustical engineer retained by the City at the applicant's expense shall demonstrate to —the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise impacts from Jamboree Road and Bison Avenue do not exceed 65 dS CNEL for outside living areas on the site, and that interior sound levels shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room, according to the requirements of state law. Sound attenuation shall be achieved for roadway noise levels predicted for ultimate traffic volumes as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 21. That Park Dedication Ordinance fees be paid in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 22. Prior to the occupancy of any unit, a qualified acoustical engineer retained by the City at the applicants expense shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise impact from Jamboree Road and Bison Avenue on any second story residential units with the windows open shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL. 23. That a maximum sound attenuation barrier along Jamboree Road and Bison Avenue shall be 8.5 feet in height of which a maximum shall be a 6 foot high wall. The remainder shall be berm. G. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11604 (Revised) Findings 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code# all P ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3, That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the Proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. S. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at _ large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 6. That the discharge of waste from the proposed ' subdivision into an existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code. 7. That the Findings listed in "A" of this Exhibit are made related to this portion of the project. Conditions 1. That a final map be recorded. 2. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 3. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 4. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 5. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be 17 Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 6. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as a part of the project design. 7. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 8. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed ---slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 9. Control of infiltration to the groundwater system for the project shall be provided as part of the project design. 10. That existing on -site drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Department. 11. Any modification of existing on -site drainage systems or extensions of culverts for contributory drainage from surrounding areas shall be studied during project design and necessary improvements installed in conformance with local ordinances and accepted engineering practices and in a manner acceptable to the City Public Works and Building Departments. 12. A qualified archaeologists or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K 5 and K-6. 13. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall waive the portions of AB 952 related to the City of Newport Beach responsibilities for mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. w 14. Fugitive dust emissions during construction shall be minimized by watering the site for dust control, containing excavated soil onsite until it is hauled away, and periodically washing adjacent streets to remove accumulated materials. 15. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall, certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan). 16. The landscape plans shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department - and approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. 17. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 18. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. 19. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on fire -retardant vegetation. 20. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 21. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 22. Prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport area. !qf 23. Prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject- area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive (No.) and Ford Road. 24. Prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of East Coast Highway in the Irvine Terrace area. 25. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or sub -leases for space in, the project and shall be included in any Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 26. That all conditions of the approved Traffic Study, the approved and amended and approved Traffic Phasing Plan shall be conditions of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 11604 if applicable, except as may be modified or noted in these revised conditions for Tentative Tract Map No. 11604. 20 G: 2% That prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide the Building Department and the Public Works Department with a letter from the Sanitation District stating that sewer facilities will be available at the time of occupancy. 28. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 29. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the final map. Any modification or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 30. That a pedestrian circulation plan be submitted to the Planning and 'Public Works Departments for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 31. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record the map prior to the completion of the public improvements. 32. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 33. That all conditions of approval previously approved by the Planning Commission on December 10, 1981 be fulfilled except as noted below in the following revised or new conditions. 34. Revised Condition No. 2 of Tentative Tract No. 11604 approved by the Planning Commission on September 10, 1981 as follows: That the design of the private streets conform to the City's Private Street Policy, except where otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 35. Delete Conditions Nos. 8 and 9 from Tentative Tract'- No. 11604 conditions approved by the Planning Commission on September 10, 1981. 36. That public utility easements be a minimum of 12 feet wide. 37, That all sidewalks adjacent to the curb be a minimum of four feet wide unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 38. That the medians in Bison Avenue be landscaped and that an appropriate maintenance agreement with the City be executed. The wording of the agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the City Attorney's office. 39. That no walls be constructed over public utility easements and that any masonry walls constructed adjacent to the easements have deepened footings, with the depth to be approved by the Public Works Department. 40. Fire Department vehicle access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 41. Water main and hydrant"Ibcations shall be approved by the Public Works and Fire Departments. 42. All buildings may require automatic fire sprinkler systems installed depending on size and type of construction. o�a ATTACHMENT 3 EXHIBIT "B" DRAFT EIR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-2 (BELCOURT) TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY AMENDMENT No. 591 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11604 USE PERMIT NO. 3054 SEPTEMBER 22, 1983 ( FINDINGS TO DENY THE ABOVE PROJECT s A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Findings 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations do not make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or'alternative to the proposed project. B. GENERAL PLAN Findings 1. That the proposed project is not consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the community. 2. That the proposed project will use capacity in the City's circulation system that should be reserved for existing land use commitments made by the existing general plan, local coastal plan and zoning. c23 .+I 3. That the implementation of the proposed project will contribute on a cumulative basis to the demand for public services and energy; and increased noise and traffic congestion. 4. That the density of the project is inappropriate for the proposed location. 5. That the density of the project is substantially higher than adjacent projects and is not located close to convenient commercial or recreational facilities. 6. That the proposed project will create additional demand of public services that are not presently available. C. TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN Findings ed*r 1. That the proposed project is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. D. TRAFFIC STUDY 1. That the proposed project is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. E. AMENDMENT NO. 591 1. That the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. F. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 11604 Findings 1. That the proposed project is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That without the project as a base the map is not a logical subdivision of property. G. USE PERMIT NO. 3054 1. That the proposed project is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. a-11 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT A CERTAIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND RESIDSNTAL GROWTH ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED, AND IN APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT BE CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE (AMENDMENT NO. 82-2 BELCOURT) WHEREAS, as a part of the development and implementation of the City's General Plan Land Use and Residential Growth Elements have been prepared; and WHEREAS, said Element and the General Plan set forth objectives and supporting policies which 'serve as a guide for the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the said elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental document in making these recommendations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does approve the Draft EIR, City of Newport Beach, Belcourt - General Plan Amendment No. 82-2 and supportive materials thereto; and hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that City Council certify the Environmental Document is complete; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of �S Newport Beach the following amendment to the Land Use Element as shown on Exhibit 111" attached NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council of Newport Beach the following amendment to the Residential Growth Element as shown on Exhibit "2" attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the J.M. Peters Company shall contribute a negotiated sum of money to be determined by the City Council, towards the construction of circulation system improvements. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the day of AYES NOES ABSENT Chairman: KING Secretary: GOFF by the following vote, to wit: a6 ' EXHIBIT 1 Land Use Element General Plan Amendment 82-2 Adopted Resolution No. The language of the Land Use Element and the accompanying map shall be amended to designate Area 8 of Belcourt for Multiple Family Residential use with a maximum of 198 dwelling units. Thus, the total residential units permitted on the Aeronutronic Ford site will be 460. C• C. EXHIBIT 2 0 Residential Growth Element General Plan Amendment 82-2 Adopted Resolution No. i Ut Ca gyYOV rL�is7aW)t"1 %' �� :j o ° AERONUTRONIG FORD r. 9e'37...•'t '''�+n'�pD 't'a. -qi Xl•.�."� /lt.fryo � ••� �• a 1 W'/vl Hw'FW ,iN I r4r 1 The language of the Residential Growth Element and the accompanying map shall be amended to designate Area 8 of Belcourt for Multiple family Residential use with a maximum of 198 dwelling units. Thus, the total residential units permitted on the Aeronutronic cord site will be 460. =17 • C',•; •,; ATTACHMENT NO. 5 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 591 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. WHEREAS, as a part of the development and implementation of the City's General Plan Land Use and Residential Growth Elements have been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provided specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community Zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental documents in making its recommendations; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach the following amendment to the Plan Community Development Plan for the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community District designated as Planning Commission Amendment No. 591 as shown on Exhibit "l" attached excepted that Page 11 of said shall be modified as noted below: 3. Setbacks from Other Property Lines and Structures a. A minimum setback of five (5) feet shall be required. This setback shall be measured from the back of curb or in the event that sidewalks are constructed, from back of sidewalk. M Regularly passed and (,.ipted by the Planning Commissit 6f the City of Newport Beach on the day of by the following vote to wit: Chairman: KING Secretary: GOFV AYES NOES ABSENT !z + C. YTACHMBNT No. 6 I-li_ iL�L 1;.31 September 7, 1983 Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Aeronutronic Ford Traffic Phasing Plan - Area 8 Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: In order to proceed with the amendment of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community, the J.M.-Peters-Company is submitting the attached traffic phasing plan for your review and approval. ` City Council Resolution No. 9472 sets forth guidelines for the "test of reasonableness" to be used in evaluating projects. The J.M. Peters Company believes that the attached traffic phasing plan has been prepared in compliance with all applicable City regulations and meets the criteria established for the test of reasonableness. The original traffic phasing plan approved in 1978 for the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community was based on 610 residential units and 11331,000 square feet of research facilities. Based on the traffic phasing plan for the 610 residential units and 1,331,000 square feet of research facilities the City required the J.M. Peters Company to construct or modify 14 intersections located throughout the City. The total cost to improve the 14 intersections was over 1.8 million dollars and this cost was shared by four major builders, (J.M.' Peters Company, The Irvine Company, Koll Company and Pacific Mutual). Since the present requested maximum is 460 units and since this is less than the original 610 units it would appear that no additional traffic impacts will occur above those outlined in the original traffic phasing plan for the 610 units. The J.M. Peters Company strongly believes that the traffic improvements constructed by the J.M. Peters Company were far above that which should have been technically and equitably required, since the original traffic phasing plan was based on 610 residential units and the final land plan approved by the City was for 300 units. The General Plan amendment presently being requested by the J.M. Peters Company will change the maximum number of residential units from 300 to 460. 31 Aeronutronic Ford - Area 8 Traffic Phasing Plan Item 1: Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Counc 1 Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to be completed. The original approved residential development plan for Aeronutronic Ford contained a maximum of 360 residential units. At the present time the J.M. Peters Company has completed 116 homes and 12 homes are under construction. in addition six custom homes are under design by individual homeowners. All the residential sites have been graded and improvements are completed on approximately 80 per cent of the site. Item 2: Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing development, that projected for remaining development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the project, See traffic study prepared by Wes Pringle and Associates, and incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report. Item 3: An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those inter- sections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic for any leg of the intersection during the peak 2k, hour period by 2 per cent or more. The Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City indicates no significant impacts are associated with the proposed general plan amendment_ The City's environmental report also states that no additional traffic improvements will be required as a result of the proposed general plan amendment for the Aeronutronic Ford, Planned Community. As part of the original City approval for the residential development of Aeronutronic Ford the J.M. Peters Company, in conjunction with The Irvine Company, Pacific Mutual and The Koll Company, was required to improve 14 intersections at a total cost of $1,800,000. 3.2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission September 7, 1983 Page 2 Our proposed phasing plan for residential areas and the previously approved phasing for the research/development areas are summarized as follows: Building Area or Year of Number of Units Construction I. Research/Develo t (1) 1. All existing building, except teT-orary buildings 911,000 s.f. Existing 2. New Engineering/Manufacturing Building 300,000 s.f. 1982 3. New Engineering/Manufacturing Building 70,000 s.f. 1986 4. Engineering Building Expansion 25,000 s.f. 1990 5. Engineering Building Expansion 25,000 s.f. 1992 II. Residential 1. Original Approval (1) 2. Proposed Revision (1) Presently approved by City TOTAL 1,331,000 s.f. 300 1982 460 1985 Attached are the J.M. Peters Company responses to the City's guidelines for the Traffic Phasing Plans. The J.M. Peters Company hopes that this letter along with the attached Traffic Phasing Plan will answer your questions and concerns related to traffic impacts associated with Amendment No. 2 of the Ford Aeronutronic Planned Community. If you have any questions or need additional information please call my office. Very tru ours, ROBERT J. TRAPP, Director of Forward Planning RUT/ns enclosures 33 Item 4: Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. See Traffic study prepared by Wes Pringle and Associates, and incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report. Item 5: The developer may include in his proposed Traffic Phasing Plan completion of or contribution to completion of needed improve- ments consistent with the level of traffic generation and a reason- able proportion of the cost of these improvements. See Traffic study prepared by Wes Pringle and Associates, and incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report. Item 6: The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce traf:"ic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. See Traffic study prepared by Wes Pringle and Associates, and incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report. Item 7: Upon receipt of the plan and information, the Commission will determine whether there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at the time project completion and capacity of affected intersections in considering the project for approval. See Traffic study prepared by Wes Pringle and Associates, and incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report. Item 8: Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence i ronder to meet the test. See Traffic study prepared by Wes Pringle and Associates, and incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report. . 3-2- � ATTACHaNT 7 VICINITY MAP 3,5" a 0 RESOLUTION NO. 1054 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CERTAIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BE ADOPTED (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 80-2) WHEREAS, the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach serve as a guide for future development of property within the corporate limits of the City, and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach is presently involved in the annexation of approximately 64 acres of unincorporated ter- ritory, entirely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach and more accurately depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, an area commonly referred to as the County Triangle. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach as they relate to the County Triangle; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the City of Newport Beach General Plan contain guidelines for the development of the County Triangle; WHEREAS, previously established land use patterns and, densities developed while this territory was subject to County land use controls warrant amendment of existing general plan provisions relating to density limits and land use designations for property within the County Triangle, and that an increase in allowable densities is in the best interest of the City of Newport Beach. IEB A TR ND ORRE COPY 1 MY CLERK {OOF�JTHE CITY OFF NWPORT BEACH Ll•¢ ` WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has read and reviewed the environmental documentation, con- sisting of an Initial Study and Negation Declaration, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C respectively, pre- pared in conjunction with these proposed amendments, has deter- mined that the environmental documentation satisfies all of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (GUIDELINES) promulgated pursuant to CEQA, and that the environmental documentation was considered in the decisions reflected in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that mitiga- tion measures, contained within the environmental documentation, and which modify the project to require discretionary review of proposed land use changes involving existing mobile home parks within the County Triangle, reduce potentially significant environmental effects to the extent that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, as it relates to land use within the County Triangle, be amended to read as follows: "County Triangle" The area designated as the "County Triangle" has a combi- nation of Industrial, Commercial and Residential uses. The area west of Monrovia Avenue is designated for Industrial uses with a maximum development intensity of 1.0 times the buildable area. The area between Monrovia Avenue and Plancentia Avenue, with the exception of the Commercial area west of the intersection of Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue, is designated Multiple - Family Residential at a maximum of twenty dwelling units per acre. The area between Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue and the 2 Commercial area west of the intersection of Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue is designated Retail and Service Commercial with a maximum development intensity of 1.0 times the buildable area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Residential Growth Element of the Newport Beach General Plan as it -relates to resi- dential densities within the County Triangle be amended to read as follows: "County Triangle" Statistical Area A3 The residential portion of the "County Triangle" between Monrovia Avenue and Placentia Avenue is designated Multiple -Family Residential at a maximum of twenty dwelling units per buildable acre. Estimated Residential Growth Limit for -Statistical Area A3 Based on the Residential Zoning Policy Total No. of Dwelling Single- Multi- Mobile- Estimated Units Family Duplex Family homes Population As of 7/l/80 Residential Growth Limit Based on the Residential Zoning Policy ATTEST: 735 9 8 505 213 1092 747 -- -- 747 -- 1417 ADOPTED this day of City Clerk 3 Mayor 1980. M _ - /� � RESOLUTION NO. 1069 ^ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT AND INCORPORATING CERTAIN REVISIONS AS HEREIN NOTED. WHEREAS, as a part of the development and implementation of the Coast Act Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan has been prepared; and WHEREAS, Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City of Newport Beach; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environemtnal document in making these recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning COmmis9 on of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the city Council I the City of Newport Beach that the Coastal Program Land Use pLan as shown on Exhibit "A" - Recommended Land Use Plan and statistically noted on Exhibit "B" Statistical Summary asset forth on said exhibits and no below and incorporating the Mitigation Measures indicated in Exhibit "C" into the project: A. Ticonderoga St. The extension of Ticonderoga Street shall not be permitted in conjunction with future development in the Newport -Banning Ranch P-C District. Area No. 1 ("Residential") shall be designed in such a manner so as to provide emergency access to%from Newport Crest. (To be added to P-C Text.) B. Coast Highway/Riverside Drive In conjunction with the development of the Newport -Banning Ranch, the removal of on -street parking at the Coast Hwy/Riverside Dr. intersection is an unacceptable circulation system improvement. (To be added to P-C Text.) C. Parks 1. That a neighborhood park (5 so) be shown on the Recreation and Open Space Element Map in Area No. 1 of the Banning -Newport Ranch P-C District and 15th Street be realigned to the north. Additionally that the Recreation and Open Space Element be revised as shown below: Existing (Recreation and Open Space Eloment, Page 17) 4. Development of three neighborhood parks in the vacant areas north and east of Newport shores, when residential'development occurs in these areas. These parks will be of sufficient size to result in I ED AS RUE D ORRECT COPY approximately 2 acres per thousand residents, with a minimum site size of 6 acres." .. ....... _.- •"�"'•— Proposed (Recreation and Open Space Element, Page 17) Off CLERK OF THE CITY OF ...... T B6ACH "4. Development of a minimum of three neighborhood parks in the vacant areas north and east of Newport Shores, DATE: when residential development occurs in these areas. ..mac• -/` f y' These parks will be of sufficient size to result in approximately 5 acres per thousand residents, with a minimum site size of 2.0 acres." 2. That the applicant shall dedicate a 5 acre park to the City. 3. That in lieu fees collected in the immediate vicinity shall be used for improvements to this park. 4. That park site shall be made available to public at time of tentative map approval. , 5. That a thirty foot (30') greenbelt be established adjacent to Newport Crest to be developed and maintained by the applicants. (Item 1 above on previous page to be incorporated into the Recreation and Open Space Element, Items 2 thru 5, on this page, to be added to P-C Text). D. Views 1. Views to the west and south shall be preserved for a person standing on the lower balcony level of the Newport Crest Development. 2. To the extent feasible, buildings located to the north of Newport Crest shall be terraced below existing view horizons that are established by a person standing on the lower balcony level of the Newport Crest Development. (To be added above to P-C Text). E. Geology 1. _ Prior to the approval of any subdivision of .and. In the Banning -Newport P-C District an independent third -party analysis of geologic hazards of all identified known active faults shall be accomplished and approved by the City's Building department. This analysis shall be funded by the applicant. The recommendations of this analysis shall be incorporated into any subdivision of land, grading permit and the location of any structure. Reasonably stringent shall be included in the analysis. (To be added to P-C Text). F. Fire Services 1. A fire station site shall be reserved within the Banning -Newport Ranch P-C unless the "Master Plan of Fire Services" does not demonstrate a need for the facility, the reservation shall be made at the time of tentative tract map. 2: That prior to the approval of any subdivision of land in the area designated for Administrative, Professional, Financi- al Co=ercial/General Indus- trial a Master Plan of Fire Protection Services for the West Newport area shall have been approved by the City Council. 3. Approximately 25% of the funds needed to provide a new Fire Station - "Land, Building a Equipment" shall be provided by the . applicants in the event the Master Plan identifies a site on the Newport -Banning Ranch. (To be incorporated into General Plan and to be added to P-C Text). G1. CALTRANS WEST No action G2. Pedestrian Bridge 1, The Development Phasing Program shall provide for a Pedestrian and Bicycle bridge/path when the City has enough warrants opposite the West Newport Park. 2. The applicants shall participate in 50% of all costs related to said bridge/path. (To be added to TPO requirements). fi. Land Use Retail 1. The General -Plan shall he designed/drawn in such a manner so as to allow the retail center to be permitted north of 15th Street on Bluff Road as an alternate location. 2. In the event that the Retail Center is moved to north of 15th Street, the Coast Highway site would be allowed a mixture of office and industrial uses. (To be incorporated into General Plan and added to P-C Text). Residential ' 1. The number of units are to be 11.5 per buildable acres. (To be changed, if required, in P-C Text), Industrial' 1. No changes , I. Development Phasin 1. Until such time as it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City by the applicants that the development northerly of 15th Street will not unreasonably impact westbound traffic and circulation patterns, no more than 50% of the development northerly of 15th Street shall be occupied. 2. All rights -of -way for the ultimate widening of Coast Highway in the West Newport area owned by' the applicants shall be dedicated to the City. 3. Bluff Road shall not be extended to 19th Street until a 3rd outbound Balboa Boulevard traffic lane is constructed from 32nd Street to Coast Highway. (To be added to P-C Text). J. Cost/Revenue 1. Revise Cost/Revenue Summary on Page 13 to reflect actions of the Planning Commission on 6/18/81 and include more realistic home sale prices. (To be provided to City Council). R. P-C District 1. The following notes shall be added to the P-C Text (Page 5): 1-17. Comprehensive Master Plans of drainage, water supply, and sewer for the entire P-C District shall be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the first tentative tract map. 18. Where feasible, all drainage northerly of the most north westerly corner of the existing Newport Crest development bhall bu drained through the oil lease area and not toward Coast Highway in a manner to be approved by the Public Works Department.'$ (To be added to P-C Text). L. The footnotes on Page 2 of the Planned Community Text should read as indicated below: 1Maximum building floor area for Area 2 will not exceed 430,000 net square feet of office and net square feet of industrial for a total of 300,000 net square feet. 2Maximum building floor area for Area 3 will not exceed 75,000 net square feet, (To be added to P-C Text). M. Circulation Systems Improvements: 1. Required all items in Attachment No. 1. 2. Required pedestrian/bicycle bridge described under "G-2" of the report. (To be added to P-C District). N. Mitigation Measures 1. Approved all mitigation measures in Exhibit "B" attached into P-C Text. (To be added to P-C Text). Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 18th day of June, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: NOES Chairman Secretary u,..rw+.±.Yw6wubtir�au�s.. - w..rr,o4.YL� ...nr 70 0 RESOLUTION NO.1070 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 561 ESTABLISHING A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (NEWPORT-BANNING RANCH P-C). WHEREAS, Chapter 20.52 of the Newport Municipal Code establishes the procedures for the preparation and adoption of Planned Community Development Plans and Development Standards, WHEREAS, a Planned Community Development Plan and Development Standards for the Newport -Banning Ranch P-C District has been developed in accordance with said chapter and consistent with the general plan, WHEREAS, the Newport -Banning Ranch P-C District provides for the classification and development of a parcel(s) of land as a coordinated, comprehensive project so as to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large-scale community planning. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the environmental document in making these recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the city of Newport Beach does hereby iecommend to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Newport -Banning Ranch P-C District as shown on Exhibit "A" - Recommended Land Use Plan, as statistically noted in Exhibit "B" - Statistical Summary, incorporating the Mitigation Measure indicated on Exhibit "C" into said devleopment plan and development as noted in Exhibit "D" - Planned Community Development Plan and Development Standards (Newport -Banning Ranch P-C District) be adopted as set forth on said exhibits and noted below standards: A. Ticonderoga St. The extension of Ticonderoga Street shall not be permitted in conjunction with future development in the Newport -Banning Ranch P-C District. Area No. 1 ("Residential") shall be designed in such a manner so as to provide emergency access to/from Newport Crest. (To be added to P-C Text.) B. Coast Highway/Riverside Drive In conjunction with the development of the Newport -Banning Ranch, the removal of on -street parking at the Coast Hwy/Riverside Dr. intersection is an unacceptable circulation system improvement. (To be added to P-C Text.) C. Parks 1. That a neighborhood park (5,ac) be shown on the Recreation and Open Space Element Map in Area No. 1 of the Banning -Newport Ranch P-C District and 15th Street be realigned to the north. =TRUE CC RRECTC60PY Additionally that the Recreation and Open Space Element be revised as shown below: 0W OIBRK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Existing (Recreation and Open Space Element, Page 17) a►na eL & — /e 3 6 4. Development of three neighborhood parka in the vacant areas north and east of Newport Shores, when residential development occurs in these areas. These parks will be of sufficient size to result in approximately 2 acres per thousand residents, with a minimum site size of 6 acres." Proposed (Recreation and Open Space Element, Page 17) 114. Development of a minimum of three neighborhood parks in the vacant areas north and east of Newport Shores, when residential development occurs in these areas. These parks will be of sufficient size to result in approximately 5 acres per thousand residents, with a minimum site size of 2.0 acres." 2. That the applicant shall dedicate a 5 acre park to the City. 3. That in lieu fees collected in the immediate vicinity shall be used for improvements to this park. 4. That park site shall be made available to public at time of tentative map approval. 5. That a thirty foot (300) greenbelt be established adjacent to Newport Crest to be developed and maintained by the applicants. (Item 1 above on previous page to be incorporated into the Recreation and Open Space Element, Items 2 thru 5, on this page, to be added to P-C Text), D. Views 1. Views to the west and south shall be preserved for a person standing on the lower balcony level of the Newport Crest Development. 1 2. To the extent feasible, buildings located to the north of Newport Crest shall be terraced below existing view horizons that are established by a person standing on the lower balcony level of the Newport Crest Development. (To be added above to P-C Text). E.• Geology 1. Prior to the approval of any subdivision of land. in the Banning -Newport P-C District an independent third -party analysis of geologic hazards of all identified known active faults shall be accomplished and approved by the City's Building department. This analysis shall be funded by the applicant. The recommendations of this analysis shall be incorporated into any subdivision of land, grading permit and the location of any structure. Reasonably stringent shall be included in the analysis. (To be added to P-C Text). F. Fire Services 1. A fire station site shall be reserved within the Banning -Newport Ranch P-C unless the "Master Plan of Fire Services" does not demonstrate a need for the facility, the reservation shall be made at the time of tentative tract map. 2. That prior to the approval of any subdivision of land in the area designated for Administrative, Professional, Fin- ancial Commercial/General Indus- trial a Master Plan of Fire Protection Services for the West Newport area shall have been approved by the City Council. 3. Approximately 25% of the funds needed to provide a new Fire Station - "Land, Building 6 Equipment" shall be provided by the applicants in the event the Master Plan identifies a site on the Newport -Banning Ranch. (To be incorporated into General Plan and to be added to P-C Text). G1. CALTRANS WEST No action G2. Pedestrian Bridge 1. The Development Phasing Program shall provide for a Pedestrian and Bicycle bridge/path when the City has enough warrants opposite the West Newport Park. 2. The applicants shall participate in 50% of all costs related to said bridge/path. (To be added to TPO requirements). H. Land Use Retail 1. The General Plan shall be designed/drawn in such a manner so as to allow the retail center to be permitted north of 15th Street on Bluff Road as an alternate location. 2. In the event that the Retail Center is moved to north of 15th Street, the Coast Highway site would be allowed a mixture of office and industrial uses. (To be incorporated into General Plan and added to P-C Text). I Residential ' 1. The number of units are to be 11.5 per buildable acres. (To be changed, if required, in P-C Text). Industrial 1. No changes I. Development Phasing 1. Until such Lnnu an it can bo demuus Lra1vd le the saLisfaction of Lite CiLy by Lite applicants LhaL the development.northerly of 15th Street will not unreasonably impact westbound traffic and circulation patterns, no more than 50% of the development northerly of 15th Street shall be occupied. 2. All rights -of -way for the ultimate widening of Coast Highway in the West Newport area owned by the applicants shall be dedicated to the City. 3. Bluff Road shall not be extended to 19th Street until a 3rd outbound Balboa Boulevard traffic lane is constructed from 32nd Street to Coast Highway. (To be added to P-C Text). J. Cost/Revenue 1. Revise Cost/Revenue Summary on Page 13 to reflect actions of the Planning Commission on 6/18/81 and include more realistic home sale prices. (To be provided to City Council). t K. P-C District 1. The following notes shall be added to the P-C Text (Page 5): "17. Comprehensive Master Plans of drainage, water supply, and sewer for the entire P-C District shall be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the first tentative tract map. 18. Where feasible, all drainage northerly of the most north westerly corner of the existing Newport Crest development shall be drained through the oil lease area and not toward Coast Highway in a manner to be approved by the Public Works Department." (To be added to P-C Text). L. The footnotes on Page 2 of the Planned Community Text should read as indicated below: 1Maximum building floor area for Area 2 will not exceed 430,000 net square feet of Office and net square feet of industrial for a total of 300,000 not square feet. 2Maximum building floor area for Area 3 will not exceed 75,000 net square feet. (To be added to P-C Text). M. Circulation Systems Improvements: 1. Required all items in Attachment No. 1. 2. Required pedestrian/bicycle bridge described under "G-2" of the report. (To be added to P-C District). N. Mitigation Measures 1. Approved all mitigation measures in Exhibit "8" attached into P-C Text.. (To be added to P-C Text). Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Reach on the 18th day of June, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES ABSENT Chairman Secretary /I _R A W RUYAN U AO.19T.1 JAM D. TUCKER. SR. IIBBB•IBe01 H. RODGER HOWE" IIYCB•IY BiI MILFORD W. DAHL' PATRICIA L STEARNS GARVIN F. SHALLENOCROER' WILLIAM J. CAPLAN JAMES R. MOORC' GARY M. LAPE H. L. IMIREI MCCORMICK' MICHACL E HORNAH WILLIAM R. BIEL' JANICE L. CELOTTI RICHARD A. CURN UTT' JUOTH WOODWARD LEONARD A. HAMPCL' M. TONI PCRRY JOHN S. HURLBUT. JR,' MICHACL C ORAFFIN MICHACL W. IMMCLL' PHILIP D. KOHN MILFORD W. DAHL. JR.- JOEL O. KUPCRBERO THEODORE 1. WALLACC. JR.' CLIEAOCTH A. NCALE RONALD P. ARRINGTON' DEBORAH H. ALLEY RICHARD R SIMS' MARY M. ORCEN MARSHALL M. PCARLMAN' KATHRYN L TOBIN ROBCRT C. BRAUN' PHILIP C. MAYNARD RDOCR A. ORABLC- NCILA R BERNSTEIN CDWARD O. SYBESMA. JR.- CVRIDIKI IVICK41 DALLAS THOMAS S. SALINOCR' STEVCN A. NICHOLS BARRV R. LAUOSCHCR' THOMAS G. OROCKINOTON DAVID C. LARSEN' HARVEY M. MOORE CLIFFORD E. FRIESEN, MAURICE SANCHEZ ARTHUR O. KIDMAN' BRUCE HALLETT MICHACL O. RUSIN' WILLIAM L ELIOPOULOS IRA O. RIVIN- ERIC R. NEWMAN JCFFRCY M. OBERMAN' RANDALL M. SABBUSH STAN WOLCOTT' CRAIG LABADIC ROSCRT S. BOWER' TIMOTHY S. MCCANN LAWRENCE C. SERTINO' BCOTT D. ROOCRS MARCIA A. FORSYTH DAVID H. HOOHNER WILLIAM M. MARTICORCNA MARK 0. FRAZICR SRUCC O. WALLACC KARIN L KROOIVS ROGER H. SCHNAPP HCATHER A. MAHOOD ROBERT W. ALBERTS OABRIELLC M. WIRTH J05EPH O. CARRUTH STEVEN T. GRAHAM ANNE NELSON LANPHAR 'A IIgIO.KINu. CONIONTbM RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS CENTRAL BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER 611 ANTON BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 19s0 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92GES February 13, 1984 Mr. Craig Bluell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Davis v. City of Newport }Beach Dear Craig: TELEPHONE 1714) 641-5100 (2131 62S-7566 TELECOPIER 1714) 546.9035 TWK 910 590.1003 CAGLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Enclosed please find a list of documents which we need copied and/or certified. Copies of many of these documents are enclosed herewith and are tabbed in accordance with the list; this should cut down on some of the copying time. Please note, with respect to Item "L," that we need resolu- tions and ordinances which show either the signature of the Mayor, or that a majority of the Council Members voted -in favor of the resolution. Many of the resolutions, while certified, do not show execution or voting. Please also find enclosed a copy of the time line which Pat Temple requested that I send back to her. With respect to the documents on this list, it would most helpful if you could bring them with you when you and Bob meet with Len and me on Friday, February 17, 1984. Thanks. truly yours, JDK:bc Enclosure ("*" indicates copy of document enclosed. Just certify enclosed copy & return to me) A. PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE New ordinance (amending Subdivision Code Chapter 19.50) (Ordinance 83-22?) 0Staff report to City Council re amending park dedication 2 ordinance. C�� n� etS+ 1,0C City Council minutes re introduction and second' reading of amended Park Dedication Ordinance (6/13/83 and 6/27/83). B. RESOLUTION 83-26 *(- Executed copy of Resolution 83-26. \ Minutes of 3/14/83 City gouncil meeting. * 3/14/83 staff report re Resolution 83-26. C. AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL POLICY P-1 Staff report to City Council re amending P-1. Minutes of City Council meeting where P-1 amended. Revised version of P-1. D. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 1 - MORGAN *\/)T�- Staff report for 6/27/83 City Council Meeting. Ordinance No. 83-21. Executed Affordable Housing Agreement. \./ Can 40 I. o E. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2 - WALE VIK, Staff report for 9/8/83 Planning Commission meeting. �--J� Any staff reports and minutes of City Council action on CRDP 2 F. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT'3 - RYLEE * Tarantello & Co. feasibility report, 10/17/83. * Staff report for 10/23/83 Planning Commission meeting. Minutes of 10/23/83 Planning Commission meeting. Any staff reports and minutes of,City Council actions on CRDP 3. G. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 4 - BRIGGS *X Tarentello & Co. feasibility report, 12/21/83. *74 Staff report for 1/5/84 Planning Commission meeting. Minutes of 1/5/84 Planning Commission meeting. /,31U Any staff reports and minutes of City Council actions on CDRP 4. 1" riW H. 1983 CDBG Staff report for 5/11/83 Task Force Meeting. Notice of Public Hearing for 5/23/83. 4_ r•" Proposed statement. �T. Staff report for 5/23/83 City Council meeting. Minutes of 5/23/83 City Council meeting. Resolution No. 83-50. y; Letter from HUD to N.B., date unknown, accepting and/or approving 1983 CDBG application for $518,000. -2- r a � Ct`jrtl r. I. CONVERSION OF 19-82 CDBG TO REHAB *^ Memo from Bluell to "Meeting Attendees," 11/4/83. * Notice of public hearing for 11/28/83. * Proposed statement. * C/ Staff report for 11/21/83 Task Force meeting. Staff report for 11/28/83 City Council meeting. *� 11/28/83 City Council minutes. Resolution No.' 83-125 (make sure it shows signature or vote). Any correspondence from HUD accepting or approving amend- ment to 1982 CDBG. J4UVL P__ Zf t,�— J. TAX-EXEMPT MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS; * Letter from TIC to N.B., thanking N.B. for voting to par- ticipate. K. SECTION 8 *-7/12/77 letter from Wynn to OCHA. * 8/4/77 letter from Wynn to OCHA. *- 6/22/77 letter from OCHA to Ryckoff. * 6/28/77 letter from Wynn to OCHA. Q There should be a letter during this period from N.B. to OCHA, stating that N.B. does not object to OCHA providing Section 8 housing within N.B. The letter may be filed under CDBG, or may be in Bob Wynn's files. I recall seeing the letter when I prepared Bob Wynn for his deposition. -3- 7. 1 - I '.� L. RESOLUTIONS WHICH NEED TO SHOW EITHER THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE OR THE COUNCILMEMBERS VOTING (many of these have already been cer- tified, but unless they show execution or vote, are worthless in Court). -N)( Resolution 9880, 9/22/80, re GPA 80-2. * Resolution 82-40, 3/12/82, re GPA 81-1. * Resolution 82-41, 3/12/82, re GPA 81-1. * A/ Resolution 82-42, 3/12/82, re GPA 81-1. * Resolution 10031, 5/11/81, re GPA 81-1(H) (conceptual approval). * \/ Resolution 82-103, 7/12/82, re Task Force. * J1� Resolution 82-153, 11/22�82, re GPA 82-1(H). * /8(/-Resolution 83-108, 10/24/83, re GPA 82-2(b) EIR. * Resolution 83-109, 10/24483,:re GPA 82-2(b). *1 Resolution 83-110, 10/24/83, re Belcourt P-C (also need exhibit, which is missing from enclosed). -4- G ,/l'3 4/ /3 ("*" indicates copy of document enclosed. Just certify enclosed copy & return to me) I C A. PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE "40 y; 1. New ordinance (amending Subdivision Code Chapter 19.50) 3 O (Or finance 3-22?) 2 Staff report to City Council re amending park dedication oxRY�. �"� City Council minutes eo ��e�introduction and second reading o�amena a Park Dedication Ordinance 6113 3 anti 6/27 3 RESOLUTION 83-26 Executed copy of Resolution 83-26. Minutes of 3/14/83 City Council meeting. C. AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL POLICY P-1 yi 1. Staff report to City Council re 2. i Minutes of City Council meeting where P-1 amended. + 3 Revised version of P-1. • D. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 1 - MORGAN * 1. Staff report for 6 27/83 City Coun 41 meeting. 2 _ ' 2. Ordinance No. 83-21. r 3. Executed Affordable Housing Agreement. /)�Y ij t L E. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2 - WALE * 1. Staff report for 9/8/83 Planning Commission meeting. Anv staff -reports and minutes of Cit Council action on CRDP 2 / .r F. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 3 - RYLEE * 1. Tarantello & Co. feasibility report, 10/17/83. '? ,r * 2. Staff report for 10/23/83 Planning Commission meeting. 111 s 3 Minutes ofstp,�83-3Planning Commission meeting. 4. P..�.Y. _staff reo�tand tes of City Councilactions on c � q 30 3 I 3 _ q G. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, PERMITS 4 - BRIGGS * 1. Tarentello & Co. feasibility report, 12/21/83. 1 Z' * 2. Staff report for 1/5/84 Planning Commission meeting. 3. Minutes of 1/5/84 Planning Commission meeting. 4 An�s'taff�reuor is and minutes of CCi�ty Council actions W H���m s ? �7 DBG t't 3 =�1. Staff report for 5/11/83 Task Force Meeting. (5 Notice of Public Hearing for 5/23/83. ,.1 ^V 3. Proposed statement:— 4. Staff report for 5/23/83 Citv Cobnnc 7ee,ig. -�'5. Minutes of 5/23/83 City Council meetin . . 6 Resolution No. 83-50. r 7 Letter from HUD to N.B., date unknown, accepting and/or approving 1983 CDBG application for $518,000. -2- O Z. ,L CONVERSION OF 1982 CDBG TO REHAB * 1. Memo from Bluell to "Meeting Attendees," 11/4/83. 0 J. TAX-EXEMPT MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS- Notice of public hearing for 11/28/83. Proposed statement. Staff report for 11/21/83 Task Force meeting. Staff report for 11/28/83 City Council meeting. 11/28/83 City Council minutes. Resolution No. 83-125 (make sure it shows signature or vote). Any correspondence from HUD, accepting or approving amend- ment to 1982 CDBG. Y 3-3s c- �2387( ,3v� 1. Letter from TIC to N.B., thanking N.ff: for voting to par- ticipate. K. SECTION 8 * 1. 7/12/77 letter from Wynn to OCHA. * 2. * 3. * 4. 8/4/77 letter from Wynn to OCHA. 6/22/77 letter from OCHA to Ryckoff. 6/28/77 letter from Wynn to OCHA. There should be a letter during this period from N.B. to OCHA, stating that N.B. does not object to OCHA providing Section 8 housing within N.B. The letter may be filed under CDBG, or may be in Bob Wynn's files. I recall seeing the letter when I prepared Bob Wynn for his deposition. -3- 0,6A )60,&� QRESOLUTIONS WHICH NEED TO SHOW EITHER THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE OR THE COUNCILMEMBERS VOTING (many of these have already been cer- tified, but unless they show execution or vote, are worthless in Court). 1. Resolution 9880, 9/22/80, re GPA 80-2. * 2. Resolution 82-40, 3/12/82, re GPA 81-1. * 3. Resolution 82-41, 3/12/82, re GPA 81-1. * 4. Resolution 82-42, 3/12/82, re GPA 81-1. ... �f/ * 5. Resolution 10031, 5/11/81, re GPA 81-1(H) (conceptual approval). * 6. Resolution 82-103, 7/12/82, re Task Force. * 7. Resolution 82-153, 11/22/82, re GPA 82-1(H). * 8. -Resolution 83-108, 10/24/83, re GPA 82-2(b) EIR. * 9. Resolution 83-109, 10/24/83!, re GPA 82-2(b). *10. Resolution 83-110, 10/24/83, re Belcourt P-C (also need exhibit, which is missing from enclosed). -4- Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1983 9c kk SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Agenda Item No. 11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO- Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: C. Coastal Development Permit No. 3 (Discussion) Request to consider a Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a four unit residential development pursuant to the administrative guidelines for the implementation of the State law relative to low -and -moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: A portion of Block D of Corona del Mar Tract, located at 311 Carnation Avenue, on the northwesterly corner of Carnation Avenue and Bayside Drive, northeasterly of Seaview Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-3 APPLICANT: M. Petyo and Associates, Irvine OWNER: Molseed and Rylee, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Same as applicant. Attached is a copy of the "Affordable Housing Feasibility Analysis" and supplementary information prepared by Tarantello and Company for the proposed four unit residential development at 311 Carnation in Corona del Mar. As demonstrated by Tarantello and Company, it would not be feasible to develop a low or moderate income housing unit either on -site or off -site in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. Staff therefore recommends that no affordable units be required and that the following findings be made and added to Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" of the earlier prepared staff report for Agenda Item No. 11: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 3 1. That in accordance with Section 65590 of the State Government Code and Newport Beach City Council Policy P-1, the Planning Commission has evaluated the feasibility of providing low and moderate income housing in conjunction with the proposed new housing development. To: Planning Commission 2 2. That it is not economically feasible to provide low or moderate income housing on -site. 3. That it is not economically feasible to provide low or moderate income housing off-gite. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKERf Director By SANDRA L. GENIS Associate Planner SLG:nma CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 4, 1983 TO: Meeting Attendies FROM: Craig T. Bluell, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Newport Beach CDBG Program Attached are the City's three-year overall HAP and the first and second year annual HAPs. The second year HAP has not been approved by HUD. Also attached are the City's 1982 and 1983 Entitlement Fund Submissions and the 1983 Jobs Bill submission, all of which have been approved by HUD. Approval of the second year annual HAP will enable the City to apply for 1984 CDBG Funds, the amount of 1984 funds available is not known at this time. The City has been approved for $1,213,000 in CDBG funds. The overall three-year HAP, the first one-year HAP and the 1982 program currently include a housing rehabilitation loan program. it is proposed that the Housing rehab program be eliminated by amending the three-year overall HAP and the 1982 program submission. Amendment of the three-year HAP will remove the 2 and 120 units in Column L and add up to 14 units to Column M, Lines 16 and 18 and Column S. The first year annual HAP need not be amended because that year has now passed and the second year annual HAP need not be changed because it does not contain a reference to rehab. Box 7 of the 1982 Submission would be amended to read "land acquisition and/or infrastructure in support of lower income housing". Box 7 of the 1983 "Jobs Bill" submission and 1983 Entitlement Fund Submission need to be clarified by changing the program to "land acquisition and/or infrastructure in support of lower income housing".' These amendments would permit the City to acquire land for a construction site, a park site or develop some type of infrastructure. CERT IE TRUE D CO RECT COPY _. . CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NBWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing concerning the amendment of its 1982-1985 Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) and its 1982 Entitlement Submission for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds. As an entitlement city, Newport Beach will receive $496,000 in Community Development Block Grant Funds from the 1982 Grant. These funds can be used for a variety of community development and housing activities. In general, the activities include: land acquisition and disposition; the acquisition, development or improvement of public facilities; land clearance, public. services, urban renewal, relocation payments and assistance; and the rehabilitation of residential or non-residential properties. A complete list of eligible activities is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Notice is hereby further given that it is proposed to amend the 1982 Entitlement Submission from a low interest housing rehabilitation loan program to a land acquisition program to provide lower income housing. A "Proposed Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of The Community Development Block Grant Funds" has been prepared as part of the amendment. Public comments will be received on the "Proposed Statement" at this public hearing. Public comments will also be received at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department prior to the public hearing. .Copies of the proposed statement have been posted in the city libraries and are also available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Public comments will be considered prior to adoption of- the "Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected UsesJ f the DBG Funds". Copies of the "Final Statement" will be posted in they cit:i libraries and will also be available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Notice is hereby further given that the amendment of the HAP will remove the units to be assisted by rehabilitation loans and add new units to be assisted by the land acquisition. Public comments will also be received on the HAP at the public hearing and at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department prior to the public hearing. Copies of the HAP will also be posted in the city libraries and be available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Notice is hereby further given that an environmental document has been prepared related to the above application and Housing Assistance Plan. The application, Housing Assistance Plan and environmental documentation are available for public review and inspection at the City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Planning Department, P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, California, 92663-3884, (714) 640-2261. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearings will be held on the 28th day of November, 1983, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, located at 3300 West Newport Boulevard at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. PUBLICATION DATE: f-7/"Q 1 / t , YJ Received fa Publication It II�' By nw 1-r i PROPOSED AMENDED STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS The City of Newport'Beach proposes to use the $496,000 in 1982 Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Funds tc acquire land for the purpose of providing lower income housing. in addition, appropriate administrative staffing will be assigned to the program and operating costs directly associated with the CDBG program, not to exceed 20% of the grant, will be paid from the CDBG funds. PROPOSED AMENDED HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN 1 P� IZ Form U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT • "^"" "` "...... ^" ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROG13AM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM 2. GRANT NUMBER HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN 6— 0 5 4 6 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY 5• HUD APPROVAL FROM: 10-1-82 TO: 9-30-85 4. DATE OF SUBMISSION 4a. ❑ Original ❑Revision ®Amendment I (Signature of Authorized Official) f0arel PART I — HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS TABLE 1 -'HOUSING STOCK CONDITIONS STANDARD UNITS SUBSTANDARD UNITS SUBSTANDARD UNITS SUITABLE FOR REHAB TENURE TYPE OCCUPIED UNITS VACANT UNITS OCCUPIED UNITS VACANT UNITS OCCUPIED UNITS VACANT UNITS To[al Lower Income A B C D E F G 6 Owner 14,849 643 39 2 39 2 2 7 Renter 247 18 247 158 18 TABLE II - RENTAL SUBSIDY NEEDS OF LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ELDERLY SMALL FAMILY LARGE FAMILY TOTAL H I i K 8 Very Low Income 445 1,370 • 19 1,834 B Percent 24.25 % 74.69 % 1.06 % 100% 10 Other Lower Income 263 1,055 12 1,330 11 ETR 10 250 61 321 12 To be Displaced ! , 0 0 73 Total I 718 t 675 14 Percent 20.60 % 76.75 a/a 2 % 100% PART 11 - THREE YEAR GOAL TABLE I - UNITS TO BE ASSISTED REHABILF ATION O SUBSTANDARD UNITS NEW CONSTRUCTION CONVERSIONIO STANDARD UNITS HOME IMPROVEMENTS L M N O i5 Owner 0 0 0 0 is Renter 0 113 0 0 (UNITS EXPECTED TO ASSIST LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS) 17 Owner 0 18 Renter 0 45 0 TABLE 11 - LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO RECEIVE RENTAL SUBSIDIES ELDERLY SMALL FAMILY LARGE FAMILY TOTAL P o R s 19 Households to be Assisted 20 67 2 89 20 Percent 23 % 75 % 1 2 % 100% TABLE III - GOALS FOR HUD RESOURCES: SUBJECT. TO LOCAL REVIEW AND COMMENT ELDERLY SMALLFAMILY LARGEFAMILY TOTAL T U V w 21 Households to be Assisted L 10 33 1 44 HOUSING TYPE PREFERENCE (Maximum Number of Units that will be Accepted) 22 NEW REHABS EXISTING 30 C� 44 23 ® Check this box if the applicant wishes to review State Housing Agency proposals within its jurisdiction. PART III - GENERAL LOCATIONS 24T Attach map identifying the general locations of proposed assisted housing. (24 CFR 570.306 HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS NARRATIVE The data provided in Part I of the Housing Assistance Plan with the exception of the expected to reside and households to be displaced were derived from the 1980 Census. The ETR number was calculated by SCAG and is proposed for use in the Regional Housing Allocation Model. Since the City adopted the Condominium Conversion Ordinance in 1979, there has not been a condominium conversion and it is not expected that any conversions will take place during the period covered by this HAP. The City does not currently anticipate any displacement to occur from condominium conversion or from governmental actions nor does the City anticipate any demolition of standard units as a result of governmental actions during the 3 year period covered by this HAP. The following definitions of substandard housing and substandard housing suitable for rehabilitation are the definitions which the City will utilize to describe these two types of substandard housing. 1. Substandard Housing Those units which do not meet the Section 8 existing housing quality standards. 2. Substandard Housing Suitable for Rehabilitation Those units which are structurely si and and the cost of rehabilitation will not exceed the prd ect market value after rehabilitation. it is estimated that the following numbers of lower income minority households reside in substandard ownership or rental housing. Substandard Ownership Housing Black Hispanic Other 0 2 2. Substandard Rental Housing Black Hispanic other 2 30 13 Based on the percentages of lower -income minority renter households by family type needing assistance shown in the City's 1982 HAP, it is estimated that the number of minority lower -income renter households by family type currently needing rental subsidies is as follows: Black Elderly Small Family Large Family 0 11 . 0 Hispanic Elderly Small Family Large Family 1 27 1 Other Elderly Small Family Large Family 13 39 3 The following data on handicapped persons and households headed by single individuals with dependent children are an indication of possible special housing or other types of needs of these groups. Single individual non -elderly handicapped persons numbered 143, 110 of which are in small families 27 of which are in large families. Based on 1980 census data provided to the City by Orange County 6,179 (22.1%) of the 27,820 households in Newport Beach were households comprised of families with persons under 18 years of age. Families with female heads of household, no husband, numbered 1,257 which is 4.5% of total households and 20.3% of the family households. Families with male heads of household, no wife, numbered 310 which is 1.1% of the total households and 5.0% of the family households. When combined these two family types represent 1,567 households or 5.6% of the total households and 25.4% of the family households in the City. Estimation of the number of households headed by single individuals with dependent children needing rental subsidy was derived by applying the percentage of total existing households needing rental subsidy to the households headed by single individuals with dependent children data. This estimate indicates that 35 families with male heads of household and 143 families with female heads of household or a total of 178 households headed by single individuals with dependent children need rental subsidy. THREE YEAR GOAL NARRATIVE The City's amendment of the 1982-85 HAP has removed a low interest housing rehabilitation loan program and increased the number of new assisted units to be provided with CDBG funds. This amendment was made in order to provide a sufficiently large pool of financial resources to acquire the land necessary to develop housing for lower income households. The City of Newport Beach is, or will be, taking the following specific actions to implement the amended three year housing goals. Issuance of building permits on an approve 68 unit rental project for which the City has also approved a cooperative agreement with Orange County for use of Tax Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing. These 68 units are included on line 16, Column M of the HAP. Encouraged use of the Section 8 Existing Program through promotion and continued cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority. Increased Section 8 existing non-CDBG units are shown on lines 19, 21 and 22. Expenditure of 1982 and 1983 CDBG Entitlement and Appropriations Act Funds are A proposed for a land acquisition program for the purpose of providing new housing affordable to lower income households. Based on estimated land values and potential development intensities the City has established a goal of acquiring sufficient land to build 45 lower income units. These 45 units are shown on lines 16 and 18, Column M, and on line 19. Occupants of these 45 units will be required to have incomes below 80% of the Section 8 median income and the housing expense will not be greater than 30% of the household income. This requirement will be established through a development agreement. Continued enforcement of the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. This Ordinance has prevented the conversion of rental housing thereby preserving the primary source of housing affordable to lower income households. Mobile home parks are also a source of housing for lower income households therefore, the City will continue review of existing mobile home parks for application of the City's Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone. Continued implementation of the City's Housing Element through General Plan and Zoning Code amendments on the specific sites identified for increases in housing production. of these identified sites some are being designated for low and moderate income households. The City also offers a density incentive for the production of affordable housing. Maintenance of the provisions contained in the resolution adopting City Planning fees which permits waiver of these fees for projects with affordable housing. Thirty Section 8 new units have also been shown on line 22 in the box marked new indicating a willingness to accept 30 Section 8 new rental subsidy units. MAP The CDBG land acquisition program and Section 8 Rental Subsidy program are City-wide programs, therefore a map of the entire City has been attached. Currently the City has approved two affordable housing sites, North Ford and Newport Center, that would allow the use of CDBG funds. North Ford is located in Census Tract 630.07 and Newport Center is located in Census Tract 630.08. Currently the North Ford site is the most promising of the two locations for use of the funds. The City can not commit to the location of the land acquisition program until a development agreement is approved therefore, the City will if necessary, amend the HAP and/or map at such time as an agreement is approved. The 30 Section 8 new construction units may be located in Census Tract 626.17, Block Group 9. _ A November 21, 1983 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: rflE D COR _ 'T COPY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY CLERK OF THE CITY of NEWPORT H ACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT n ap a���� 0 ! f S i 9 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Ad Hoc Planning Department Funds. Suggested Action of the 1 Assistance Plan i and the 1982 Review the proposed amendment and, if' desired, make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the amendment of the CDBG program. Ili Background In September of 1982 the City of Newport Beach re-entered the CDBG program by approving a 30-day HAP and making a submission for 1982 CDBG Entitlement Funds. The project for which the City requested funds and for which HUD approved the use of funds is a low interest housing rehabilitation loan program. Since that time the City has approved a 3-year HAP covering the period 10-1-82 to 9-30-85 and two 1-year HAP's covering the first 2 years of the overall 3-year. HAP. Under the 3-year HAP the City requested and received 1982 CDBG "jobs bill" funds and 1982 CDBG Entitlement Funds. The project for which the City requested these funds and for which HUD approved them is a land acquisition program for the purpose of providing lower income housing. To date the City has been approved for $1,213,000 in CDBG funding, $496,000 of 1982 Entitlement funds for the rehabilitation loan program and $199,000 of 1983 "jobs bill" funds, and $518,000 in 1983 Entitlement funds for land acquisition. Discussion Since the 1982 request for rehabilitation loan funds and approval of the 1982-85 HAP the City has become more knowledgeable regarding the cost of providing affordable housing. In addition, the City has made several land development approvals requiring the provision of affordable housing. In order to develop the 45 housing units shown in the HAP at HUD affordability levels it is necessary for the City to direct all available CDBG funds towards the acquisition of land to offset the City's high land costs. Therefore, it is proposed to amend the 1982 program by changing it from a rehabilitation loan TO: Joint City Council/Planning Commission Ad Hoc Housing Task Force - 2 program to a land acquisition program identical to the 1983 "jobs bill" and entitlement fund programs. This would make approximately $24,000 per unit available to assist in the development of the 45 units shown in the HAP. If additional funds are necessary the City can request 1984 CDBG entitlement funds as a supplement to the current level of funding. The amount of 1984 funds is not known at this time however, staff estimates that it will be approximately $500,000. Land development approvals such as North Ford and Newport Center provide identified opportunities for use of the CDBG Funds. The City could also utilize these funds on other affordable housing sites or acquire a parcel of land independently and allow an affordable housing developer to construct the units. An independent land acquisition by the City would require the establishment of a method of housing management. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director CRAIG T. Senior F CTB:nma Attachment: Strike-out/Onderlirv: of the 1982-85 HAP and 1982 Submission for funds PP.OPOSED AMENDED HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN •" " Form AOProveo U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN OEVELCPMENT 1. NAMt Ur cUMMUNITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CITY OF NEtWPORT BEACH ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM 2. GRANT NUMBER HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN B— 8 3— M C— 0 6 0 5 4 6 3. PERIOO OF APPLICABILITY S• HUD APPROVAL FROM: 10-1-82 TO: 9-30-85 4. DATE OF SUBMISSION 3a. ❑Original [I Revision ®Amendment (Signature of Aurhoneed Official) (Date! PART I - HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS TABLE I - HOUSING STOCK CONDITIONS STANDARD UNITS SUBSTANDARD UNITS SUBSTANDARD UNITS SUITABLE FOR REHAB TENURE TYPE OCCUPIED UNITS VACANT UNITS OCCUPIED UNITS VACAN UNITS occuPlED UNITS I VACANT Total Lower Income UNITS A B C D E F G 6 1 Owner 14,849 643 39 2 39 2 2 7 1 Renter , 247 18 247 1 158 18 TABLE II - RENTAL SUBSIDY NEEDS OF LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ' ELDERLY SMALLFAMILY LARGE FAMILY TOTAL H I J K 8 Very Low Income 445 1,370 19 1,834 B Percent 24.25 % 74.69 % 1.06 % 10095 16 Other Lower Income 263 1,055 12 1,330 11 ETR 10 250 61 32 i 12 To be Dis !aced 0' 1 1 0 0 — 13 Total I 718� 75 d 14 Percent 20.60 io i 76.75 PART II . THRE-, YEAR GOAL TABLE I - UNITS TO BE ASSISTED REHABILITATION SUBSTAN�F UNITS NEW CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION 10 STANDARD UNITS HOME IMPROVEMENTS L M N O 16 Owner .Q. JL 0 0 16 Renter -198 0 98 J.0 0 0 (UNITS EXPECTED TO ASSIST LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS) 17 Owner E _ 18 Renter 138 p 1-30 0 TABLE 11 - LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO RECEIVE RENTAL SUBSIDIES ELDERLY SMALLFAMILY IARGEFAb11LY TOTAL P O R IS 19 Households to be Assisted ZU 56 1 Z, 4 a zD Percent 23 % 75 % 1 2 % 100% TABLE III - GOALS FOR HUD RESOURCES: SUBJECT.TO LOCAL REVIEW AND COMMENT ELDERLY SMALL FAMILY LARGE FAMI LY TOTAL T U V w 21 Households to be Assisted 10 33 1 44 HOUSING TYPE PREFERENCE (Maximum Number of Units that will be Accepted) 221 NEW REHAB EXISTING 30 lJ 44 F237 ® Check this box if the applicant wishes to review State Housing Agency proposals within its jurisdiction. PART III - GENERAL LOCATIONS 24Attach map identifying the general locations of proposed assist.ed housing. HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS NARRATIVE The data provided in Part I of the Housing Assistance Plan with the exception of the expected to reside and households to be displaced were derived from the 1980 Census. The ETR number was calculated by SCAG and is proposed for use in the Regional Housing Allocation Model. Since the City adopted the Condominium Conversion ordinance in 1979, there has not been a condominium conversion and it is not expected that any conversions will take place during the period covered by this HAP. The City does not currently anticipate any displacement . to occur from condominium conversion or from governmental actions nor does the City anticipate any demolition of standard units as a result of governmental actions during the 3 year period covered by this HAP. The following definitions of substandard housing and substandard housing suitable for rehabilitation are the definitions which the City will utilize to describe these two types of substandard housing. 1. Substandard Housing Those units which do not meet the Section 8 existing housing quality standards. 1 2. Substandard Housing Suitable for Rehabilitation Those units which are structurely sound and the cost of rehabilitation will not exceed' he pro ect market value after rehabilitation. It is estimated that the following numbers of lower income minority households reside in substandard ownership or rental housing. Substandard ownership Housing Black Hispanic Other 0 1 2 ._ 2. Substandard Rental Housing Black Hispanic Other 2 30 13 Based on the percentages of lower -income minority renter households by family type needing assistance shown in the City's 1982 HAP, it is estimated that the number of minority lower -income renter households by family type currently needing rental subsidies is as follows: Black Elderly Small Family Larqe Family 0 11 0' Hispanic Elderly Small Family Large Family 1 27 1 Other Elderly Small Family Large Family 13 39 3 The following data on handicapped persons and households headed by single individuals with dependent children are an indication of possible special housing or other types of needs of these groups. Single individual non -elderly handicapped persons numbered 143, 110 of which are in small families 27 of which are in large families. Based on 1980 census data provided to the City by Orange County 6,179 (22.1%) of the 27,820 households in Newport Beach were households comprised of families with persons under 18 years of age. Families with female heads of household, no husband, numbered 1,257 which is 4.5% of total households and 20.3% of the family households. Families with male heads of household, no wife, •numbered 310 which is 1.1% of the total households and 5.0% of the family households. When combined these two family types represent 1,567 households or 5.6% of the total households and 25.4% of the family households in the City. Estimation of the number of households headed by single individuals with deperi ent children needing rental subsidy was derived by applying the percentage tJ total existing households needing rental subsidy to •the households headed by single individuals with dependent children data. This estimate indicates that 35 families with male heads of household and 143 families with female heads of household or a total of 178 households headed by single individuals with dependent children need rental subsidy. THREE YEAR GOAL NARRATIVE The City's amendment of the 1982-85 HAP has removed a low interest housing rehabilitation loan nroaram and increased the number of new assisted units to be provided with CDBG funds. This amendment was made in order to provide a sufficiently larce pool of financial resources to acouire the land necessary IR The City of Newport Beach is, -or will be, taking the following specific actions to implement the amended three year housing goals. Adm3a#stre�}ea-ef a^-Naas#ng--rehabi}i�etsan--}eaa--pregrem--�e--greaent--the--}ass--e€--haul#ag of f erelab}e--to--}ewer--i-}ze�tsekei-e'ks--(}ie3.rwa--8(�Qr-o-f--mec}fact-ireeme�--d+�-fie pr#v aE e--demo-bik-i orr--Err�-re eea strne b sen---1Ptte--q x`ant�.x�e1--a f--ti:ese-gzxrrrs--Hs }} regnzre-t}cst-t�ite-ixeeme-o€-t-he--oeersgar.�s-be-dress--Matt-66*e-o€--�he-See•€iort-8 meel#are-3tc�- erxpthah -€ke-hens#ag- expense be -xo--mere-tliarr3E?Ar o€-eeengants ineen:e---•Pregerty- ewrcers-+ri.�.grime--ree;�ricred--ho--f-�trctis�t--tlge-8t�p-Hsth-saeame-anal koasing-c�cperrse--tncrfrrrakiYx c-Prier--ho--bhe-grantsag-�-}Dens-and--et--l�Se-t#me kennnts-change:--These-unfits-nre-shown-on-lines-15;-16;-}�-and-38;-Eelamn-B-e€ the- HAP -€erm. Issuance of building permits on an approved 68 unit rental project for which the City has also approved a cooperative agreement with Orange County for use of Tax Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing. These 68 units are included on line 16, Column M of the HAP. Encouraged use of the Section 8 Existing Program through promotion and continued cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority.. Increased Section 8 existing non-CDBG units are shown on lines 19, 21 and 22. Sxgendikare-o£- 1982-anck-i983-EDB6 Eatit}emenk-and- Apfrropr�rat�.ons-��-Ftrnds-are-propo^ed--fo-r--a-}anck-aegais#kien gregrant-for-�-gttrgese-o-€--Px-c�'-irt3-ing--nevr-hens Ong-a€€or�' a�rle-�tw--lower-sneeme ke"ehe}ds : ---lased--on-- est3�neteeel--3 and - v�xlues --aim--patentza}--deveiegmenk inkensitries-�ixe--C-i�y-leas-esta}r].3si�ed--a--go-zrb-e€-i�ing--su£-f.'�:mn. -}anti-lee ba#}d-�3-�ovaer--i-nec�me-nn#ts--^�itkese--+�5--ttntks-ere--shown--on-3st�es-�.6--ash-}8 ; Ee}t3mis-�I-,--ca:c}-en-3.�.fle- �9:---Oeettganks-e€--theee-Orr-nn#ks-+ri3.d--3�e-regtrrrc�-be leave-ine owes-be3ew-88�-of-tile-�ee4:-ion--8--medrarr �;ec�me-ant}-bke-keasing-exg a ns e Ni}}-nat-be-=�-,r �-.=ri=-tkan-36�-e€-tiie--kexrseho-ld- i-nec>me-.---R�ris-reer�trrement-w#}} be-eskab}isked- throagia-s deveiopmeirt aF�reeme Continued enforcement of the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. This Ordinance has prevented the conversion of rental housing thereby preserving the primary source of housing affordable to lower income households. Mobile home parks are also a source of housing for lower income households therefore, the City will continue review of existing mobile home parks for application of the City's Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone. Continued implementation of the City's Housing Element through General Plan and Zoning Code amendments on the specific sites identified for increases in housing production. Of these identified sites some are being designated for low and moderate income Nuseholds. The City also offers a density incentive for the production of Wffordable housing. Maintenance of the provisions contained in the resolution adopting City Planning fees which permits waiver of these fees for projects with affordable housing. Thirty Section 8 new units have also been shown on line 22 in the box marked new indicating a willingness to accept 30 Section 8 new rental subsidy units. MAP Tke-EBB6-kegs#ng-rekabi}ikakien-}eon-gregram The CDBG land acquisition program and Section 8 Rental Subsidy, program are City-wide programs, therefore a map of the entire City has been attached. Currently the City has approved two use of CDBG funds. North Ford is located in Census Tract 630.07 and Newport Center is located in Census Tract 630.08. Currently the North Ford site is the most promising of the two locations for use of the funds. The City can not commit to the location of the land acquisition program until a development agreement is approved therefore, the City will if necessary, amend the HAP and/or map at such time as an agreement is approved. The 30 Section 8 new construction units may be located in Census Tract 626.17, Block Group 9. The Eikp-eloes--msk-�-*_�^^-1y--]rnovr-kke-leeat§an--€or--trhe- 1983-�-DBG-}art&-aee�ais#ksan Pragremq-�+eaever-3.-f--rreeessai°y--tkte--C-rbp -wi}}-amend-t}�e--itAP--and-�-snap•-ale-saeh trine-as-kke-}eeekien-is-#Hewn- NEWPORT BEACH 1980 ✓ `-�� CENSUS TRACTS I � � .!.: - Jam''• !.- r -�r"� iS" _!,�.I Vay , es �.• S Jet •s '• ' S � _... j �t � i 111� '=.l't� r �63.6.03.,' 1fi . ':'�-mot �•�""'�-••sue. .4•,^tag ::p�.:- -' �>��i]G9Jfi 1]14);IrS ^Z1Cf1f11iLr 626.11 626,\15 626.14 1 -.s 626. ��.il,`l-tom •r;r: �� t \ V l7 Q�� r�J,• a �'a 630_1 628 'rY of NEwPONT K Q • �, L.• /� v MAyI ip•T, fµNp.n, I —txsm c�•cr_lr_t e North Ford lz ty 5 "� Neciport Center Census Tract 626.17 Block Group G�� FINAL STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1982 SUBMISSION AMENDED 4+he-C� t-p--e€--Metq�o-r-t--Beaek-tri3.�r-ase-3�J8 2--C-o�:��rtity-Eeae3egmenf--E-€oe}F-6rast fends-te-preserire-,the-e�i-s4ing--heus�s:c�--stee3:- an<t-arrest-detertaratren-threnyh a-heme-rehabil4tatgan-lean-gregram---Bew-#merest-teens-wzk�-be-made-aeas�ab€e to-lew-and-modezake--iTreome-4homeownez-�--C_�.--470%, tterest•-leana-will-ale e be -made- aveiiab3� tcr-rerrta€-gragertp-ewners-�i tytride- wFzv ac}ree -Lo--rent-their ttnsts-to--low--and-modex�ete--inecxae--tenants-end�o��yiire--grlarztp-to- ��_�: -8 Eertsfseate- ier r-€er-s-miasmtzm-of--8 -yews--€olletti c y -dean- apprcKtaf r--gin addstsen;*rii-r-be--assigned-- e,-the-gragram and--epe-re� -eests--&ireet- -e- seeieted--with--the--heme- reite}ri3itti ien -la an grogram-ws��-be-gaped-from-the-EBE6-fandso Pregesed-Bean-Fend-------$396;896 Hragesed-Admsnsstretsan----99;E66 ¢496;608 i If i } The City of Newport Beach will use the $496,000 in 1982 Community Development R1nck Crant Entitlement Funds to acauire land for the purpose of providing In be assiqned to the program and operating costs directly associatea with the not to G'L�.'i:.i'Ir�.I. i1JJ1�ii11 •.1+:. 2. APPLI• a. .duCta J. •aA7Y .. LS7ClA — -' I{ UhT3 , A:'P1JG ' ClFI s�Ta;'�trauc., p YN)OlX 4 .. L•.J' lwr pJJsHin' AuNCtAI I n.9e+u al p NE:E.TC� =829 23 i.s:ae i.4ATITPIIXD• •eC•'aIQ �I1 r.vt 0 ,CPC:PT OF iT1FP.1,1 i. Ls:AL idFLh:AaTmr.ClP1E4T -�'r\ ,.?JiL4AL C31VWTLR IOLYTL•: �\TI :1 PIC, a.:;nkml Ago{ I City of Newport Beach i 95-6000751 U. 4.;Zub:J„ UrA 1 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 I 1! 13 D a, L'ava;a 4 12! 11 P. a, W1 I Newport Beach > n;,y 1 Orange ar1.41 A. T;:Lt 7. I7i4 California E, ;;P;�d,; 92663-3884 ir'J' I Community Development a ands don irvow Craig Bluell Block Grants /Entitleme : w s vtt�Aa Mo.) I (71A) 640-2261 Ij Grants TITL-- ANO D"CRIPTION Oi 1 TfYE ,,^.7 AFPUi.:217/P.SCIFY GkT lnCrrt::a ;• Y •,u C.r_llual L,:::NHl r3 i�em-sa€e=es@-keils4sq-�'ei�abi}i'tation-3oast-grrograiii- :_Au9JLl;a 1•I,�itn to:a ti €ems-dew-ai;d-inea'a=a€e-iasame-hausshol3s_#,0..,+-� o,•„= Rfl.[ f'rd:J.a i+PeriFY)1 c-tt,a� �i L the- esitrq-a€€e�}e-lor�siaq-soek-aF:ci-art : ''�� n.•r_ a r'(3YJl .Yf;� dete�'4era#ier2: E�,ui �,nc.-. errc;ra::.r ur:.r -- h. 7Y:'C or AM131:.)iCC l Land acquisition for the purpose of providing ;-C,)t ll_,,.-lcarer� ldr.:as.:s10': al E-G;.w tatx r-^� lower income housing. 4 lt, :•::-a. b )0. An:A GF PRG'L7T I:aPAM' Ili Crtu CJ •n:u:, iuo,till, 21. CUTIYArED NUM. 12. iYPS Oi APPWCATIO;i bY,tu, Cc.) I V /.? r PEn50:i9 2tii. (FII:O .+,..);.y G.i::dllm :-•CG....twC''a City of Newport Beach 1, 200 3•::aaani G•alcww:t..{ =%!" a.'nrsIr m:,r 1« PROPOSED FUNDUtZ 14. CC:)4RS:Si^_14AL Dl.`T 7gC7: OF: 2S. TYl`= Or CH-VIGZ Wal.a,n;tt) t. r,�e.ai ! v 496,000 ,y j J. A: P:Ji«� " r e/-=* CS fr Pau1L." A-)w,nta CelAn yrq/Y)I i.-�wia 6a1:e,1 a APVL1U.r f ca I 40 ); i 4q-. Ir.-:•� d» r,e-. , COY= nt•n tv,:va -Ti+--t <. L: I C•• , ) %• FTC•. _CT I" IT 12.. c•jr• •,••-.' F->-c:ulioua, •� 1 ----�� IILiii mr r VA Y L`Ur:AYaa :Tairr 9. MCA4 I i I 3:• 82 Y _ s::•� r7—j-11 .C•0 _ Clr•„At :•nzlt :1,.1 •:1) I 1 1 t• T.TIi.` .CS I la. CLTItdATZO DATE TO 2'0l• Sxv % JMV EXISTING F—"-E t:L I;X;H7IFICAT;^8- 124. i. TMr.-Jje 496,000 .cl PLCL>rlL Ac;)tcY> 22 N//, <. F`M Dept. of HUD, Los Angeles Office, Los Angeles, CA 90057 Te lM Stsl of u7 L:;afslit [np lliNf. t. 1! r:Ti.m 5/ CL•8 ,t r.-9S U. Jfl1;.643 r11 AsImitt,d• ryutnl b i). '!a J)N in 1n0 p:nOT':talnn/rNllgti,n nt sL•vallwt L•tmin, Ca c9Y1:;.1ata OUJ144n 1' gad all t;:pasa tyast{ I,i::.lrv� Tlsa ,i w. Ind txrerl, u. e.•aK.{,l Ln Lem APPLICA)IT duly ;I:tar11:J 17 t)a LarvnUS L'::J cj Ca Anhant tn: V,t aytltanl will t-caf C:J ❑ ❑ TIUT20 with .- Una r.�>t w,r.:sa n Uo cat:,. 1'� l O ina is t;;,Ma. C❑C•-77 M •J wSS o c..r.::1CI:t7 ril-Al.T.'ric Robert L. Wynn �jn Y:ar sv tl 2% a,P li 17:ItTIV!: City Manager 82 9 23 EAUZ IPPLI•::• 'Isar reez':, : ;7 TIC)i Su. Ga•Wd:.iTlV::r\L UMT Z7. AW4lN;*7:lATIVZ WFIGe tj 2.'t. A.P*..M.2b li � i:: UaTIi;G:avt: .52. A::C141i TF•YS?I r=• FU:tD;:iJ � i::,r .Iw:a 1v> .:. '� •� RCFt:1TOI m !.nm:7_:.I n1T: z. !'J `T�Ttii".1 :L Ct;YTACT FOR /DvIS;DAAL U:FOMMA•' Ili)) (:il:L {,a ;tit Y'L'~t PVT\ifr) iPN rt,C.LI L:Y A1S.T:,:I000 —� = :1 1. ICSII \ .7 )dE\1.Aati f�p�^. a 0e••� :'ea t. la l.l::—' :?,•e ,rll<a, m7 cann... \J r•;a 1 i �;. r:Lr .L,r. 7LfAh1!nA.,JC�l a.irf•rrdLoni,. � 7 ::C:L •+_ 11CY LJ'7e. {;t..:)C1•R�lT lDb—:s2{ vOVi.r): t11/u:•s,a>.+1b1 l>:rra_yY.uy1�x:rNw \. ;11 C:t :VV4.11lA .4 tort —I .)`; R.dJ I11r.-CN 1 Ill s\CAAD f07.i) iii iAZ1 2 GC-i;J 1•rroe.,T•ed lY C.id. J. otw::av,Js,+o.1 r;;",;er Irt T r City Council Meeting November 28, 1983 2-r TO: City Council enda Item No. D-5 CEK IFI ' RUE ND CORRECT COPY BEACH _.... .... .... _ ....... CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF THE 1982-85 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (HAP) AND THE 1982 ENTITLEMENT SUBMISSION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, adopt Resolution No. , approving amendment of the 1982-85 HAP and the 1982 Entitlement Fund Submission, and directing staff to forward them to HUD. Environmental Significance 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. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration for City Council review and consideration. Housing Task Force Recommendation The consensus of the Housing Task Force at its meeting of November 22, 1983 was to recommend to the City Council that the 1982 CDBG Entitlement Fund program be amended from a low interest housing rehabilitation loan program to a land acquisition program for the purpose of providing lower income housing. Background In September of 1982 the City of Newport Beach re-entered the CDBG program by approving a 30-day HAP and making a submission for 1982 CDBG Entitlement Funds. The project for which the City requested funds and for which HUD approved the use of funds is a low interest housing rehabilitation loan program. Since that time the City has approved a 3-year HAP covering the period 10-1-62 to 9-30-85 and two 1-year HAP's covering the first 2 years of the overall 3-year HAP. Under the 3-year HAP the City requested and received 1982 CDBG "jobs bill" funds and 1982 CDBG Entitlement Funds. The project for which the City requested these funds and for which HUD approved them is a land acquisition program for the purpose of providing lower income housing. To date the City has been approved for $1,213,000 in CDBG funding, $496,000 of 1982 Entitlement funds for the rehabilitation loan program and $199,000 of 1983 "jobs bill" funds, and $518,000 in 1983 Entitlement funds for land acquisition. I r � T0: City Council - 2 Discussion Prior to approval of the housing rehabilitation loan program, the City published a legal notice and a 4 inch by 4 inch display advertisement announcing the public hearing and describing the low interest rehabilitation loan program. Information on the loan program and the public hearing was also posted in the 4 public libraries. Prior to and after the public hearing several newspaper articles were published describing the rehabilitation loan program. To date only two inquiries have been made regarding this program. Since the 1982 request for rehabilitation loan funds and approval of the 1982-85 HAP the City has become more knowledgeable regarding the cost of providing affordable housing. In addition, the City has made several land development approvals requiring the provision of affordable housing. on the North Ford and Newport Center sites the City has approved 75 units affordable to County low income households. These units will rent for approximately $675 per month for a family of four. Amendment of the 1982 CDBG program requires that the rehabilitation unit goal of 2 ownership units and 120 rental units be removed from the 1982-85 HAP. As a replacement goal for the 1982 funds HUD has verbally indicated that an additional 15 new units would be acceptable. This changes the previously approved goal of 30 units to 45 units. These 45 units will be required to meet the HUD low income standard of approximately $650/month for a family of four. In order to develop the 45 housing units shown in the HAP at HUD affordability levels it is necessary for the City to direct all available CDBG funds towards the acquisition of land to offset the City's high land costs. Amending the 1982 program by changing it from a rehabilitation loan program to a land acquisition program identical to the 1983 "jobs bill" and entitlement fund programs will assist the City in achieving its goal of providing new affordable housing. This amendment will make approximately $24,000 per unit available to assist in the development of the 45 units shown in the HAP. If additional funds are necessary the City can request 1984 CDBG entitlement funds as a supplement to the current level of funding. The amount of 1984 funds is not known at this time however, staff estimates that it will be approximately $500,000. Land development approvals such as North Ford and Newport Center provide identified opportunities for use of the CDBG Funds. Community Development Block Grant funds could be used on, North Ford and Newport Center to improve affordability or influence the mix of ownership and rental units. As an alternative the City could utilize the CDBG funds to achieve the 45 units in the HAP on other affordable housing sites or acquire a parcel of land independently and allow an affordable housing developer to construct the units. An independent land acquisition by the City would require the establishment of a method of housing management. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D IHEWICKER, Director By / Senior CTB:nma 1. NegatVve Declaration 2. Strike-out/Underline of the 1982-85 HAP and 1982 Submission for funds NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Q Secretary for Resources 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 d Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 NAME OF PROJECT: Amendment of 1982-85 HAP and 1982 Entitlement Submission PROJECT LOCATION: City of Newport Beach , , PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment of the 1982-85 HAP and the 1982 Entitlement Submission for CDBG funds. 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 required INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: Craig T. Bluell, Senior Planner INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environme 1,al C ordinator Date: 7 �-7 PROPOSED AMENDED HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN AND FINAL STATEMENT G No., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELCPMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FROMt 10-1-82 TO: 9-30-85 DATE OF SUBMISSION 4a. ❑Original ❑Revision ®Amendment CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m u©m©sSEEN©MM PART I - HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS of Authorized Offic,all FDate) TABLE 1 - HOUSING STOCK CONDITIONS STANDARD UNITS SUBSTANDARD UNITS SUBSTANDARD UNITS SUITABLE FOR REHAB TENURE TYPE OCCUPIED UNITS VACANT UNITS OCCUPIED UNITS VACANT UNITS OCCUPIED UNITS VACANT UNITS Total Lower Income q 8 C D E F G 6 1 Owner 14,849 643 39 2 39 2 2 7 Renter 247 18 247 1 158 18 TABLE 11 - RENTAL SUBSIDY NEEDS OF LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ELDERLY SMALLFAMILY LARGE FAMILY TOTAL H 1 J K 8 Very Low Income 445 1,370 19 1,834 9 Percent 24.25 % 74.69 % 1.06 % 100% 10 Other Lower Income 263 1,055 12 1,330 11 ETR 10 250 61 32 12 To be Displaced 0 0 0 _ _ 13 Total t 718 (•: P 675 _ 923,485 14 Percent 20.60 % 10090 PART II - THREE YEAR GOAL TABLE 1 - UNITS TO BE ASSISTED REHABILITATION SUBSTANDARD UNITS NEW CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION IO STANDARD UNITS HOME IMPROVEMENTS L M N O 16 Owner ig .1 JL 0 0 16 Renter }99 0 1. 96 0 0 (UNITS EXPECTED TO ASSIST LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS) 17 Owner 18 Renter 1 }-29 a I Be 0 TABLE 11 - LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO RECEIVE RENTAL SUBSIDIES ELDERLY SMALLFAMILY LARGEFAMILY TOTAL P O R S 10 Households to be Assisted 2 6 } '�4 20 1 Percent 23 % 75 % 2 Y° 100% TABLE III - GOALS FOR HUD RESOURCES: SUBJECT TO LOCAL REVIEW AND COMMENT ELDERLY SMALLFAMILY LARGE FAMILY TOTAL T U V w 21 Households to be Assisted 10 33 1 44 HOUSING TYPE PREFERENCE (Maximum Number of Units that will be Accepted) 221 NEW REHAB EXISTING 30 C 0 44 23 ® Check this box if the applicant wishes to review State Housing Agency proposals within its jurisdiction. PART III - GENERAL LOCATIONS 24Attach map identifying the general locations of proposed assisted housing. 1 00.82) 570.306) -e— HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS NARRATTVR The data provided in Part I of the Housing Assistance Plan with the exception of the expected to reside and households to be displaced were derived from the 1980 Census. The ETR number was calculated by SCAG and is proposed for use in the Regional Housing Allocation Model. Since the City adopted the Condominium Conversion Ordinance in 1979, there has not been a condominium conversion and it is not expected that any conversions will take place during the period covered by this HAP. The City does not currently anticipate any displacement to occur from condominium conversion or from governmental actions nor does the City anticipate any demolition of standard units as a result of governmental actions during the 3 year period covered by this HAP. The following definitions of substandard housing and substandard housing suitable for rehabilitation are the definitions which the City will utilize to describe these two types of substandard housing. 1. Substandard Housing Those units which do not meet the Section 8 existing housing quality standards. 2. Substandard Housing Suitable for Rehabilitation Those units which are structurely isiund and the cost of rehabilitation will not exceed the proVect market value after rehabilitation. It is estimated that the following numbers of lower income minority households reside in substandard ownership or rental housing. Substandard Ownership Housing Black Hispanic Other 0 2 . 2. Substandard Rental Housing Black Hispanic Other 2 30 13 Based on the percentages of lower -income minority renter households by family type needing assistance shown in the City's 1982 HAP, it is estimated that the number of minority lower -income renter households by family type currently needing rental subsidies is as follows: Black S Elderly Small Family Large Family 0 11 0 4 Y Hispanic Elderly Small Family Large Family 1 Other 27 1 Elderly Small Family Large Family 13 39 3 The following data on handicapped persons and households headed by single individuals with dependent children are an indication of possible special housing or other types .of needs of these groups. Single individual non -elderly handicapped persons numbered 143, 110 of which are in small families 27 of which are in large families. Based on 1980 census data provided to the City by Orange County 6,179 (22.1%) of the 27,820 households in Newport Beach were households comprised of families with persons under 18 years of age. Families with female heads of household, no husband, numbered 1,257 which is 4.5% of total households and 20.3% of the family households. Families with male heads of household, no wife, numbered 310 which is 1.1% of the total households and 5.0% of the family households. When combined these two family types represent 1,567 households or 5.6% of the total households and 25.4% of the family households in the City. Estimation of the number of households headed by single individuals with dependent children needing rental subsidy was derived by applying the percentage of total existing households needing rental subsidy to the households headed by single individuals with dependent children data. This estimate indicates that 35 families with male heads of household and 143 families with female heads of household or a total of 178 households headed by single individuals with dependent children need rental subsidy. THREE YEAR GOAI, NARRATIVE has removed a low rehabilitation loan program and increased the number of new assisted units to be provided with CDBG funds. This amendment was made in order to provide a to The City of Newport Beach is, or will be, taking the following specific actions to implement the amended three year housing goals. Adminietratien-ef n--henesag--rekabi}itatses--}eea--gregram--te--greeeat--tke--iass--a€--kensiRg of€erdnb}e- Ho -}ewes- n�� a keaseke}ds--(J4e4-0-B(f9r-e€- mediate-$neeme3- clue -ta pzsaete--demo-l-itiosr-er�d--reeexstrt�etren----�Phe-grs�tir�--ef--3c+�-rrrs--wi}} regaire-t3iet-tl�-ineame-o-€-�4�-eeeegarr�s-be--i�as--ti�arr-66a-v€-t-i�e-See�iorr-8 coedsars-3na a -end thah-tke-kegssag-expense-be-�so-mere-t}rarr309r-o-€-eeengnnts sneeme---i'regerty-orarne. rs-titi.-33-�-reefu-i�c�-to--fttxrri-sl=r-the-C-ttp-W stk-sn eeme-aed 7 kexsiag- expense-ino€rma€4or+-f ier- to-tke-graflt3ng- a f--loaRa-and- -at--the—time tenants- change..--These-units-are-shewn-on-linen-15;-•i6;-1:7-and-iB;-Eeiumn-B-ef the -HAP -form. Issuance of building permits on an approved 68 unit rental project for which the City has also approved a cooperative agreement. with Orange County for use of Tax Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing. These 68 units are included on line 16, Column M of the HAP. Encouraged use of the Section 8 Existing Program through promotion and continued cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority. Increased Section 8 existing non-CDBG units are shown on lines 19, 21 and 22. Expenditure of 1982 and 1983 CDBG Entitlement and Appropriations Act Funds are proposed for a land acgguisition program for the purpose of providing newhousingaffordable to lower income households. J Based on _ estimated land_ values and�otential development intensities the Cit has established a goal of acquiring sufficient land to ----- --- ---- ------ --- --- �- - g ------------------- build•45 lower income units. These 45 u_nits are shown on lines 16 and 18, Column M, and on line 19. Occupants o_f these 45 un_its will be required_ to have incomes below 80% of the Section 8 median income and thehousingexpense will not be greater than 30% of the _household income. This requirement will be established through a development agreement_ Continued enforcement of the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. This Ordinance has prevented the conversion of rental housing thereby preserving the primary source of housing affordable to lower income households. Mobile home parks are also a source of housing for lower income households therefore, the City will continue review of existing mobile home parks for application of the City's Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone. Continued implementation of the City's Housing Element through General Plan and Zoning Code amendments on the specific sites identified for increases in housing production. Of these identified sites some are being designated for low and moderate income households. The City also offers a density incentive for the production of affordable housing. Maintenance of the provisions contained in the resolution adopting City Planning fees which permits waiver of these fees for projects with affordable housing. Thirty Section 8 new units have also been shown on line 22 in the box marked new indicating a willingness to accept 30 Section 8 new rental subsidy units. MAP The-EBB6-hansing-rehab#}#tatien-}can-pregram The CDBG land acquisition program and Section 8 Rental Subsidy program are City-wide programs, therefore a map of the entire City has been attached. Currently the City has approved two affordable housing sites, North Ford and Newport Center, that would allow the Center is located in Census Tract 630.08. Currently the North Ford site is the most nromisina of the two locations for use of the funds. The City can not commit to the location or the land acquisition program until a development and/or map at such time as an agreement is approvea. •i•ne su section a new construction units may be located in Census Tract 626.17, Block Group 9. The E$tp-does--nc�t--�++=+�en*-�y- lenesr-the-3eeakien--€o�•t4ie--1-983--C-DHG-}and-aeQufs}tgan preprem;-hawever-if-necesssry-hY C-ity-w4}}-amend-th�HAP andy4sr ma}�-at-such t4tne-as-the-}eeatien-3s-knewn- I 6 2 6.1 1 NEWPORT BEACH r626.10 626 s 1980 CENSUS V.' At TRACTS `�:�� s1�t�.2::�r` 626.14 `'� y4-•.�'• t fit• ,�, ti� , �• '�� ��•`/ .% `�\ r11;��;�\����� � i! :^.1 I � •, 1fF+; t�' :y�; �{. -- � North Ford �� �:, s � ,- Ira � � •� .r .,,.,, I(�,: 626 i:8 .,'i �y' ;•- \: �'♦�%F-�'d/�.- 1�F(. -_ - i \ \:��% °•'.- }f'l i('i ��Ylr•L�^•'I,.-;,Y + •� '`-� ♦ �� ! j!i- •�`' - �f _ Ir�rj i;'b (7 ' `j i ,�:;.j. �,`:�!:'.ot •'`l�\ •-1 l:,;Y • i.;: i tli t .,.- _r�l(�::J I' i„ r- F., , 1.'t O.0 t .. •. - '`:: �✓'•i4. 'gnu ; , .7 li ! Y rips ��1,.%- :�'. i' \ .� i'T, l �T,• 4 Q`F l^��' •f} l �: _ 32• 1/'\ `:,�.• +...... • "'6`3 r `,. '. i.r0 ` / � �.. ,T�♦i �,�' `. a.r, .`\,-' !C?L%�- 7 .Si ,3�;-`:y�. e i h� ,: �.� i:'il� ;� i �•: .� Y' ��i,♦ e`r )�/'1 _ 2 }J.`��Ir-��,.. ! � � � : ... O�`l,;r � t�..�.il a•t _.J r,' I �•� ',l ;, i�1 nt-l`i'l.n``O.ri• L'iA 7�} �/[r'}\•,p��;�E.�•.i f''r•.' ��'�\ '� mil• ice, ��-',.i. � - � -♦ .r I�'1.,n%i �:• . f:- - • �7 Tr �` � 1 T-'.t. T. i it , �. / �s�M•, '{ �`�. ::. �.. ' �../l_ [ , e�1,[js,. _ •'. f : �� •� Net 636.0 t r1 ti_r. . a 1 3D _ ! .�,•1 mort >'�/ `• �. U•i ��. lri :i fl ,T �� �•—. sir J�B�I x-M-11'TYL_`•1 I�;il,y�cJ�F( CensusTract i7�f +i ll: 1 .��...: fY::f�:,�,•�r�i'4 ,��'� 626.17 �- �� '\ ��'i.• -1:= 1.1.�•l.,H 340, ii.,.:a . Z,•r\� .. -� .• , ,C,•.i'�. T tj:�..�f4a�•. ° • Block (� 63.6.03.: !y/' ni r+00..�� t _.:Q �..:,..:.- Blo Group :t',•.,,. .,•. �. f ..r-( ' -'1 )1 •••1' ��:: r - 11 •._.. I..: �:� +qC<.. LYT �'^ 0 `Q.V�S ^ q=J: � :q��.,l�:.e::• , j..:-, -�l.1 it [,�i. •;: .�,...I 6 ;:+'••"".. •ril!�(If_II•l•il�il 1,.. I J `4(t'i�il�..♦. .:"\`114. '••6�•�i �� •r• ....v t`y'i41 ;./. `(••:r .. ♦•• Ail:16G 0,�7�)iJ ji�jli •:.'>"��[i:.t•♦Y/-'�•. L e. i' yN1•i ,.. /'r • :•mil liii..c. s.—w;.i �,�[,.10 1 11 /Iuilii:R: �Tf%i:.J •n5�,t w x-'�r+,�.-., � >.� �.'i .l.-.IW., -n?mS�F� .�,t .l �-•'' . . :.. ::., •.. .., •± 'j ; \.� YrT � � .n,N I .Yff• Cam•, \. R• :, �f {•f` � kl �•,�^`• � �` IV•�na�:wy{%,' 1«•1 ,— �,;r�r,•�:.. __a. ♦y \. '• / . _ 1 ._ ., ..1 635 ";,-�<<y;d��� ..+Lb.rl•+�i ��;n"�wa_•o `�e__ f`•� _._��-�-"J ).�_. ,,�• C. / / r ,tt .`',p �,•; i, �C9.♦.: ••�- ` .V 628 CITY OF NCWIOrIT DCACN Q - •. G E rw, sow.., eu,"ana -- _ _. s FINAL STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1982 SUBMISSION AMENDED �Phe-£sty--e€- _. �.+�-Beaek-+ri-i3--trse-33FK--C-ommen-its+-Beve�egenet�t--&loc]r-6rant £ands-te- fx�ese��+e-tke-exi-sti-ng-�ius�xl--stee3r-zrct-nrx�est-c�eEer#aratsen-tkrengk a-kame-rekebilitatien-lean-program---Bow-#merest-leans-w#��-be-made-eea}fable to-few-and-moderate-ifceomei��z,c;.-r-�±�,-:i'_=: --io�t-i-�rL-eres�-loans-wall-else b e-made--e+rei3ekr1�-hcr-rental-gregertp-owners-e4,tywide-+,dxr-agree•-to--rent-tke sr units -fro- lot+-•end-moderate--ineome-tenants-anel-/vx�---gx�re--prtaritp-trr�tiosr-8 Eerti£ieate-i�.�.-s-€er-o--rrt�nimnm-off--&-yeas--£c}1-lcn,irg--lean--apprc>;ta-�.---fin addition ;-apgreprsate-edmin3.stratSae--st-etf-f-ilug-wi3ar-be--assigned--tie,-the -gregrem end-bperet�ing -oasts- clireeetlj+-assoey atcd -wrtk- Eke -kame- rekabiiii em- -lean program-will-be-gaped-€ram-the-eBBG-£nnda- Proposed-i�een-Fnnd-------$396;BB9 Proposed -Administration---- 99 2299 $496;999 The City of Newport Beach will use the $496,000 in 1982 Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Funds to acquire land for_ the purpose of -providing lower income housing. In addition, appropriate administrative staffing will be assigned to the program and operating costs directly associated with the CDBG program, not to exceed- 20% of the- grant, -will be paid from the -CDBG CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS qr ro REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX r Present x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Absent x Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Meeting of All Ayes November 14, 1983, was waived, approved as written, and order filed. Motion x C. The reading in full of all ordinances and All Ayes resolutions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Hart opened the continued public Vacation/ hearing regarding VACATION OF STREET Street RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE CONVERSION OF PUBLIC Harbor Hill STREETS TO PRIVATE STREETS WITHIN TRACT (90) 10151--HARBOR HILL. Report from Public Works, was presented. It was recommended the public hearing be continued, as the Department of Real Estate has not yet completed their review of the agreement to be executed between property owners and the Community Association. Motion x Motion was made to continue the public All Ayes hearing until January 9, 1984. 2. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing and City U/P 3058 Council review of an APPEAL BY ROBERT F. Novak's PI NOVAK, Corona del Mar, from the approval by (88) the Planning Commission on October 6, 1983, of USE PERMIT NO. 3058, a request to reestablish a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages, known as "NOVAK'S PLACE," on property located at 2920 East Coast Highway, on the easterly side of East Coast Highway, between Heliotrope Avenue and Iris Avenue in Corona del Mar; zoned C-1. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. The City Clerk reported that after printing the agenda, a letter was received from the applicant's attorney requesting the public hearing be continued for two months, inasmuch as the business has been sold and the property is in escrow. The City Clerk further advised that two additional communications had been received after printing the agenda, from Sandy and Richard Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, regarding the operation of Novak's Place. Volume 37 - Page 363 NRRMT COPY CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT.BEACH DAT& V // _� - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9C�� 0+9 ani i rei i November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Robert Frank Novak, 500 Morningstar Lane, /P 3058 applicant, addressed the Council regarding ovak's P1 his request for continuance. He stated that the new owner has agreed to the Conditions of Approval as recommended by the Planning Commission; however, he did feel it would be difficult to provide the additional 21 off-street parking spaces as required. He stated that he has attempted to comply with all the Conditions of Approval and has removed the video games and changed the closing hour to 12 midnight. Richard Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, addressed the Council and stated he lives directly behind Novak's Place. He cited numerous problems connected with the establishment, and stated that he did not think anything would be gained by continuing the public hearing. He suggested that designated areas be provided for delivery trucks, and also discussed the "grandfathering" of a net increase in public area of approximately 50%. During discussion, the City Attorney stated that the items which Mr. Nichols cited in his letters may have some merit, and therefore, should be reviewed by his office. Mr. Novak addressed the Council again, and stated that he could "live" with the Conditions of Approval, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion x In view of the foregoing, motion was made to All Ayes continue the public hearing to January 23, 1984, subject to the Conditions of Approval as recommended by the Planning Commission, and set forth in the staff report. It was noted that the City Council reserved the right to send this item back to the Planning Commission if deemed appropriate. 3. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing W/Balboa B1 regarding BALBOA BOULEVARD WIDENING--33RD Widng STREET TO 44TH STREET. (74) Report from Public Works, was presented. Letters dated October 17 and November 1, 1983, from Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee regarding subject project, were presented. Volume 37 - Page 364 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS v c+�,titi s� O'� � 9G� 0�yG � 09Gss November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX r The City Clerk reported that after printing PW/Balboa P the agenda, a letter was received in Widng opposition to the project from Dr. R. Kennon Boyden, property owner on 45th Street. City Engineer Donald Webb outlined the project. Project Engineer Horst Hlawaty discussed the exhibits on display and the alternatives available with Alternative 4 (Modified) being the preferred Alternative. In response to Council inquiries, City Engineer Webb stated there will be four additional parking places as a result of the project. With regard to 38th Street Park, either General or Park funds will be used for the "betterment" of the Park, estimated at $80,000 to $90,000. They intend to preserve as many of the palm trees as possible, and the landscaping plans and specifications will come back to the Council prior to advertisement for bids. The underground of utilities will be considered separately and is not a part of this project. Robert Caminiti, 110-36th Street, addressed the Council in support of the project and suggested bicycle lanes be striped in connection with the project. With respect to 38th Street Park, he stated it was too bad the park had to be reduced in size, as it limits recreational activities. City Engineer Webb, in response to the letter received from Dr. R. Kennon Boyden, stated that Dr. Boyden's comments would be reviewed and taken into consideration together with other comments received in the planning process. Motion x Motion was made to accept, approve and All Ayes certify the Final EIR (Attachment A); make the findings contained in the Statement of Facts (Attachment A, Exhibit 1) with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR; find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A, Exhibit 2) are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR; with respect to the project, find that although the Final EIR identified certain unavoidable Volume 37 - Page 365 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9��titiAs� cF o� November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, those mitigation measures identified in the Certified Final EIR shall be incorporated into the proposed project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated, or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A, Exhibit 2), giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable; adopt Resolution No. 83-124 Res 83-124 requesting the County of Orange allocate funds for Balboa Boulevard Street Widening in connection with the Arterial Highway Financing Program for Fiscal '84 - '85; and direct staff to apply for AHFP funding for right-of-way acquisition in fiscal year 1984-85. 4. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing TMap Tr regarding TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 10814 10814(R) (REVISED), a request of The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, to revise a previously - approved Tentative Map for Tract No. 10814 which permitted the creation of three lots for residential condominium purposes in conjunction with a 32 unit residential condominium development in the BIG CANYON PLANNED COMMUNITY. The proposed revision is to create 21 numbered lots for single-family residential purposes; one numbered lot for private recreational purposes; four lettered lots for private open space purposes; and two lettered lots for private street purposes. Property located on the northerly side of San Joaquin Hills Road between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard; zoned P-C. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. The City Clerk advised that after printing the agenda, a letter was received from the Legal Aid Society of Orange County, requesting denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 10814. Volume 37 - Page 366 rt V� •� Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS � c+�yti4As�, C� O'f' yG y� t� �G�► .p9 Jtn,A��F�Gtfs November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX r The City Manager summarized the staff report TMap Tr and discussed Conditions No. 56 and 22. Also 10814(R) discussed was the letter from Big Canyon Community Association, and in reference to their request, the City Manager stated that the staff felt an additional condition could be imposed requiring that the perimeter access be constructed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Reference was also made to Condition No. 54, regarding preference in the rental or sale of the "affordable units," wherein the City Attorney recommended this condition be deleted as it could present a legal problem. Hearing no one wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to approve the project, with the reinstatement of Condition No. 56, the deletion of Condition No. 54, that the street trees shall be provided as required by the Public Works and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments; and that the staff develop a plan for perimeter security and vehicular circulation to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Mr. Bernard Maniscalco of The Irvine Company approached the podium and requested to address the Council. Motion x In view of the foregoing, motion was made to All Ayes reopen the public hearing. Mr. Maniscalco discussed the reinstatement of Condition No. 56, hold harmless clause, with respect to movement of earth and soil within the project area, and stated that their project was not different than any other project in the City. He urged the Council to reconsider their action and not include Condition No. 56 in the Conditions of Approval. Reference was made to the Environmental Impact Report by the City Manager, wherein he noted that when this project was initially considered in 1981, there was found to be some unstable soil in the area. He discussed the slide problems since that time, and indicated that the lot is an irregular slope and should justify special treatment by the City. Volume 37 - Page 367 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I COUNCIL MEMBERS OLL CAL November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Mr. Maniscalco spoke in rebuttal to remarks TMap Tr made by the City Manager. 10814(R) Following further discussion, Mr. Maniscalco addressed the Council again, and stated that if Condition No. 56 is included as part of the Conditions of Approval, they would request a continuance of this item in order to discuss the condition further with the staff. Motion x Hearing no others wishing to address the All Ayes Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to amend the motion on the floor to include the deletion of the last sentence of Condition No. 56 regarding recorded notification to future owners, and to include Modified Finding No. 6, as set forth in the staff report. Motion x Following additional consideration, Ayes x x x x substitute motion was made to reopen the Noes x x public hearing. Motion x In view of the foregoing, motion was made to Ayes x x x x continue the public hearing to December 12, Noes x x 1983. 5. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing HUD/CDBG regarding the AMENDMENT OF THE 1982-1985 182-85 HAP HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (HAP) AND THE 1982 (87) ENTITLEMENT SUBMISSION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. Alice Reimer, resident, Corona del Mar, addressed the Council regarding the feasibility of senior citizen housing adjacent to Friends of the Oasis, and the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for that purpose. Barney Larks, 1901 Beryl Lane, also spoke in support of senior citizen housing and concurred in remarks of Ms. Reimer. Volume 37 - Page 368 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9 C G G'��f 9GV Fq�G �9G tP4P November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX r - Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 83-125 All Ayes 83-125, approving amendment of the 1982-1985 Housing Assistance Plan and the 1982 Entitlement Fund Submission; and directing staff to forward them to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). E. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. F. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following actions were taken as indicated, All Ayes except for those items removed: 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - Pass to second reading on December 12, 1983: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. 2. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. 3. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS: (a) Award Contract No. 2274 to John T. PCH'wy Swr Malloy of Los Angeles for the total Mn Rplcm price of $116,141 for Pacific Coast C-2274 Highway Sewer Main Replacement; and (38) authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said contract. (Report from Public Works) 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: (a) To City Attorney for inclusion in the Cty Aty/ records, letter from Martha Thomas Cmpgn Rfrm suggesting adoption of campaign reform (31) ordinance. (b) To General Services for response, letter GS/Trash from Judith Wagner regarding suggestions (44) to improve the City's trash collection and handling of trash containers. Volume 37 - Page 369 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL. MEMBERS 9c f0' '�►9'S9 ti�,'g s� November 28, 1983 RAI I rel I ��'p ��•p'AG�if� MINUTES INDEX (c) To Public Works -Traffic Engineering for PW/Trfc Engr response and inclusion in the records, (74) letter from Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Buck suggesting that Canyon Crest bypass between Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road be reinstated on the Master Plan. (d) To Parks, Beaches and Recreation/Arts PB&R/Arts Commission for inclusion in the records, Cmsn letter of thanks from Pacific Mutual (62) Life Insurance Company for the City's support and interest in the 1983 "Newport Salute to the Arts." (e) To the Aviation Committee for inclusion O/C-J/Wyn in the records, petition opposing Arprt expansion of John Wayne Airport signed (54) by residents from Newport Beach, Balboa, Corona del Mar, Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach. (f) To Pending Legislation and Procedural Legislation Ethics Committee for review, letter from (48) the City of Fountain Valley concerning Orange County Sanitation District Sludge Disposal. (g) To General Services for response, letter GS/Street from Environmental Quality Citizens Cleanup Advisory Committee regarding street (44) cleanup in the area around the Ferry and Mid -Peninsula. (h) To Planning Department for inclusion in PD/Cannery the records, request from Environmental Vlg-McFdn Sq Quality Citizens Advisory Committee (68) regarding Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. 5. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records: (a) Orange County Local Agency Formation Minutes of October 26, 1983. (b) Applications before the California Public Utilities Commission: 1) Notice to customers of filing of amendment to Application No. 83-09-24, Southern California Gas Company; Volume 37 - Page 370 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS s� F� f G9'A)` 9 G G �s� �9 1 November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX 2) Application No. A83-11-17, Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Funbus Systems, Inc.; and 3) Application No. 83-11-31, Southern California Edison Company for authority .to increase rates effective January 1, 1984. 6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and (36) confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Jane A. Belvin alleging personal Belvin injuries as a result of fall in roadway near 2218 Waterfront Drive, Corona del Mar on October 3, 1983. (b) Barbara Chambers alleging personal Chambers injuries as a result of fall on sidewalk bordering Via Oporto near Hughes Market on August 13, 1983. (c) James and Susan Dow alleging property Dow damage as a result of salt damage from ocean water at time of high tide at 318 Lindo Avenue on August 8, 1983. (d) Dick Edwards alleging property damage as Edwards a result of flooding from ocean at 627 W. Bay Avenue, August 20 - 23, 1983. (e) Gloria Giffler alleging personal Giffler injuries as a result of fall on sidewalk on Main Street (on the Peninsula) in front of bakery on August 13, 1983. For rejection/denial: (f) Request from Harvey Pease to Allow Pease filing of Late Claim - for reimbursement of expenses incurred as the result of "Stop Order" issued by Building Department for construction on property at 314 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar in October, 1983, 7. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS - For denial and (36) confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: None. Volume 37 - Page 371 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \rAl � f G 9 9 G November 28, 1983 ani i MINUTES INDEX 8. REQUEST TO FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES: (Report (66) from the City Manager) (a) One Secretary, City Manager's Office. (b) One Refuse Crewman, General Services Department. (c) One Building Maintenance Foreman, General Services Department. (d) One Personnel Clerk, Personnel Department. 9. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS - For Council information and approval: (a) Report from Parks, Beaches and PB&R/Fashion Recreation recommending acceptance of Is Mrchnts DONATION OF TRASH RECEPTACLES FROM THE (62) FASHION ISLAND MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION. (b) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (c) Report from Newport Beach Police PD/CA Police Employees' Association regarding HOSTING Olympics THE 1985 CALIFORNIA POLICE OLYMPICS - (70) JUNE 18 THROUGH 23, 1985. 10. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING - For December 12, 1983: (a) APPEAL OF DR. AND MRS. STANLEY WESTON Mdfctn 28761 REGARDING MODIFICATION NO. 2876 from Weston denial by the Planning Commission on October 20, 1983; a request to permit additions and alterations to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling that encroaches 1 ft., 1-inch into the required three ft. southwesterly side yard setback area. 11. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 12. LITTLE BALBOA ISLAND BRIDGE REHABILITATION LBalboa Is (CONTRACT NO. 2209) - Approve the plans and Brdg Rehab specifications; and authorize the City Clerk C-2209 to advertise for bids to.be opened December (38) 21, 1983, at 11:30 a.m. (Report from Public Works) 13. LIDO ISLE BRIDGE REHABILITATION (CONTRACT NO. Lido Is Brd& 2345) - Approve the plans and specifications; Rehab and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for C-2345 bids to be opened December 21, 1983, at 11:00 (38) a.m. (Report from Public Works) Volume 37 - Page 372 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9 C!�Lsti.q�� G'F 0. November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX 14. BUFFALO HILLS PARK AND WEST NEWPORT PARK Bflo Hls Prk BASKETBALL COURTS (CONTRACT N0. 2417) - WNpt Prk Approve the plans and specifications; and C-2417 authorize the City Clerk to advertise for (38) bids to be opened December 20, 1983 at 11:00 a.m. (Report from Public Works) 15. ACCEPTANCE OF WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Wtr Mn Rplm (CONTRACT NO. 2364) - Accept the work; and Prg authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of C-2364 Completion and release the bonds 35 days (38) after filing. (Report from Public Works) 16. PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL BUILDING (CONTRACT Prfsnl Tch NO. 2424) - Accept Negative Declaration; Bldg approve plans and specifications; and C-2424 authorize the City Clerk to advertise for (38) bids to be opened January 5, 1984, at 9:00 a.m. (Report from Building Director) 17. HARBOR PERMIT TRANSFER NO. 225-528 FOR Harbor Perm SEYMOUR BEEK - Approve a new harbor permit, Apl 225-528 as recommended in the report from the (51) Tidelands Affairs Committee. 18. HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION TO STEP THE MAST Harbor Perm FOR DENNIS HOLLAND'S PILGRIM OF NEWPORT - Apl/Holland Approve the application to use the Rhine (51) Wharf Park subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. (Report from Marine Department) 19. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: (25) BA-040, $50,000 - Increase in Budget Appropriations and Revenue Estimates for reimbursement by Federal Emergency Management Agency for repair of storm damage; General Fund. BA-041, $3,120 - Transfer in Budget Appropriations to provide for additional funds for purchase of word processing unit; Fire Department Fund. BA-042, $41,000 - Increase in Revenue Estimates for Contribution by Koll Company toward City's FAU project for the widening of Coast Highway and reserve of funds; Contribution Fund. Volume 37 - Page 373 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS %\r-AL\L ROLL November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. A report from the Public Works Department O/C TrnspCms containing recommendations on the proposed 15-yr Invstm 15-YEAR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM, Prg was presented. (54) Motion x Responses to Points No. 3 and 4 were All Ayes discussed and following consideration, motion was made to approve the action on the agenda authorizing the Mayor to transmit a letter to the Orange County Transportation Commission, outlining the City's position on the program, with revised language regarding the construction sequence for San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, as recommended by the Public Works Director. 2. Proposed ordinance AMENDING SECTION 12.52.060 Traffic/BBy OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE Dr & SJHls DESIGNATING THE PORTION OF BACKBAY DRIVE Rd/Estblf BETWEEN SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD AND EASTBLUFF (85) DRIVE AS A ONE-WAY STREET IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION, and proposed resolution establishing a one-way bicycle trail, in a northerly direction, on the west side of Backbay Drive, between San Joaquin Hills Road and Eastbluff Drive, were presented with a report from Public Works -Traffic Engineering. Motion x Motion was made to refer these items back to the Traffic Affairs Committee for additional information with respect to accident rates, etc. Council Member Agee indicated he foresees problems with the proposal for a one-way road with respect to safety, and stated he thought it could cause more problems than it would solve. Robert Caminiti, 110-36th Street, addressed the Council and concurred in the remarks of Council Member Agee. All Ayes The motion on the floor was voted on and carried. 3. Report from Parks, Beaches and Recreation Oasis Psv regarding OASIS PASSIVE PARK LANDSCAPING Prk (CONTRACT NO. 2412), was presented. C-2412 (38) Volume 37 - Page 374 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS gn�titi'0s� G� O q�, G 99G �^ w • t�,p ���� J% November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Council Member Agee stated that at his Oasis Psv request, this item had been continued at the Prk November 14 City Council meeting for clarification. After additional review, the plans and specifications have been revised to eliminate planting of trees in the first phase of development. Trees will be added later in cooperation with the community. Clyda Brenner, Health and Safety Chairman, Harbor View Parent -Facility Organization, addressed the Council and submitted a letter with respect to the proposed project, suggesting consideration be given to the following: 1) Bike path and sidewalk should be highly visible; 2) Composition of park should be primarily flat -open grass areas; 3) Benches and climbing structures are needed to make this a useful park; 4) Lights are necessary to maintain security; 5) It would be desirable to maintain the Grant Howald name, as he has contributed greatly to the community. In closing, Mrs. Brenner requested that the word "passive" be deleted from the park name, and that the foregoing suggestions be included in the landscaped plans prior to approval. Cynthia Bartlett, 518;k Marigold Avenue, addressed the Council and submitted a letter from Jeffrey and Susan Matsen, 3449 Quiet Cove, which had been endorsed by other residents of Quiet Cove and Ebbtide Road, regarding the proposed bike path from the parking lot at the corner of 5th and Marguerite to Iris Avenue in Corona del Mar. Richard Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, addressed the Council and submitted a letter regarding the Oasis Park Grading. He discussed the points of interest considered at the November 23 Community Association meeting in which Council Member Agee and the Director of Volume 37 - Page 375 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS �tnp �S�F�Gtf� November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Parks, Beaches and Recreation were present. He rooted the general consensus was that no further fill should be removed from the site since the desirability of using the fill to flatten the area was a first priority. Mr. Nichols emphasized that the community did not support the present park concept. Alice Reimer, resident, Corona del Mar, addressed the Council in support of naming the park Grant Howald Park. Motion x Motion was made to approve the plans and All Ayes specifications, and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids to be opened at 11:00 a.m., on December 22, 1983. H. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: None. I. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Reconsideration of SUB-4 REQUEST FOR B-K-RUN Bus Lic/ IN FASHION ISLAND ON SATURDAY, DECEMBER 10, B-K-Run 1983, was presented. (27) Motion x Motion was made to approve request subject to All Ayes conditions imposed by City License Division. J. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. Report from the Planning Department regarding Tr 11935 the FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 11935, a request of The Douglas Allred Development Company, San Diego, to subdivide 3.668 acres of land into two lots for residential condominium _ purposes and one lot for private recreational purposes. Property located at 2700 Pacific View Drive, on the southeasterly corner of Pacific View Drive -and San Miguel Drive, across from the Baywood Apartment complex; zoned R-3-B, was presented. The City Manager stated that the agreement for affordable units was not received in the Clerk's office until late Wednesday afternoon, and therefore, the staff was unable to review it until over the Thanksgiving holiday. He stated that the staff has several areas of concern and recommended this item be continued to December 12, 1983. Volume 37 - Page 376 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCI MEMBERS G+Fp+9G9��yCG �9 � F.p �� s November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Motion x Motion was made to defer this item to Tr 11935 December 12, as recommended. Mr. Robert Break of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and indicated he felt the items of concern could be resolved at this time, and stated that a continuance would create a hardship. The Planning Director stated that neither he nor Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, have had the benefit of discussing the areas of concern with the developer, and therefore, feel this matter should be continued as recommended. Doug Allred, applicant, addressed the Council and stated that deferment would create a definite hardship, inasmuch as they are prepared to begin construction immediately, with grading to start next week. He stated that every day of delay would cost them approximately $1,000. He requested that the Council approve the project so they could proceed. Following discussion, the Council took a brief recess in order for the staff to discuss this matter with the developer. Mr. Lenard, following a brief meeting with the developer, recommended the following changes in the draft agreement for affordable units: 1. Page 5, line 5, added after the word "location". number of bedrooms; 2. Page 5, Subsection (b), deleted sentence in parenthesis; 3. Page 7, line 10, added after the word "unit". . . within the Baywood expansion project. The language on Page 4, Item 2, was discussed, wherein the Planning Director stated that if the wording is to remain, he would like The Irvine Company to state that this language will not be used as a precedent for future agreements of this type. Volume 37 - Page 377 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9C C+0 ;9 S9 yF s� F� f G �� 9'A �9 ao�i_ ..A, 1 � Op 'pG%p November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Reference was also made to Pages 6 and 7 regarding requalification of renters, wherein it -was suggested that on Page 7 the following be added after the word "thereafter" for one year, and that the remainder of the sentence be deleted. A new sentence was also added stating that "Each such occupant shall be requalified at least once a year by having to recertify as to their incomes, as provided in Tr 11935 Subsection (c) above." Council Member Plummer indicated she was "uncomfortable" in approving off -site units for affordable housing and expressed her reasons therefor. Mr. Break addressed the Council again, and stated that the language set forth on Page 4, regarding "family size" would not set a precedent for future affordable agreements on the part of The Irvine Company. Pertaining to the requirement for yearly requalification, Mr. Break stated that they are unsure of the justification for this .requirement. He stated it was a very sensitive area and he felt it was inappropriate from a personal and human standpoint. He stated that they would be reluctant to institutionalize a clause for yearly requalification. Mr. Break stated that they concurred in all the recommendations, with the exception of the requirement for yearly requalification. Doug Allred, applicant, addressed the Council again regarding on -site and off -site housing. He indicated that it had never occurred to them that off -site housing may not be allowed. In view of the foregoing comments and testimony, Council Member Strauss withdrew his motion on the floor. Motion x Motion was made to approve the Final Map of Tract No. 11935, incorporating by reference the Finding and Condition recommended by the Planning Commission; approve the Agreement for affordable units with the foregoing changes as recommended by the staff; and approve a Subdivision Agreement guaranteeing completion of the public improvements required with Tract No. 11935, and authorize the Mayor and thq City Clerk to execute said agreement. Volume 37 - Page 378 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS f'G 9i► S9 4 'g O'J, F� yc 9G� ��Fy� G 99G November 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Council Member Plummer stated that she was opposed to the motion, as she did not feel .that affordable units off -site were good for the City. Ayes x x x x The motion was voted on and carried. Noes x x 2. Report from the Planning Department regarding O/C P1ngCmsn the COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL project, Coyote Cnyn was presented. SLud Fl (54) The City Manager reviewed the proposed letter to the Orange County Board of Supervisors and discussed the four areas of concern, as set forth in the letter. Motion x Following discussion, motion was made to All Ayes approve the draft letter, subject to revision of Item 2, adding the City's concerns with respect to water quality. R. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion x 1. Motion was made to schedule public hearing U/P 3033/• Ayes x x x for December 12, 1983, on Resubdivision No. Resub 745 Noes x x x 745, Use Permit No. 3033, regarding height limitations at 311 Carnation Avenue, which motion FAILED. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Volume 37 - Page 379 MESOLUTION NO.$.3'/�$� w RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING THE 1982-85 HOUSING ASS].STANCF. PLAN AND TFIE 1982 COMMUNTTY DFVFtLOPMENT BLOC* (,PANT ENTITLEMENT Y'UNDS SUBMISSION AND AUTHORIZING THEIR SUBMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ANC URBAN DEVEI.OPMY:N9. WHEREAS, on September 28, 3983 the City Council of the City of Newport Reach adopted Resolution No. 11051 amending the Housing Element of the General Plan consistent with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65580 et sect, (Roos Bill); and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach is making a good faith effort to implement the policies and programs contained in the General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, Objective 7 of the Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element is to "promote and assist in the development of housing for low and moderate income households"; and WHEREAS, the impler^-` the City to evaluate the., funds to facilitate the de for low and moderate income WHEREAS, the City he Housing Rehabilitation Loan WHEREAS, very limite Interest Housing Rehabilital ive 7 calls for :k Grant (CDBG) cing of housing a Low Interest sed in the Low WHEREAS, the Joint Ci ;c Housing Task Force met on November 22, 1�oo—anc—aeterme.ned that the 1982 CDBG funds will more effectively accgmpl.ish the City's goal of providing affordable housing through land acquisition and has recommended this amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City has the authority to amend its CDEG Program; and, WHEREAS, it is the City's desire to provide assistance to low and' moderate income households in the form of new housing; and WHEREAS, land acquisition for the purpose of developing housing for lower income households is an eligible CDBG.Activity; and WHEREAS, the 1982 CDBG Entitlement funds are necessary to accomplish the goal of providing new housing for low and moderate income households; and WHEREAS, the City• has published the "Proposed Amended Statement of Community Development Objectives and Proposed Use. of Funds" and made it available to the general public; and WFEFEAS, the City has published the propo4pd rAmended reusing Assistanrp Plan and made it available to the general publics and VHEPFAS, in the amended Final Statement the City has considered all public comments or views which have been received either in writing or at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFOW,, HE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Reach that the 1982 Community Development block Crant Submission is hereby amended from a low interest housing rebabilitatiorn loan program to a land acquisition program and the 1982-85 Housing Assistance Plan is hereby amended to,reflect this program change. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 1:UPTHER FESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby identified as the official representative of the Grantee to submit the amended 1992-85 Housing Assistance Plan and the amended Final Statement, ATTEST* ACityo Clerk CT8*nma Adopted this 28th day of November 1983. Mayor P CEicTiFl S A kUE p CO^RECT COPY _.._. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT VEACH f ,�/ I i' ••,tn`'L , 11/23/83 tip CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Director SUBJECT: P,ARK:DEDICATION:_:ORDINANCE , Recommendation: June 13, 1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. D-3 BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 13 1983 Approve the revised Park Dedication Ordinance as prepared by the City Attorney. Discussion: The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission at their meeting of June 7, 1983 reviewed the Park Dedication Ordinance proposed to conform with State amend- ments of the Subdivision Map Act. The Commission expressed a vital concern toward the park dedication requirements and other possible sources of imple- menting and developing a park system to satisfy the recreational needs of the City. The Commission recommends approval as it will enable compliance with State statutes. However, the Commission feels it is important to identify and obtain necessary park sites as determined by the current update of the - Open Space and Recreation Element of the General Plan. (Dal 7q J �9 BY THE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL A-GtiNDA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I AY231983 BY THE CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM �kLaL� ` CITY OF NEWPORT )PEACH ��Q 1.511 �3 JUN 13 1983 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY0 �3_c-Aa n 7 _ - Q& May 17, 1983 To: Hon. Mayor & Members of the City Council From: Robert H. Burnham - City Attorney ';L-T`^r+S`m'ran?fR^'^"�".+y,�.T•1"IOK!!""="�!qn +[Ti`:^+'q-"F Re: parkDed3dation Ordinance -++.�i ctrir.rYWvx:nits.Y:,darrwvmt-.4u..su.'yw-., a.� The State legislature has recently enacted amendments to provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act that authorize cities to require dedications of land, or payment of fees, for park or recreational purposes as conditions to the aproval of tract maps. The significant changes brought about by this legislation are as follows: 1. A decrease in the dedication requirements from five acres per 1,000 persons to a standard not to exceed three acres per 1,000 persons, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and communitv park area exceeds five acres per 1,000„persons 2. Requires the City to assume that the average number of persons per dwelling unit is the same as that disclosed by the most recent available Federal census; 3. Requires that the value of improvements made by the subdivider to the dedicated land shall be a credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land; 4. Requires that certain developments be eligible to receive credit for private open space which is usable for active recreation. As a general rule, an ordinance adopted by the City Council pursuant to an initiative petition, may be amended only by a vote of the electorate. This general rule does not apply to matters which have been exclusively delegated by the State legislature to the local legislative body, nor does it apply where the initiative, unless amended, would contradict provisions of State statutes. Without expressing_ any opinion as to the validity of the initiative Ordinance, it is the opinion of this office that the Council is authorized and required to enact amendments to the Park Dedication Ordinance to bring it into conformance with State law. Finally, it must be remembered that the City is empowered to impose dedication requirements only in accordance with the provisions of its Park Dedication Ordinance and that Ordinance is valid only if it fully complies with the provisions of State law. Park dedication requirements imposed upon a developer pursuant to an invalid Ordinance could be challenged in their entirety and it is, thus, important that the Ordinance be revised to reflect changes in State law to ensure that it remains valid and enforceable. RECOMMENDATION This office has revised certain provisions of Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Park Dedication Ordinance) to bring it into conformance•with recent amendments to the State Subdivision Map,Act and it is recommended that the City Council introduce this Ordinance,at its meeting of May 23, 1983 and to adopt the Ordinance at its meeting of June-13, 1983, after public hearing. 1F' Rb5ert H. Burnham City Attorney RHB/pr MMP/Park 14 CfTY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9��yy'0s� c�F �4FG�f+ Present Motion AX1 Ayes Motion All Ayes REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: February 13, 1984 MINUTES INDEX Dennis Mueller and Mayor Hart presented diplomas on behalf of Mayor Angara of the Phillipines to five Corona del Mar High School students in the Surfing Educational Cultural x x x x x x x recognition of Exchange Program. A. ROLL CALL. B. The reading of the Minutes of the Meeting of ,January 23, 1984, was waived, approved as revised on pages 24 (Item G.1, paragraph two, second sentence to read "increase from $90 hour to $110 per hour") and 29 (paragraph x per three to read "Ralph Clock, 116 Via Havre,.."), and ordered filed. C. The reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Hart opened the continued public hearing and City Council review of USE PERMIT NO. 1A87, the revocation of which was recommended by the Planning Commission at its meeting of December 8, 1983, being a previously -approved use permit of ALBERT MARDIKIAN ENGINEERING, INC./TREND IMPORT SALES, INC., which allowed the establishment of an automobile sales and service facility in the C-1-H District. Said recommended revocation proceedings are for failure to comply with required Conditions of Approval. Property located.at 1200 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, acrosd•from the Balboa Bay Club; AND Public hearing and City Council review of an appeal of ALBERT MARDIKIAN ENGINEERING, INC./TREND IMPORT SALES, INC., from action taken by the Planning Commission on December 8, 1983 in conjunction with RESUBDIVISION NO. 763, USE PERMIT NO. 1987 (AMENDED), AND VARIANCE NO. 1107; a request to establish one building site and eliminate interior lot lines where four lots currently exist so as to allow alterations to an existing automobile sales facility; a request to amend a previously -approved use permit by expanding the existing auto sales facility and establish a separate automobile service facility, including a modification so as to allow the use of tandem spaces; and a kequest to Waive a portion of the required offstreet parking in conjunction with the expanded use. Volume 38 - Page 33 U/P 1987 (88) e U/P 1987(A)I Resub 763/ Variance 1107 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9 C-1 G en1 1 ^A1 I � }1 �1A February 13, 1984 MINUTES INDEX Report from the Planning Department, was U/P 1987/ presented. 1987(A)/ Resub 763/ Appeal application with explanation from Var 1107 applicant, was presented. It was noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 8, 1983, voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council that Use Permit No. 1987 be revoked for failure of the applicant to comply with Condition No. 6 imposed on April 23, 1981. which requirest "That prior to the issuance of the use permit, the applicant shall dedicate to the City for street and highway purposes, the applicant's interest in a 12-foot-wide strip of land adjacent to the Coast Highway and across the Coast Highway frontage. The strip is to be used in the future for the widening of West Coast Highway." It was further noted that the Planning Commission did approve the new Use Permit* as amended, and the Resubdivision. Leo Aregian, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Council and requested 15 to 30 minutes for his presentation. Motion x Motion was made to allow Mr. Aregian 20 All Ayes minutes for his remarks. Mr. Aregian stated that he felt the staff report contained several misrepresentations. He stated he had not become a party to these proceedings until just recently, with the exception that he was involved in the lease assumption in 1981. He stated he was representing the applicant on all matters under consideration. He stated that from 1955 to 1980 the site has been used as an automobile agency and in 1980 it was leased to Commodore Yacht Sales for 15 years. However, the lease only lasted one year. In March 1981 this matter was referred to him by Trend Imports. He submitted a letter dated March 18, 1981 from Philippe Stoner of Commercial Brokers, Inc., regarding the lease assignment at 1200 W. Coast Highway, which had not been included in the staff material. Mr. Aregian gave a brief history of hie involvement with this item* and also discussed Mr. Stoner's letter of January 5, 1984, which, in his opinion, sets forth certain misrepresentations made by John Allison at the December 8, 1983 Planning Volume 38 - Page 34 CITY OF .NEWPOR.T 'BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES . 9G n0 February 13, 1984• INDEX Commission meeting. Reference was made to U/P 1987/ Condition No. 6, wherein Mr. Aregian stated 1987(A)/ that the City staff was coercing the Resub 763/ applicant into giving away 12 feet of land, Var 1107 or its interest in,12 feet of land, for no consideration whatsoever. In conclusion, Mr. Aregian stated that the conditions imposed with the resubdivision were not acceptable. He stated that they did• not feel a resubdivision was necessary, and therefore, withdrew their application fora resubdivision and variance. He stated that the Variance application was approved with some 26 conditions, 25 of which he felt were oppressive and intolerable. He stated he did not feel it was "just" to revoke the original Use Permit, and urged favorable consideration of their request. In response to question raised by the Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Aregian stated that they ate also withdrawing their amended Use Permit. The Assistant City Attorney advised that with respect to the dedication requirement, where each instance has taken place, it may be consistent with the policy, but it is essentially based on the facts relating to each of the particular uses. As long as the use itself will generate a certain amount of activity which would warrant some City response, then the City has every legal authority to impose such a requirement. Regarding the amended use permit and variance, if in fact the applicant wishes to withdraw these, then it means that the applicant has no legal right .to pursue any of the benefits that it would have otherwise accrued from the grant given by the Planning Commission. Richard Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, Corona del Mar, stated that he attended the Planning Commission hearings regarding this item. He stated it was his understanding that the only interests that have been dedicated to the City along Coast Highway were leasehold interests, and not fee -simple interests. He stated there was quite a difference between the two. He discussed the future widening of Coast Highway, and stated he did not feel the Council should set a precedent of requiring people to donate land to the City because they live along a busy street. He felt that if.land is acquired, it should be done through the courts with compensation for same. Volume 38 - Page 35 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES yCON �9G�yA\VA01'- Le" � OLL,F � February 13, 1984 INDEX Philippe Stoner, President, Commercial U/P 1987/, Brokers, Inc., 1311 Morningside, Laguna 1987(A) Beach, gave his understanding of the facts Resub 763/ when he represented Mr, Mardikian before the Var 1107 Planning Commission in 1981, with respect to the Use Permit. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. The City Manager stated that with the withdrawal of the resubdivision, variance and amended use permit, the Council is now dealing with the issue of the original use permit. He stated he felt there were two alternatives for consideration: 1) to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission for noncompliance of the conditions imposed; or 2) to overrule the recommendation of the Planning Commission, letting the use permit stand, and direct staff to seek compliance with all conditions of the 1981 use permit. Following discussion, there was a request to reopen the public hearing, and hearing no objections, it was so ordered. Mr, Aregian stated that regarding the encroachment of the covered parking structure on the adjoining property, they have recently ascertained that the contractor who built the structure was in error, and did cross the property line. Their only recourse is to have that portion that encroaches on the adjoining property removed in the immediate future, and they are making plans for that now. He stated that they do not intend to comply with the conditions imposed with respect to the retroactive request for a resubdivision, but will rely upon the permit that was issued. The owner of the adjacent property addressed the Council and stated he had no objections to the request, providing the encroachment is removed in the very near future as promised. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and allow Use Permit 1987 to stand. In addition, the staff was directed to obtain compliance with all the conditions imposed with said use permit. In response to Council Member Strauss, the Assistant City Attorney stated that it would be their recommendation as well, to seek court relief to enforce all the conditions that were originally imposed. All Ayes The motion was voted on and carried. Volume 38 — Page 36 COUNCIL MEMBERS .CITY%.0f, NEWPORT BEACH .MINUTES February 13, 1984 INDEX 2. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing and City U/P 3072 Council review of USE PERMIT NO. 3072, a (88) request of LOOMIS FOODS, INC., Corona del 'Mar, to,reconsider the action of the Planning Commission in conjunction with the Conditions -of Approval for the "PARK BAR AND GRILL" Restaurant. The proposed development includes a full service bar, an addition of an open patio for dining and drinking purposes, and for the use of live „ entertainment within the restaurant facility. .The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Offsite Parking Agreement, which will provide additional restaurant parking spaces. Property located at 2515 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar;, zoned C-1. Report from -the Planning Department, was presented. Letter dated February 7, 1984, from attorney representing applicant, requesting withdrawal Qf public,hearing, was presented. The City Clerk reported that after printing the agenda, a letter had been received from Carl Oberto, owner•of.properties at 619 and 621 Carnation Avenue, in opposition to the request. Robert Longacre,•701 Carnation Avenue, stated he -resides across the street from the subject restaurant. He commented that it is a high -volume bar open 7 days a week. He stated that there have been two hit-and-run accidents involving parked cars, and that there is not adequate offstreet parking. He stated that City property has been damaged and there have been numerous disturbance calls, all between the hours of 1 and 3 a.m. He stated he felt the Use Permit should be revoked and a complete review be made of the subject matter. Rick Loomis, one of -the owners of the'Park .Restaurant, stated that they do provide offstreet parking, and that he did not agree with many of the statements made by Mr. Longacre. He stated he did not feel it was fair that he be required to close at 12 midnight five night's out of seven, when other similar establishments were allowed to remain open until 2 a.m. He also stated that closing early creates a hardship on their livelihood. He requested that consideration be given to closing Sunday through Wednesday at 12 midnight, rather than Sunday through Thursday. Volume 38 - Page 37 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS �c ('p to 'S' �GiP February 13, 1984 MINUTES INDEX In response to the City Attorney, Mr. Loomis U/P 3072 stated that he felt the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission were reasonable, with the exception of the 12 midnight closure on Thursday. He also stated that he would abide by all the conditions imposed. He also commented that he felt people patronized his establishment because of the food, and not because of alcoholic beverages. In response to Council Member Strauss, Mr. Loomis stated that business on 'Wednesdays and Thursdays was about the same with respect to gross profit. Richard Nichols, President, Corona del Mar Community Association, addressed the Council and referred to their letter in support of the Planning Commissionts recommendation to restrict the hours of operation. He stated that he also agreed with many of the comments made by Mr. Longaere. He stated that the restaurant has been expanded considerably, but that no additional parking has been provided. He discussed traffic problems in the area, and cited numerous traffic accidents. Donald Augustine, 2431 Fourth Street, stated that he lives approximately 50 yards from the Park Restaurant, and that he has had to call the Police Department 12 times in the last few months because of noise and disturbances. He urged the Council to restrict the hours as recommended by the Planning Commission. Al Learned, 2515 Pacific Coast Highway, stated that he has a music studio to the rear of the Park Restaurant, but because of the increased traffic, big business has suffered. He also discussed the need for additional parking. Mark Cohen, Controller for the Park - Restaurant, stated that in an attempt to alleviate the parking problem, they have rented Shermang Gardena parking lot for parking. They are also providing valet parking service for lunch and dinners. He stated that they have applied for, and complied with all necessary City permits. Dorothy Swanson, 2515 Pacific Coast Highway, stated that she has a dance studio at this location, and that business is down two-thirds because of the parking problem in the area. She is also close to losing three of her teachers because of congested parking. She stated that she lives near the restaurant as well, and has been awakened many times because of noise. Volume 38 - Page 38 CITY OF' NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS yc n0 �� A 6y �9G tnp �� �F� t!►� February 13, 1984 , MINUTES INDEX Hearing no others wishing to address the U/P 3072 Council, -the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to sustain the decision of Ayes x x x x the Planning Commission and allow applicant Noes x x x to continue to serve lunch for 90 days, during which time applicant is to make every effort to locate and develop an offsite parking arrangement .to the satisfaction of .the staff and review by City Council; and further, that an additional finding be added; language to be provided by the City Attorney, with respect to vested rights. 3. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing and City Variance Council review of an appeal by HOWARD CHACE 1108 AND VICTOR ORDAZ, Newport Beach, from the (91) approval by the Planning Commission on January 5, 1984, of VARIANCE NO. 1108, a request to permit alterations to an existing second dwelling unit located on an R-2 lot, which is nonconforming relative to required offstreet parking. The proposed alterations include the conversion of a substandard one -car garage into additional living area. Property located at 130-39th Street, on the southeasterly -corner of West Balboa Boulevard and 39th Street in West Newport. Report from Planning Department, was presented. Application from appellants and letter requesting continuance, was presented. It was noted that the applicant's request to continue the public hearing was for some time in March in order to prepare their appeal. Motion x Motion was made to continue the public hearing to February 27, 1984. Howard Chace, 436-62nd Street, applicant, stated that he needed a postponement because of legal ramifications. He also stated that the subject structure has not been occupied in over five years, and is unoccupied at the present. All Ayes In view of the foregoing comments, the maker of the motion changed the public hearing date to,be continued on March 12, 1984. 4. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing Vacation/ regarding VACATION OF TWO FIVE-FOOT WIDE Swr Easmt SEWER EASEMENTS LOCATED NORTHERLY OF CLAY Clay/Snug STREET AT'SNUG HARBOR AND AT PIRATE ROAD. Harbor & Pirate Rd Report from Public Works, was presented. (90) Volume 38 - Page 39 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES F���yf1 cuvaunay a.., a�uv 1 Hearing no one wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 84-13 Res 84-13 All Ayes ordering the vacation of two five-foot sewer easements located northerly of Clay Street at Snug Harbor and Pirate Roads; and direct the City Clerk to have said resolution recorded by the Orange County Recorder. 5. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing PD/'Towing regarding REQUEST FOR AERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC Irvine Mesa CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BY IRVINE MESA (70) TOWING, pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 5.13. Report from Executive Assistant to the City Manager, was presented, The City Manager recommended that this hearing be continued to February 270 1984 due to lack of required technical information. Motion x Motion was made to continue the public All Ayes hearing to February 27, 1984. 6. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing CATV/Penalty regarding introduction and first reading of (42) proposed ordinance, being, AN ORDINANCE OF OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CERTAIN SECTIONS REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF SERVICES, SUBSCRIBER COMPLAINT PROCEDURES, AND PENALTIES RELATING TO COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION. Report from Executive Assistant with ordinance, was presented. Letter from William and Susan McLaughlin, was presented. Letter from Group W dated February 7, with response from Executive Assistant, was presented. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, two additional letters were received from Roy Kunkle, 2315 Pacific Drive, and Mrs. Jill Lindsay, 4 Balboa Coves, expressing dissatisfaction with Group W service. The City Manager stated it is being recommended that the City's Municipal Code regulating cable television franchises be modified as follows: Volume 38 - Page 40 �aLTY OF NEWPORT COUNCIL MEMBERS qc 0 s ?�, yq y� � • . 90 February 13, 1984 BEACH MINUTES INDEX ULL 1) That the regulations be strengthened CATV/Penalty to require companies to maintain adequate telephone capability to answer complaints; 2) That most service calls be made within 24 hours, and in no case more than 72 hours; 3) That complaint logs be kept; 4) That testing in response to numerous or persistent complaints be required; and 5)•That a penalty be required of up to $1,000 for failure to comply with City regulations: It was recommended the proposed ordinance be revised (Item (b), Page 2) by inserting the word "recording" after the word "telephone" as requested by Group W. Richard J. Waterman, District Manager, Group W Cable,•addressed the Council and requested ten minutes for his presentation. Motion x Motion was made to grant the request. Ayes x x x x,x x Abstain x Mr. Waterman stated they believe that amending their franchise without their mutual consent is neither enforceable, nor constructive. He stated they feel the ordinance is unreasonable and strongly oppose it. Mr. Waterman distributed a handout containing information regarding: 1) Complaints received through the City Manager's Office, 1983; 2). Complaints received by the City resulting from December -January, 1984 Citizens Reporter Newsletter; 3) Complaints received by the City resulting from December -January 1984 Citizens Reporter Newsletter, sorted by construction phase; 4) 1984/5-Phase Rebuild; 5) Cost and channels available with Group W system, as compared with Community Cable TV. Volume 38 - Page 41 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \f-Al 0'S�N\1�P�, February 13, 1984 any i MINUTES M) :0 Mr. Waterman stated that they have action CAT'V/Penalty plans to correct discrepancies and have budgeted for a major Rebuild in 1984. In addition to their 1984 Rebuild Program, Group W has taken steps to reduce the problems people are encountering in attempting to telephone their office, and have on order a telephone system costing over $80,000, which they hope to have installed within the next few months. He also stated that Group W has increased their channels from 12 in 1975 to 24 by November 1982, and that when the rebuild is finished this year, they will be able to offer six additional channels and they will seek the advice of their customes in the selection of these additional channels. In conclusion, Mr. Waterman referred to his comments set forth in his letter of February 7, 1984, and urged the Council to not adopt the ordinance at this time. He stated that they felt the staffs rationale of the need for the change was negligible, the legality questionable, and that the system rebuild and telephone changes would further reduce the need for such an ordinance. Don McNutt, President, Community Cablevision, stated that the proposed changes should not have any material impact on their service. They abide by a similar ordinance in the City of Irvine and intend to abide by the regulations of Newport Beach. Jim de Boom, 1743 Bayport Way, addressed the Council in support of the ordinance; however, he indicated he felt it could be stronger in certain areas. He cited numerous experiences he has had with Group W in an attempt to obtain cable service, and expressed his dissatisfaction with their operation. Diana Springer, 3300 Clay Street, addressed the Council and related her experience with Group W, indicating poor installation, missed appointments, noncooperation, etc. She stated that she has "given up" on their service and as a result, just recently purchased a television antenna. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to introduce Ordinance No. Ord 84-5 All Ayes 84-5, and pass to second reading on February Introduced 27, 1984, with the change of $500 penalty fee, rather than $1,000, and the revision to Page 2, Item (b), adding the words, "recording announcement" after the word "telephone." Volume 38 - Page 42 CITY. OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9C Cp ?i9 y9 yF ( s� tp February 13, 1984 MINUTES INDEX E. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 1. Dennis Holland, owner/builder of the Pilgrim Dennis Holland/ schooner,, addressed the Council and requested an extension of his permit to dock his boat Pilgrim at Rhine Wharf. He stated that they had intended to dock at the Sea Scout base, but ran into problems which caused their overstay at Rhine Wharf. He apologized to the Council for the inconvenience and indicated he hopes they can resolve the issue in the very near future. Ean Bruce of the Newport Sailing Club and representing Lido Marina Village, addressed the Council, stating that they are redesigning their docks to set the Pilgrim into a leased area of their club, and that David Moesher, Project Manager, will be presenting the plans to the City tomorrow. David Harshbarger, Marine Director, stated that any property change adjacent to the water requires Coastal Commission 'approval, and that if there'is a change in configuration, it will require Coastal Commission approval with prior conceptual approval by City Council. The time period, at minimum; would be 49 days. He indicated that the idea, as described by Mr. Bruce, sounded,feasible. The following persons addressed the Council in support of the Pilgrim: John Snow, Ed Enoff, Member of Newport Harbor Jaycees, Russ Bomont, 5400 Seashore Avenue, and Betty Ross. The City Attorney stated that when he and Mr. Holland were in court last week, he was told by Mr. Holland that the plans for Lido Marina Village would be submitted to the City by today. He stated that their office, as well as the Marine Department, is willing to assist Mr. Holland as much as is legally possible, but that the City does, and will continue to have legitimate concerns regarding the City's liability, as long as the boat is being docked at Rhine Wharf. Following discussion, and there being no objections,, this item was referred to the Tidelands Affairs Committee for investigation and report back. 2. James -de Boom, representing the Y.M.C.A., YMCA/Prsnt'i addressed the Council and presented a plaque to Council Member Heather for her four years on the Board of Directors, and a plaque to Mayor Hart for her outstanding service to the Y.M.C.A, with respect to fund raising efforts. Volume 38 — Page 43 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS C'0 �'q �CF� f G �'A 9>, �9 LL ��� February 13, 1984 MINUTES INDEX F. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following actions were taken as indicated, All Ayes except for those items removed: 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - Pass to Second Reading on February 27, 1984: (a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 84-6, being, Ord 84-6 Anxtn AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT (21) BEACH REPEALING SECTION 1.30 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ANNEXATION. (Report from City Attorney) Schedule public hearing on February 27, 1984 for, (b) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 84-7, being, Ord 84-7 Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT (94) BEACH ADOPTING A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CORONA DEL MAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE, AND AMENDING PORTIONS OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 16 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY SAID PROPERTY FROM THE UNCLASSIFIED DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (Planning Commission PCA 599 Amendment No. 599 - Report from Planning Department --see Agenda Item F-10 (b)). 2. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION: (a) Resolution No. 84-11 authorizing Mayor O/C Hrbr/ and City Clerk to execute a 5-year Lifgrd Sry agreement with Orange County Harbor Res 84-11 Beaches 6 Parks District to provide C-2247 financial assistance for lifeguard (38) services. (Report from Marine Department) (b) Resolution No. 84-12 declaring the CATV/Rate City's Intention to hold a public Incr hearing on February 27, 1984 to consider Res 84-12 a rate increase request by Community (42) Cablevisiou Company for basic subscriber services regarding Cable TV Services. 3. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS, (a) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to Boy Scouts/ execute the Agreement between the City Sea Scout of Newport Beach and the Boy Scouts of Base Saiing America Sea Scout Base allowing the City Classes to conduct Lido 14 sailing classes at C-2435 the Sea Scout Base. (Report from Parks, (38) Beaches and Recreation) Volume 38 - Page 44 CITY OF' NEW -PORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS F yc 9G 9� F9 �G c o February 13, 1984 MINUTES INDEX (b) .Removed from the Consent Calendar. 4. 'COMMUNICATIONS = For referral as indicated: (a) To staff for preparation,of resolution: Cncl Ad Hoc/ establishing an Ad Hoc Committee, Karinapark Marinapark Homeowners Association, ease Cmte regarding expiration of City's leases. (24) (b) To Pending Legislation and Procedural Legislation Committee, Resolutions from the League (48) of California Cities regarding Use of Local Traffic Control Devices and Lower Speed Limits by Cities to Enhance Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety, and Supporting AB 1732 (1984 Clean Water Bond Election). (c) To Aviation Committee for inclusion in the records,letter from Mr. & Mrs. R.W. Knutsen regarding Airport Binding Agreement. (d) To staff for response, request from California State Office of Criminal .Justice Planning regarding Governor's Victims Service Award Program. (e) To Public Works -Engineering for report back, request from West Newport Beach Association for consideration of new and pertinent information regarding improvement or replacement of Channel Bridge at the Arches. 5. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records: (a) Friends of Oasis, supporting concept of affordable housing for seniors. (b) California Regional Water Quality Control Board, regarding AB 1362 Sher. (c) Local Agency Formation Committee, update on annexation proceedings; Minutes of January 11, 1984. (d) Tan D. Vandersloot, M.D., copy of letter to Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development regarding Irvine Medical Center. (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (f) Orange County Board of Supervisors, regarding Notice of Hearing pertaining to annexation .of Coastal Municipal Water District. Volume 38 - Page 45 O/C-JWyn Arpt (54) CA/Crmnl Justice (28) PW/Channel "Arches" Bridge (74) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS C'0 ;9 9CF� f February 13, 1984 Rnl I (`AI 1 MINUTES INDEX (g) Orange County League of California Cities: 1. Robert G. Haskell, expressing appreciation for resolution and City the presented to him in recognition of service. 2. Minutes of January 12, 1984. (h) State Public Utilities Commission regarding Application No. 83-12-62 of High Tech Communications of California, Inc., and Application of Southern California Edison Company for authority to change its rates effective June 1, 1984. (i) Al "King Alfonso" Lizanetz regarding oa-going campaign against health abuse, 6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Peter Ash, alleging vehicle damaged by Ash City paint crew truck in City Hall Parking Lot on December 22, 1983. (b) Sam Astonj alleging property damage to Aston boat while moored at Balboa Yacht Basin in January, 1984. (c) Edith Dibiasi, alleging personal Dibiasi injuries as a result of bicycle accident on January 3, 1984 near City Boundary and Huntington Beach. (d) Kenneth Propp, alleging improper Propp maintenance and control of traffic signal which caused collision at intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol North on October 230 1984. (a) Paul Sansevier, alleging property damage Sansevier to rented moving van by City street tree at 701-1/2 Begonia Avenue on November 2, 1983. (f) Douglas E. Younkin, alleging personal Younkin injuries as a result of vehicle pedestrian/collision on White Sails in the vicinity of its intersection with Harbor View on October 30, 1984. For rejection: (g) Late Claim of Roscoe Kraayenbrink, Kraayenbrink alleging false wriest on September 17, 1983. Volume 38 - Page 46 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9c�0?�9 February 13, 1984 MINUTES INDEX (h) Late claim of E'Tienne Jay Quenneville, Quenneville alleging false arrest at 207 A Colton Avenue on September 17, 1983. 7. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS - For denial and confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Cross -Complaint for Indemnification of Jones Samuel P. Jones. Claim was denied by City Council on June 28, 1982. (b) Notice of Motion for Relief from Triola Provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 from Margaret Triola. Claim was denied by City Council on November 14, 1983. 8. REQUEST TO FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES: (Report (66) from the City Manager) (a) One Plan Check Engineer, Building Department. (b) One Building Maintenance Man II, General Services Department. (c) One Library Clerk IV, Library Services. (d) One Library Clerk I, Library Services Department. (e) One Emergency Equipment Dispatcher, Police Department. (f) One Environmental Coordinator/Project Planner, Planning Department. 9. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS - For Council Information and Approval: (a) Report from City Attorney regarding Library/ REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR Clctn Sery COLLECTION SERVICES FOR LIBRARY. (50) (b) Report from General Services Director Janitorial regarding PROPOSED RATE INCREASE FOR Maint/Cmrcl JANITORIAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES (CITY Mntnc Sery HALL COMPLEX,.COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PLANNING C-231.1 AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS AND CITY YARD (38) COMPLEX). (c) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (d) Removed from the Consent Calendar. Volume 38 - Page 47 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9� co �9 . * I F� G�9OA �yG (A� '1�A tAow February 13, 1984 MINUTES INDEX (e) Six month's review of USE PERMIT NO. U/P 1717(A)/ 1717 (AMENDED) (BARRETTS SALOON AND E.Gadts RESTAURANT - E.GADS), to determine if (88) said restaurant is being operated in compliance with the Conditions of Approval of said use permit. (Report from the Planning Department) 10. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING - For February 27, 1984: (a) TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 12079, a TMp Tr12079 request of RUMNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., Irvine, to subdivide an existing single lot, containing .48 acres of land, into a single lot for residential condominium purposes, on property located at 487 Morning Canyon Road, in the R-3-B District; and the acceptance of an environmental document. This project also includes USE PERMIT NO. 3075 and U/P 3075/ RESIDENTIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Rsdntl Cstl NO. 4, request to construct a fourteen Dvipm Prm#4 unit residential condominium on said property, which already have been called up for review by the City Council and scheduled for public hearing on February 27, 1984. (Report from the Planning Department) (b) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83-2(a) - Request GPA 83-2(a) to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreational Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to redesignate the CORONA DEL MAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE from "Governmental, Educational and Institutional" uses to "Multiple -Family Residential" uses; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 4 - Lcl Cstl Request to amend the Land Use Plan of Prgrm Amn#4 the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program so as to redesignate the CORONA DEL MAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE from "Governmental, Educational and Institutional" uses to "Multiple -Family Residential" uses. This project also includes PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT 11CA 599 NO. 599, a TRAFFIC STUDY, and COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5, Which have been, or will be scheduled for public hearing on February 27, 1984. (Report from the Planning Department) Volume 38 - Page 48 CITY OF, NEWPORT ,BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \^Al 0February 13, 1984 INDEX 11. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS IN USE PERMIT NO. U/P 3017 3017 - Accept the public improvements (88) constructed in conjunction with Use Permit No. 3017; and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Surety (Certificate of Deposit No. 1467) and Labor and Material Surety (Certificate of Deposit No. 1466) in `six months, provided no claims have been filed. .(Report from Public Works) 12. PAVEMENT PRESSURE GROUTING PROGRAM Pavm Prsr (CONTRACT-2419) - Approve plans and Grtg Prg/ specifications; and authorize the City Clerk C-2419' to advertise for bids to be opened at 11:00 (38) a.m. on March 1, 1984. (Report from Public Works) 13. 1983-84 SLURRY/FOG SEAL PROGRAM 83-84 Slry (CONTRACT-2416) - Approve plans and /Fog Seal specifications;, and authorize the City Clerk C-2416 to advertise for bids to be opened at 11:30 (38) a.m., on March 1, 1984. (Report from Public Works) 14. BUDGET ANNDMENTS - For approval: (25) ; BA-056, $3,930.00 - Transfer of Budget Appropriations for replacement of stolen electric typewriters; Office Equipment/General Fund. G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. A report from Parks, Beaches and Recreation ' 184 Arts regarding a License Agreement between the Festival City of Newport Beach and Lido Marina Village in connection with the 1984 Arts Festival to be held at Lido Marina Village on May 19 and 20, 1984, was presented. Council Member Strauss expressed his concerns as to holding the festival at the recommended site, and indicated he felt it would create increased traffic problems. He stated he did not feel it was a good location for this type of crowd -collecting event. He also commented that when the boat shows are held at the Village, parking becomes inadequate. Council Member Heather spoke in support of the request, stating that the Village was a "ghost town" except when the boat shows are being•held there, She stated she felt it would be good for the businesses and would not create the problems mentioned by Council, Member Strauss. Volume 38 - Page 49 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS P Gas February 13, 1984 MINUTES INDEX Novell Hendrickson, Chairman of the Arts Commission, addressed the Council, and stated that they have had this event planned at this site for over six months. She stated their flyers have been printed and that it is the only site to hold the function. She stated that the festival was held at the Village approximately five years ago. She urged the Council to support their request. Motion x Motion was made to authorize the Mayor and 184 Arts All Ayes City Clerk to execute a License Agreement 'Festival/ between the City of Newport Beach and Lido Lido MVlg Marina Village in connection with the 1984 C-2434 Arts Festival to be held at Lido Marina (38) Village on May 19 and 20, 1584. 2. Report from Assistant City Attorney regarding Cnel Pley Amendment to Council Policies I-5 and G-4 (69) concerning RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES, was presented. Motion x Following comments by various Council All Ayes Members, motion was made to bring this item back at the study session of February 27, 1984, for reevaluation of the entire policies. 3. Report from the Mayor regarding ONTARIO O/C-JWyn AIRPORT PUBLIC AWARENESS PROGRAM, was Arprt/ presented. Ontario (54) Council Member Strauss indicated he felt the Council may want to consider this item further before any expenditures are approved and cited some of his concerns regarding the binding agreement. He stated he felt it was unwise to focus on Ontario Airport solely because there is a tendency to make people think that it is the solution to the airport problem. Mayor Hart stated that this program does not relate to the binding agreement, inasmuch as a binding agreement has not yet been approved by the Board of Supervisors. She stated that this is a cooperative program with the County Board of Supervisors to continue to do whatever the City can by participating and contributing its fair share of support for alternate airport sites. She stated she agreed Ontario Airport is not the solution to Newport Beach's airport problem; however, she does feel Ontario could be of help to the North County. Motion x Motion was made to authorize the City Manager to expend $5,000 from the Airport Growth Control Fund to support the Ontario Public Awareness Program. Volume 38 - Page 50 C4T,Y OF- NEWPORT BEACH COUNCI • MEM9ERS .. MINUTES February 13, 1984 � � , 9 INDEX ,Council Member Strauss stated that he was not opposed to the $5,000 expenditure so long as the City was not committing itself to Ontario Airport,'and that will look at other ;it airport sites.. Couridil Member Cox indicated he did not agree with.the`rationale of Council Member Strauss. He stated.that he felt the City should move in this direction, and that this was just one of the many projects that the City Council has discussed and, in his opinion, was a good solution in solving air transportation in Orange County. All Ayes The motion was voted on and carried. 4: Correspondence from Senator John Seymour, League CA.-. . regarding update on issue of long-term Cities-.. :. financing for local governments, and from the (61) League of California Cities regarding delinquent property tax revenues, was presented. Motion is Motion was made to refer the letter from All Ayes Senator John Seymour to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records; and that the letter from the League.of.California Cities be referred to the City Attorney and staff to bill the County, and explore the concept to a :greater degree. H. ORDINANCES YOR ADOPTION: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 84-3, being, Ord 84-3 Zoning2. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT (94) BEACH AMENDING PORTIONS OF DISTRICTING MAPS NO. 49 AND 50 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY SAID PROPERTY FROM THE UNCLASSIFIED DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BLOCK 400 OF NEWPORT CENTER (PLANNING COMMISSION PCA 598 AMENDMENT NO. 598), was presented for second reading and adoption, with report from the Planning Department. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. 84-3 All and and establish the figure of $477,200, as the applicant's fair share contribution for noise walls, traffic signals, and future circulation system improvements to be deposited with the City, as set forth in the ....staff, report. - Volume 38 - Page 51 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS G Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Green February 13, 1984 MINUTES INDEX 2. ORDINANCE NO. 84-4, being, Ord'84-4 Rev/Finance AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT (40) BEACH AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THE HEALTH FACILITIES REVENUE BOND LAW, (CHAPTER 3,26) THEREBY ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES WHEREBY REVENUE BONDS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FINANCING TO PARTICIPATING HEALTH CARE FACILITIES FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES, was presented for second reading and adoption, with report from City Manager dated January 23, 1984, and letter to Mayor Hart from Hoag Memorial Hospital. x Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. 84-4. I. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY (24) COMMITTEES FOR A ONE-YEAR TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 1984. Updated list of members for Council consideration, was presented. CITIZENS TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE OTAC x Motion was made to confirm (District 2) Council Member Plummer's appointment of Tom Orlando. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CITIZENS ADVISORY EQ/CAC COMMITTEE x Motion was made to confirm (District 3) Mayor Hart's appointment of Elizabeth (Linda) Shepard. NEWPORT BEAUTIFICATION CITIZENS ADVISORY NB/CAC COMMITTEE x Motion was made to confirm deferrment (District 6) Council Member Agee's appointments to February 27, 1984. 2. ARTS COMMISSION VACANCY - to fill the Arts Cmsn unexpired term of Susan Spiritus ending June (24) 30, 1987. Nominee Bunny Crosson was assigned the green light, and nominee Francie L. Hansen was assigned the red light to determine method of voting. x x x x x x x The City Clerk announced that Bunny Crossen was appointed. Volume 38 - Page 52 .CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9c �'0 FF f February 13, 1984 t�tSl PAI I MINUTES INDEX J. CURRENT BUSINESS: None. K. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: None. Meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Volume 38 - Page 53 s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 11, 1984 TO: File FROM: Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Davis Lawsuit FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE Following is a list of additional items that need to be checked or verified prior to trial: 1. Check the December 5, 1983 letter from Joel Kuperberg regarding additional charts and pictures and verify that everything is being completed in a timely fashion. 2. Prepare a list of the mandated and optional elements of the General Plan and be prepared to recite them. 3. Try to list all the seminars and meetings provided by HUD, SLAG, OPR, League of Cities, etc. that you have attended over the past years. 4. Make a bar chart for each site that indicates the number of dwelling units before 78-2, after 78-2, after 79-1, after the LCP, after the Housing Element GPA's, and after proposed GPA's. 5. Find out the date of initiation for GPA 78-2. 6. Prepare some kind of display that illustrates the commercial and industrial cuts accomplished by GPA 78-2 and 79-1. Once we determine how square feet of industrial and office space was cut we can make some projection of the number of jobs that were eliminated and consequently a reduction in demand for housing. 7. For both 78-2 and 79-1 prepare a bar graph that indicates the percentage reductions in residential and commercial for each amendment. 8. If there were any other major cuts in commercial, industrial and office development during the time frame of 78-2 and 79-1, have a list of the projects involved and the square footage. 9. For GPA 78-2 and GPA 79-1 illustrate the Planning Commission recommendation, the Irvine Company proposal, and the final City Council action in each case. L ^� 10. Trace the history of the definition of buildable acreage as it relates to the timing of 78-2 and 79-1. 11. What is the source of the discrepancy between our chart and the staff reports on CalTrans West regarding number of units allowed and buildable acreage. 12. Take all the charts that Len and Joel have given us and justify them all to be consistent with our 1 large chart. These pages are labelled tabular effect of GPA. 13. Which citizen advisory committee made recommendations on 79-1 (LCP)? 14. Find out the history behind the Sanitation District 5 Moratorium on sewer hookups in the areas served by the Jamboree trunk sewer line. 15. Prepare a timeline for GPA 78-2, 79-1, the LCP Work Program, and the preparation of the LCP. Include in this timeline all of the pre -general plan initiation discussions, the LCP Work Program, and any legislative changes regarding Housing Elements and LCP's that occurred during the interim periods. It may be useful to place dots where each meeting occurred. 16. On the LCP, be sure and get copies of any letters regarding Housing. 17. What are the various sections of the Public Resource Code that legislate Local Coastal Programs? Also, which of the key sections regarding Housing Elements, density bonuses, lease cost housing, etc.? 18. On the chart, "non -coastal" pre-78-2 is too low (Patty change). 19. How many vacant residential acres are there in the County Triangle (or under developed)? 20. Make a chart on Banning showing the existing General Plan, the P-C recommendation, the alliance proposal, and the City council final action. 21. Get a copy of the fee schedule. ROBERT P. LENARD RPL:nma .1 _ RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A W. RUTAN IIDBO.19f21 A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS DAMES B. TUCKER, 01 SR IIGROBERT BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 MILFORD W. D S. CR 6.FO AMERICAN CITY SYT E MARCIA A FORBYTN DWELL* M RODO CR NAL L "B WILLIAM WILLIAM M. MARTICORLNA SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER JARVIN M. OORE'N06ROER• JAME6 R. MOORC LAWRANNE NEL J. O ROOCRT L. ANPHA3 ANNE NELSON LANPry AR BII ANTON BOULEVARD M. L. IMINEI MDCO• ICN• IA L. 6TEARN6 WILLIAM ,EL' RENA RENA C STONE POST OFFICE BOX 1950 RICMARD A. CURNUTT• A CUR Lbo'nR0 A. HAMPa• WILLIAM J CAPLAN Dw6r M. LAPE COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 JOHN B. HURLBUT. JR.• RANDALL S WAIER MICHAEL W. IMMELL• MICHAEL T. HORNAK MILFORD W. DAHL. JR.• JANICE L. CELOTTI THEODORE 1. WALLACE. JR,' PHILIP O. KOHN RICHARD P SIMS• JOEL D. KUPERBERO MARSHALL M. PEARLMAN• ELIZABETH A. NEALE A08CRT C. BRAUN• SCOTT R. HOYT ROGER A. ORABLE• MARY S. MCILLECE COWARD D. SYBESMA. JR.• KATHRYN L. TOBIN THOMAS S. SALINGER' PHILIP C. MAYNARD BARRY R. LAUBSCHER' NCILA R. BERNSTEIN DAVID C. LARSEN' DONNA SNOW WOLF CLIFFORD E. FRIEOEN' DEBRA J. DUNN ARTHUR G. WOMAN' EVRIDIKI WICKII DALLAS MICHAEL D. RUBIN' STCVEN A NICHOLS 'AMC WINTHROP' DAVID M. GREY IRA O. RIVIN' HARVEY M. MOORE JEFFREY M. OBERMAN' MAURICE SANCHEZ RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD' BRUCE HALLETT C. S. WOLCOTY. III- WILLIAM T ELIOPOULOS MOBERTLPME- ERIC R. NEWMAN LAWIKNCE L BEWINO- RANDALL M. SABDUSH Mr. Craig Bluell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Craig: March 3, 1983 TELEPHONE (714) 641-SIOO (213) 625-7586 TELECOPIER (714) 546-9035 TW% 010 SOB-I083 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO y F, 19$3A.. C441r., c)4,, .C%6 Enclosed herein please find a Cooperative Agreement between the County of orange and the City of Irvine relating to issuance of County revenue bonds. The agreement does not pertain to a specific development, and we recommend Newport Beach enter into a similar agree- ment. Also enclosed herein please find a Resolution adopted by the Irvine City Council which does in fact relate to a specific development. I think the Resolu- tion can readily be modified for Newport Beach's purposes showing support of the program without specifically identifying a development at this time. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed, please call at your convenience. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER eonard H pel LAH:loh Enclosure cc: Bob Burnham I I v COOPERATIVE AGREE.IiENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF IRVINE THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (the "Cooperative Agreement") is hereby made and entered into as of ,'l�,,,.a a, 1983 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 mort- gage finance program (the "Program") pursuant to Part 5 of Divi- sion 31 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the "Act") to make or acquire, directly or indirectly, 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 fi- nance 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 Allocati-on Act of 1981 (the "Costa -Marks Act"); and WHEREAS, the City has adopted the Program and determined 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 covenants hereinafter provided, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1. The words and phrases of this Cooperative Agree- ment shall, or all purposes hereof unless otherwise defined 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 undertake the Program and to issue the Bonds therefor pursuant to the Act as soon as the County determines the same to be necessary and advisable. ' 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 ele- ment as required by Government Code Section 65302, and (iii) the Program complies with said land use element .and housing element. © �. SE%,tAoN 4. The City agrees that the County may make or ae- 9ulre h,•me mortgages under the Program, all as more specifically set forth in the Act, with respect to property located within the geoorapjiic 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 en- titlement allocation pursuant to the Costa -Marks Act for calendar year 1983; provided, however, such assignment shall be effective solely for use by the County to provide financing for properties located within the City (including a proportionate share of the costs of issuance, underwriters' 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 determined 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 Coun- ty is unable to use all or any portion of the City's entitlement allocation as -signed 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 withou the City Council's prior approval of the use of such financin4 for the development within which such home is to be constructed.' SECTION 5. The City agrees to refrain from participation in a home mortgage finance program from which bond proceeds would be made available to provide financing for homes in projects with respect to which the City Council has approved the use of finan- cing 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 1983 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. SECTION 6. The City agrees to undertake such further pro- ceedings 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. -2- SI:.1-ION 8. This Cooperative Agreement may be amended by one or more supplemental agreements executed by the County and the c:Ity 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 urther 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. (SEAL) ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: (SEAL) ATTEST: County Counsel C 6r OPOF ORAfifiE 13 Chairman of the Board of Supervisors t \.iAw TO , �> n'C•�C'i; UI t)fy:lgE, C'c iF�;NB CITY OF IRVINE By Marry Agran, Mayor 7 tits i l.at , ! . 1 /8.3 city C1111 -3- 211-146 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 83-1 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 Divi- sion 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:he 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 January 21, 1983, between 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 Mayor of the City is further authorized 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 implementation of the Program. , SECTION 3. The project known as -Orchard Glen, is approved for financing through the Program. This project has previously received City approvals for tentative tract, conditional use permit and site design; and can be expected to be constructed substantially as shown in such City approval documents. I -1- Resolution No. 83-1 SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Irvine at a regular meeting held on the llth day of January, 1983. 4 MUMOF THE CITY OF IRVINE ATIESTS CITY CLERK CF `IHE CIPOF IRVINE STATE CF =IFMIA) cmirY CF GRANGE ) SS CITY Cr IRVINE ) It I, NANCY C. LACEY, City Clerk of the City of Irvine, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoingResolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Irvine, held on the 13th day of January, 1983, by the following roll call vote::" AM: 5 COCIV LUMBERS: Gaido, Sills, Vardoulls, Mener, and Agran NMS: 0 COINCII1VIr1VBERS: None ABSENr: 0 COONCIIb'FIYBERS: None Raj IRVI Resolution No. 83-1 -2- ti RESOLUTION NO. 9880 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND ACCEPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (GPA 80-2) WHEREAS, the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach serve as a guide for - future development of property within the corporate limits of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach is presently involved in the annexation of approximately 64 acres of unincorporated ter- ritory, entirely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach and more accurately described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibit A. an area commonly referred to as the County Triangle; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public u. hearing to consider amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan of thL--City of Newport Beach as they relate to the County Triangle and has forwarded its recom- mendations to the City Council for action; and WHEREAS, the`City Council of Newport Beach has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider these amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS', the Land Usd and Residential Growth Elements of the City of Newport Beach General Plan contain guidelines for the development of the County Triangle; and WHEREAS, previously established land use patterns and densities developed while this territory was subject to County land use controls warrant amendment of existing general plan provisions relating to density limits and land use designations for property within the County Triangle, and that an increase in allowable densities is in the best interest of the City of Newport Beach, and approval of this General Plan amendment does not reflect a change -of policy by'the City Council of the City of Newport Beach with regard to allowable densities of development within other areas of the City of Newport Beach; and C�tf TRUE AND CORRECT COPY ....._._.. .__.._. d'-ITY.CLMK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BRACH 1 TAB r � . WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has read, reviewed and considered the environmental documentation, including public comments contained herein, consisting of an Initial Study and Negation Declaration, copies of which are on file in the office of the Planning Director of the City of Newport Beach, prepared in conjunction with these proposed amendments, has determined that the environmental documentation satisfies all of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (GUIDELINES) promulgated pursuant to CEQA, and that the environmental documentation was considered in the decisions reflected in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that mitigation measures, contained within the environmental documentation, and which modify the project to require discretionary review of pro- posed land use changes involving existing mobile home parks within the County Triangle, reduce potentially significant environmental effects to the extent that the project will not result in signifi- cant environmental impacts, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, as it relates to land use within the County Triangle, to read as follows: "County Triangle" The area designated as the "County Triangle" has a combi- nation of Industrial, Commercial and Residential uses. The area west of Monrovia Avenue is designated for Industrial uses with a maximum development intensity of 1.0 times the buildable area. The area between Monrovia Avenue and Plancentia Avenue, with the exception of the commercial area west of the intersection of Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue, is designated Multiple - Family Residential Uses. Due to historical precedents and estab- lished land use patterns which developed prior to the annexation of the "County Triangle", the maximum Residential density permit- ted is twenty (20) dwelling units per buildable area. The area between Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue and the Commercial area west of the intersection of Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue is designated Retail and Service Commercial with a maximum development intensity of 1.0 times the buildable area. in addition a mobilehome park overlay zone will be developed that preserves the existing mobilehome uses and requires discretionary review through a use permit to convert them to another type of use. P ;-% RE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Residential Growth Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, as it relates to residential densities within the County Triangle, be amended to read as follows: ' "County Triangle" Statistical Area A3 The residential portion of the "County Triangle" between Monrovia Avenue and Placentia Avenue is designated for Multiple -Family Residential uses. Due to historical precedents and established land use patters which developed prior to the annexa- tion of the "County Triangle", the maximum resi- dential density permitted is twenty (20) dwelling units per buildable acre. Estimated Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Area A3 Based on the Residential Zoning Policy Total No. of Dwelling Single- Multi- Mobile- Estimated' Units Family Duplex Family homes Population As of 7/l/80 735 9 8 505 213 1092. Residential s Growth Limit 4 Based on the Residential Zoning Policy 747 -- -- ^ 747 -- 1417 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any projects which require discretionary review by the County of Orange which have been approved by the Planning Commission of the County of Orange on or before September 22,1980, need no further additional.City of Newport Beach discretionary review, the City will accept the dis- cretionary determinations made by the County in regards to the projects, and the City will adopt appropriate ordinances imple- menting said determination. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Negation Declaration and Initial Study prepared in conjunction with these amendments are hereby approved. ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 1980. l Mayor 0 3 City Clerk ® 203 LEGAL DESCRIPTION COUNTY ` TRIANGLE ANNEXATION NO. 87 To The City of Newport Beach All of Lots 715, through 717, 815 through 819, 915 through 9199 1015 through 1017 and a portion of Monrovia Avenue, Placentia Avenue and Newport Avenue and all of 15th Street as shown on the "First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract" recorded in Book 81 Page 61 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder in the County of Orange, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an angle point in the existing boundary line of the City of Newport Beach as created by "Annexation No. 54" and the "Superior Avenue Annexation" said point being the most westerly southwest corner of 'said "Superior Avenue Annexation": thence along said existing boundary line per said "Superior Avenue Annexation" per the "First Addition to Superior Avenue Annexation" per the "Annexation No. 58" per the "Superior Avenue.-- Hospital Road Annexation Nd.79" per the "Superior Avenue - Hospital Road Annexation No. 74" and per "Annexation No/ 54" in a general Easterly, Southwesterly, and• Northwesterly direction to the point of beginning. The above described parcel of land contains 63.6 acres, more or less. I Corrected copy 3/13/80 EXHIBIT A •,�... _....�.-. ..,..,,.. •.-..... rrrr +w..r r•..r •..rr r...r.t 6r awr.{ k4dow ,+.+.W 4a•"A .rr t.r." W till" sib" I �s 1 1 i Jill lrr �� t i err, gl� ••f �^a � r ;wee• e_.e. e� �r Kfl I N/l �laJ • 1 S p,`+' ` •�--s'S�N.•— Ste' (� �c .�2lf!)•!7'via i w • , ��1�7 if r , OF Z aH e•! k w � 3t �Y1p *ai S ` • f \• p.rw.+we.• � � 4N. P ...u«a►a•.�wrr � � . • t;P a 1 SEE E'FCo2D .., n 9W a - Toil pf T (03�35 c 1 5� 4 zy d6GEX� nyd ,sue V� •{� ; j ,�� rz' ois�E o,� rarer carry ' `p �$ �y'jys' „- • i % • �y€f�PGBT,. BE.4C,�Sr 1!!/f9• j Ip I •. .i3 CS : ' laijr � -��1��L •t�r: •w,.r.:••r, ..., ������fy�� .1. � S!!P'r�.t•�IIYE..cGYO�/1a1L `•± {•• - R+'Y" rj. ��t•' {� �. PGYlOW7.9 '" • 1 L - 7- se Resolution No. 82-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR GPA 81-1 - BANNING-NEWPORT RANCH. WHEREAS, Draft Environmental Impact Report 81-1 (DEIR 81-1) provided environmental impact assessment of proposed amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space, Noise, and Circulation elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, DEIR 81-1 was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines, and City Policy K-3; and WHEREAS, DEIR 81-1 was circulated to the public for comment and review; and 'WHEREAS, DEIR 81-1 was reviewed by the Citizens Environmental Quality Committee (CEQAC); and WHEREAS, written comments were received from the public and CEQAC during and after the public review period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted public hearings to receive all public testimony with respect to DEIR 81-1; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through a series of response to comments documents (Attachments 1 through 7) and various staff reports submitted to the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were fully and adequately responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code Section 15146 (b); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising EIR 81-1 and has found that EIR 81-1 considers all environmental impacts of proposed General Plan Amendment 81-1 and is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach re- commended to the City Council in their Resolution No. 1068 that EIR 81-1 be certified as adequate and complete;.and CERTIFI� RUE AND C�OBRRE!CCTT�COOPPYY CITY CLERIC OF THE CITYY OOFFNN✓EW`POORRTT'BEACH ,DATE -✓ WHEREAS, this City Council has reviewed all of the environmental documentation prepared to evaluate the proposed GPA, including all ele- ments of the final EIR and the recommendation of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: The City Council does hereby certify Final EIR 81-1 - Banning - Newport Ranch as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environ- mental effects of the proposed General Plan Amendment and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. Said Final EIR 81-1 is composed of the following elements: a) Volume I - Draft EIR b) Volume II - Technical Appendices c) Volume III - Attachments 1, 2 and 3 including comments and responses, additional information, and Planning Commission minutes and staff reports. d) Volume IV - Attachments 4, 5, 6, and 7 including comments and responses, additional information and Planning Commission minutes and staff reports. e) City Council Minutes f) City Council Staff Reports (with attachments) g) Comments and responses received prior to final action and not contained in a) through f) above. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Ca. 92663, (714) 640-2197. ADOPTED this 12th day of March 1982. Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: City Clerk 5­� r Resolution No. 82-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL GROWTH, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, NOISE, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN (GPA 81-1). WHEREAS, Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach provides that the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, may amend the General Plan or any part or element or map thereof; and WHEREAS, the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach contains among other elements, the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space, Noise, and Circulation elements and maps which will serve as a guide for the future planning and development of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing at which it considered an amendment to the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space, Noise, and Circulation elements and maps and adopted Resolution No. 1068, recommending to the City Council certain changes and amendments in said elements and maps; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared a final environmental impact report (EIR) in compliance with CEQA and the State EIR guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the certified final EIR in making its decision on the proposed amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Countil by this Resolution adopts the Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Sec- tions 15088 and 15089 of the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the subject area rep- resents a logical extension of community services that can best be provided to the subject area by the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the subject area will be annexed to the City of Newport Beach prior to the development permitted by this amendment, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt certain amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space, Noise, and Circulation elements and maps of the Newport Beach General Plan, as set forth below, CERf IE TRUE AN11 CO 111CT COPY CITY -CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DATE, _.../��� _ 1. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach as follows: 1. The City Council makes the findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR together with the finding that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The City Council finds that the facts set forth in the State- ment of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substan- tial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are nc known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement of Facts. 5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been avoided or mitigated by the imposition of conditions on the approved General Plan amendment and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Mitigation Measures attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 7. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant im- pacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance have been substantially re- duced in their impacts by the imposition of conditions on the approved General Plan Amendment and the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its decision on the project, the City Council has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2 h i I ] 8. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and all reasonable alter- natives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ulti- mate decisions on the project. 9. The City Council finds that the project should be approved and that any alternative to this proposed action should not be approved for the project based on the information contained in the Final EIR, the data contained in the Statement of Facts and for the reasons stated in the pub- lic record and those contained in the Statement of Overriding Considera- tions. 10. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as indicated in the public record on the project, including the Final EIR. 11. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process on General Plan Amendment 81-1, the Planning Commission and the environmen- tal documents evaluated a range of alternative land uses and intensities and the project, as approved by this Resolution, is included within that range of alternatives. Therefore, the City Council finds that it is not necessary to refer the General Plan Amendment back to the Planning Commis- sion for report and recommendation. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission in its decision on the project. 12. The City Council finds that based upon the information contain- ed in the public record on this project, including the Final EIR, a site is hereby reserved within the office/industrial portion of the project for future use as a fire station due to the inability of existing facilities to respond in a timely fashion to emergencies that occur within the pro- ject area. 13. The City Council finds that reservation of an area for a future fire station permits the balance of the site to be developed in an orderly and efficient manner. 14. The City Council finds that additional studies, related to the fire station reservation, to determine how best to serve the needs of the development and the community will be made in conjunction with the appro- val of tentative tract maps. 3 15. The City Council finds that a more precise delineation of this reservation is not warranted at this time and sound planning principles dictate that it should be accomplished at the time of subdivision of the properties. 16. The City Council finds that the reservation is made based upon needs as expressed by evidence of record on the project including the Final EIR. 17. The City Council finds that the reservation will allow for and assist in an orderly growth and devel.opment of the site and will not make the development of the remaining land within the P-C District economically unfeasible. 18. The City Council finds and determines that the Final Environmental Impact Report consists of the following documents: a) Volume I - Draft EIR b) Volume II - Technical Appendices c) Volume III - Attachments 1, 2 and 3 including comments and responses, additional information, and Planning Commission minutes and staff reports. d) Volume IV - Attachments 4, 5, 6 and 7 including comments and responses, additional information and Planning Commission minutes and staff reports. e) City Council Minutes f) City Council Staff Reports (with attachments) g) Comments and responses received prior to final action and not contained in a) through f) above. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Ca. 92663, (714) 640-2197. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space, Noise, and Circulation elements and maps are hereby amended, establishing the following land uses, conditions, mitigation measures, policies and limits on future development: Land Use Element 1. Attachment A provides the Land Use Element Map for GPA 81-1 - Banning - Newport Ranch. The uses on Sites 1, 2., and 3 as shown on Attachment A are as follows: 9 Site 1: Multi -family Residential dwelling units per buildable acre. be transferred to Site 3. development with a maximum of 11.5 A portion of the allowed units may Site 2: A mixture of Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial/General Industry/Governmental, Educational and Institu- tional Facilities with a maximum of 235,600 square feet of office development and 164,400 square feet of industrial development. Site 3: Multi -family Residential development with a maximum of 11.5 dwelling units per buildable acre. Residential densities in excess of 11.5 dwelling units per buildable acre up to 15 dwelling units per buildable acre may be permitted to accommodate dwelling units trans- ferred from Site 1. 2. Park Requirement a. Residential development within Areas 1 and 3 will be required to comply with the Park Dedication Ordinance through a combination of land and/or fees. b. A park of approximately five acres in size shall be located between Coast Highway, 15th Street, Superior Avenue, and Bluff Road with the specific size, location and design to be finalized at the tentative tract map stage. c. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential tract. d. A greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be an average of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. 3. Development Phasing a. No more than 176,600 square feet of office and 123,400 square feet of industrial development for a total of 300,000 square feet of development in Area 2 shall be constructed until such time as Balboa Boulevard (Bluff Road) has been dedicated to the City of Newport Beach and partially improved from 17th to 19th Street. b. As a condition of the first tentative tract map, all rights -of -way owned by the applicant and required to widen the northerly one- half of Coast Highway to current master plan standards in the West Newport area will be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. The dedications will be subject to leases and encumbrances of record. E1 I t , , c. The following traffic concerns shall be reviewed and specifically addressed during tentative tract map deliberations: Phasing of development and associated traffic impacts on Costa Mesa streets; Extension of Whittier Avenue into project site; Timing of site access and connections to 16th and 17th Streets related to extension of Balboa Boulevard (Bluff Road) to 19th Street, construction of the 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River, and assessment of deficiencies and planned improve- ments in the area adjacent to the project site. 4. Circulation System Improvements a. The Circulation System Improvements listed below shall be provided per the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: Location A. Coast Highway at Orange Street B. Coast Highway at Prospect Street C. Coast Highway at Bluff Road D. Coast Highway at Superior Avenue/ Balboa Boulevard System Improvements Add a third westbound through lane. Add a third westbound through lane. Create intersection to add: 1. Eastbound left turn lane. 2. Third westbound through lane. 3. Three lanes southbound on Bluff Road and two lanes northbound. Reconstruct intersection per current City plans. Add a third westbound through lane. Add a westbound right turn lane. Widen southbound Superior Ave- nue to provide one left, two through and two right turn lanes. G E. Coast Highway at Dover Drive Reconstruct intersection per current Caltrans improvement project. F. Coast Highway at Bayside Drive Reconstruct intersection per current Caltrans improvement project. Convert the northbound Bayside Drive through and right turn lane to a combination left, through and right turn lane. Modify traffic signal phasing to split Bayside Drive signal phasing. G. Coast Highway at Jamboree Road Modify southbound Jamboree Road to provide: 1. One left turn lane 2. Two through lanes 3. Two right turn lanes Add a third westbound through lane. Add a second westbound left turn lane. H. Newport Blvd. at Hospital Road Add a second northbound left turn lane. L. Coast Highway Add a 3rd EB through lane to Coast Highway from westerly of Bluff Road to easterly of Su- perior Avenue. This lane is needed to provide capacity to handle the a.m, peak hour traffic. M. Riverside Drive at Coast Highway Restripe southbound Riverside Drive to add a second right turn lane. 7 b. Project -related arterial improvements shall be constructed to City standards according to the following percentages of improvement: • Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) from Coast Highway to 19th (55%). • 15th Street from Bluff Road to Monrovia Avenue (60%). In conjunction with adjacent development. 100% of 15th Street improvement shall be constructed. • 17th Street from Bluff Road to the eastern property line (60%). c. That prior to the approval of any tentative tract map or issuance of any building and/or grading permit the Planning Commission shall approve a "Development Phasing Program" for the project site that provides for the construction of the Circulation System Im- provements indicated above and all "committed" project improve- ments assumed in the preparation of the Traffic Study dated March, 1982. 5. Pedestrian Bridge The applicants shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Coast Highway opposite the West Newport Park. Also the applicants shall provide a sidewalk from 15th Street extended to Superior Avenue on the north side of Coast Hihway and provide facilities necessary to install a crosswalk at 15th Street extended and Coast Highway. 6. Views Views to the west and south shall be preserved for a person standing on the lower balcony level of the Newport Crest development. To the extent feasible, buildings located to the north of Newport Crest shall be terraced below existing view horizons that are established by a person standing on the lower balcony level of the Newport Crest development. 7. The boundary of the Harbor Area -Specific Area Plan indicated in the Land Use Element is hereby amended to exclude the GPA 81-1 project area. The eastern boundary of this Specific Area Plan area is thus amended to follow the westerly edge of the alignment of Balboa Boulevard extension (Bluff Road) and the northerly edge of .the alignment of 17th Street. 8. Prior to the development of the site the unincorporated areas shall be annexed to the City of Newport Beach. 9. A fire station site is hereby reserved within the 75.5-acre site designated GPA 81-1 - Banning -Newport Ranch. 0 1 0 . , Residential Growth Element 1. Statistical Area A-1 is amended to permit residential and office/indus- trial land uses consistent with the Land Use Element. 2. Statistical Area A-2 is amended to permit residential and office/indus- trial land uses consistent with the Land Use Element. Recreation and Open Space Element 1. The specific location for the proposed neighborhood park currently shown on the property line between the Banning -Newport Ranch and Caltrans West parcel is hereby removed from the Open Space Plan map. 2. A park of approximately five acres in size shall be located between Coast Highway, 15th Street, Superior Avenue, and Bluff Road with the specific size, location and design to be finalized at the tentative tract map stage. 3. A greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be an average of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. 4. The applicants shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Coast Highway opposite the West Newport Park. Also, the applicants shall provide a sidewalk from 15th Street extended to Superior Avenue on the north side of Coast Highway, and provide facilities necessary to install a crosswalk at 15th Street extended and Coast Highway. Noise Element The projected CNEL contours indicated in the Noise Element including the alignments of project -related arterials are hereby amended to reflect Exhibit 24 and Table 19 in the Draft EIR (pages 112 & 113). E I' r Circulation Element The conceptual alignments of Balboa Boulevard extension (Bluff Road) from Coast Highway to 17th Street, 15th Street from Monrovia Avenue to Bluff Road, and 17th Street from Bluff Road to the Costa Mesa city limits, while generally consistent with the alignments shown on Attachment A, are hereby refined to reflect these more detailed alignments. ADOPTED this 12th day of March 1982. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Pro Tem 10 STATEMENT OF FACTS March 12, 1982 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH •RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND RELATED ACTIONS PERTAINING THERETO FOR THE AREA DESIGNATED GPA 81-1 - BANNING-NEWPORT RANCH. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a pro- ject for which an environmental impact report has been completed and which identifies one or more signi- ficant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of the facts supporting each finding." (Section 15088) The City of Newport Beach proposes to approve the Banning -Newport Ranch project in the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange including amendments to the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, adoption of Planned Community District Zoning regulations, and approval of a Traffic Study. Because the proposed actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of this project. Further, the City Council desires to approve this project, and has determined that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines. Therefore, findings are set forth herein pursuant to Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. GEOLOGY/SOILS IMPACT 1 Landforms will be modified for project development. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: I 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, and watering and sweeping programs designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 3. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be prepared by a civil engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a compre- hensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on a standard -size sheet shall be furnished to the Building Department. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, a specific soils and founda- tion study as required by the building code shall be prepared. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. Directing all runoff away from Seminiuk Slough would require ma- jor, extensive landform alterations and/or modification of natural runoff patterns. 2. More stringent view preservation requirements along' the north edge of the Newport Crest area would require major landform altera- tions. 3. The implementation of all project alternatives with the exception of the "no development" alternative will create a similar environ- mental effect to the project. The "no development" alternative has been rejected based upon the information contained in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. 12 . , 1 IMPACT 2 Fault displacement may result from a nearby earthquake along the Newport - Inglewood fault. The site is subject to groundshaking from earthquakes throughout the southern California area. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: 1. The neighborhood commercial facility originally proposed by the applicant has been eliminated to reduce potential geologic hazards. 2. Prior to the approval of any subdivision of land in the project, an independent third -party analysis of geologic hazards of all identified active faults shall be accomplished and approved by the City's Building Department. This analysis will be funded by the applicant. The recommendations of this analysis will be funded by the applicant. The recommendations of this analysis will be incorporated into any structure. (Stringent standards shall be included in the analysis.) 3. All buildings will conform to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the City's seismic design standards. (b) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: The implementation of all project alternatives with the exception of the "no development" alternative will create a similar environ- mental effect to the project. The "no development" alternative has been rejected based upon the information contained in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. 13 HYDROLOGY IMPACT 1 Small cumulative increases in urban water pollutants. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: 1. A grading plan shall include a complete plan for tempora;ry and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 2. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design, including areas immediately adjacent to the site. 3. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department. A copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 4. Exposed slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential. 5. All parking and other onsite paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum -swept and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for all common areas shall be pre- pared by a licensed landscape architect. Said plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of organophosphates and pesticides. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 14 The implementation of all project alternatives with the exception of the "no development" alternative will create a similar environ- mental effect to the project. The "no development" alternative has been rejected based upon the information contained in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable, significant effect. In particular: The development of the proposed project will ultimately reduce silt and other debris from entering the waterways. IMPACT 2 Increase in surface runoff. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: 1. A comprehensive master plan of drainage for the entire site will be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the first tentative tract map. 2. Where feasible, all drainage northerly of the northwesterly corner of Newport Crest shall be drained through the oil lease area and not toward Coast Highway in a manner to be approved by the Public Works Department. (b) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. The increased runoff will be adequately controlled through the conditions of project approval as set forth in the Planned Communi- ty Development Plan and Development Standards. 15 . 4 ' 2. The implementation of .all project alternatives with the exception of the "no development" alternative will create a similar environ- mental effect to the project. The "no development" alternative has been rejected based upon the information contained in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACT Grading required for implementation of the project will remove all existing onsite vegetation. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: A landscape and irrigation plan for all common areas, including regula- tions on the use of fertilizers and pesticides, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. (b) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. The retention of the limited riparian habitat onsite is rejected based upon testimony presented in the public hearing and informa- tion contained in the Final EIR which indicated that it is not a significant habitat area. 2. The implementation of all project alternatives with the exception of the "no development" alternative will create a similar environ- mental effect to the project. The "no development" alternative has been rejected based upon the information contained in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 1s (d) The remaining, unavoidable s-ignificant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unvoidable significant effect, in particular: 1. There are no rare, endangered or threatened species found onsite. 2. The existing vegetation onsite does not provide a significant habitant by itself or in conjunction with adjacent areas. 3. The existing vegetation onsite has been substantially disturbed by past actions related to oil production, fire protection, and other activities. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES IMPACT Cultural/scientific resources could be discovered during construction. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: 1. Any archaeological/paleontological resources will be managed in accordance with city policies. 2. Provision shall be made for the deposit of scientifically valuable archaeological materials, which are removed from the site, with responsible public or private institutions. (b) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or -substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, so- cial and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: The implementation of all project alternatives with the exception of the "no development" alternative will create a similar environ- mental effect to the project. The "no development" alternative has been rejected based upon the information contained in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 17 (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. NATURAL RESOURCES (OIL) IMPACT 1 While no significant effect from oil production operations was identified for the proposed project evaluated in the Draft EIR, the approved project allows residential uses in Area 3 as shown on Attachment A which may be significantly affected by continued oil production operations. FINDINGS (a) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considera- tions made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. In particular: The land use in Area 3 provides an opportunity for housing in a more affordable price range than generally available in new projects in Newport Beach. IMPACT 2 While no significant effect on continued oil production operations was identified for the proposed project evaluated in the Draft EIR, the approv- ed project allows residential uses in Area 3 as shown on Attachment A which may significantly affect (constrain) continued oil production operations. FINDINGS (a) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considera- tions made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. In particular: The land use in Area 3 provides an opportunity for housing in a more affordable price range than generally available in new projects in Newport Beach. IM EXISTING LAND USES AND LAND USE PLANS IMPACT 1 Land uses will change from open space/oil production to generally more intensive, urban -type uses. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: 1. The proposed light industrial/office development is adjacent to an existing mixture of industrial and other land uses to the east and is bounded by two arterial highways. 2. A greenbelt averaging thirty feet in width will be located adja- cent to Newport Crest. 3. Residential densities in Area 1 may be transferred to Area 3 up to a limit of 15 dwelling units per acre. 4. The floor area ratio (a measure of intensity) of the office industrial area has been reduced from .42 to .36. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. The area immediately adjacent to the project to the west while undeveloped is encumbered with existing oil operations and will be for a number of years. The project site is a logical terminus for urban development. 2. The implementation of all project alternatives with the. exception of the "no development" alternative will create a similar environ- mental effect to the project. The "no development" alternative has been rejected based upon the information contained in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 19 (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Conditions made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoid- able significant effect. In particular: 1. The planned residential development is compatible with adjacent residential areas. 2. The housing stock in the City of Newport Beach will be increased. 3. A park will be developed to add to the recreational opportunities in the West Newport area. 4. The office/industrial uses will be compatible with existing and proposed adjacent land uses. 5. The project represents a logical extension of urban services and facilities by the City of Newport Beach and the in -filling of vacant urban land. IMPACT 2 The City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program will be changed. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: 1. The City Council will approve changes to all affected Elements of the City's General Plan and the City's Local Coastal Program concurrent with approval of the General Plan Amendment so that all elements and plans are consistent. (b) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unvoidable significant effect, in particular: Mul 1. The proposed project meets and/or exceeds all traffic standards es- tablished by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 2. Circulation system improvements and mitigation measures related to traffic impacts will reduce ICUs below projected levels and within the standards indicated above. 3. The proposed land use changes represent a logical plan for the orderly growth and development of the project area based upon sound planning and fiscal practices. 4. The goals and objectives of the Coastal Act will be met through: provision of a public park area; improved circulation system for automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians to enhance coastal access; provision of a pedestrian bridge across Coast Highway; improved runoff quality and storm water management. 5. Public participation and interest was solicited in all phases of the planning process and project review. 6. All issues related to the project raised by Coastal Commission staff per the Coastal Act have been adequately addressed in the Final EIR. DEMOGRAPHICS IMPACT Approximately 163 additional dwelling units and 367 additional residents, will be generated by the proposed project compared to the current General Plan. In addition, employment opportunities will be added within the site. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: 1. The number of dwelling units has been increased from the original project proposal to afford more people an opportunity to live in close proximity to work. 2. The traffic -related impact of congestion associated with increased population and employment within the site will be mitigated through circulation system improvements. 21 (b) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EI•R and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected a& infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. (d) The remaining, .unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. In particular, 1. The housing stock in the City of Newport Beach will be increased. 2. New employment opportunities will be provided. 3. New residents may be accommodated within the community without the addition of major, new urban facilities or services and with little or no cost to the general public. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION IMPACT Project -related traffic will contribute approximately 7,700 average vehicle trips daily. This traffic, along with other local and regional increases, will contribute cumulatively to an increase in the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: 1. The neighborhood commercial center has been eliminated from the project, thus substantially reducing average daily traffic vol- umes. 2. Residential development has been increased to enhance the opportu- nity for people to live in close proximity to work. 3. The amount and intensity of office/industrial land uses have been reduced, thus substantially reducing average and peak traffic volumes from the project as originally proposed. 22 4. A portion of the development has been phased with the extension of Balboa Boulevard (Bluff Road) from 17th Street to 19th Street. 5. Ticonderoga Street is to be extended as a private street providing secondary emergency access to the Newport Crest development. 6. Circulation system improvements listed in the P. C. District Regu- lations shall be provided per the requirements of the Traffic Pha- sing Ordinance. 7. Project -related arterial improvements shall be constructed to City standards according, to the conditions outlined in the P-C District Regulations. 8. The development of the project will be subject to a development phasing program approved by the City to assure that roadway im- provements occur concurrently with project development. 9. A Transportation Management Plan shall be developed for all office and industrial development and shall meet the approval of the Planning Commission prior to tentative tract map approval, unless otherwise relegated to future review by action of the Planning Commission. Measures to'be considered include: Preferential parking for ride -sharing vehicles; Transit subsidy, at least to extent of value of parking otherwise provided by employers; Flextime and staggered work hours and work schedules; Promotion of pedestrian and bicycle,traffic; Carpool/vanpool subscription and bus/charter bus programs (both internal and external to the company); Transit system coordination; and Other programs offering the prospect of reduced or shifted travel patterns. 10. The project will be designed to encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel through the following actions: In conjunction with circulation improvements discussed in the P. C. District Regulations, bikeways will be implemented in conformance with the City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Bikeways. At the tentative tract map stage, an internal pedestrian circu- lation system will be developed. In addition, the applicants shall participate in 50 percent of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Coast Highway opposite the West Newport Park. Also, the applicants shall 23 provide a sidewalk from 15th Street extended to Superior Aven- ue on the north side of Coast Highway and provide facilities necessary to install a crosswalk at 15th Street and Coast Highway. 6. Tentative tract maps and all future developments shall anticipate future transit service routes and provide adequate roadway width to accommodate bus stops and bus benches. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. A reduced density residential and limited industrial project would not provide the range or quantity of circulation system improve- ments listed in the P.C. District Regulations. 2. The project as proposed by the applicants would create substantial- ly more traffic. 3. The project will generate 15% less average daily trips than the alternative recommended by various homeowners' associations. 4. The project represents a 46% decrease in average daily trios from the project as originally proposed by the applicants. (d) Characteristics of the project which mitigate this significant envi- ronmental effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Newport Beach; therefore, these changes should be adopted by such other agency. 1. The State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has jurisdiction over improvements to state highways (Coast Highway). 2. A portion of the ultimate width Coast Highway right-of-way is cur- rentl'y under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. (e) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when bal- anced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Conditions made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, un- avoidable significant effect. In particular: 24 I- . I 1. The Transportation Management Plan will help to reduce traffic congestion. 2. The pedestrian/bicycle bridge/path will provide safe passage across the highway for persons using the recreation amenities (beach and park) and those persons traveling to areas north of Coast Highway. 3. An alternative method of leaving or entering the West Newport Beach area will be provided to residents and visitors. 4. The proposed project will partially implement the regional and local arterial highway system with dedication and partial im- provements to Balboa Boulevard (Bluff Road), 17th Street and 15th Street. 5. The proposed project will provide a secondary means of emergency vehicle access to the Newport Crest development. 6. All of the transportation system improvements listed in the P. C. District Regulations shall be in existence consistent with a "Development Phasing Program" to be developed for the project site prior to approval of any tentative tract map. AIR QUALITY IMPACT Cumulative increases in air pollution will result from the project. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: 1. The effects on air ,quality from mobile source emissions will be partially mitigated by traffic -related conditions of approval and implementation of transportation management plans. 2. The effects on air quality from project -related stationary source emissions will be partially mitigated through energy efficient design and materials used for specific developments in the project area. 3. The project provides an opportunity for persons employed in the office/industrial area to reside onsite. 25 4. Reduced average daily traffic volumes will result in less vehicle miles traveled and thus lowered levels of mobile source pollu- tants. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth'above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: The project will generate less mobile source air pollutants than alternatives suggested by the applicant or by various homeowners' associations due to lowered average daily traffic volumes and vehicle miles traveled. (d) Changes to the project which mitigate this significant environmental effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another pub- lic agency and not the City of Newport Beach; therefore these changes should be adopted by such other agency: 1. Vehicular emissions could be reduced through state legislative exhaust controls (vehicle inspection maintenance program). (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Conditions made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoid- able significant effect, in particular: 1. Air quality in the West Newport area will continue to exceed all state and federal standards by a wide margin. 2. Localized impacts from project-relatedtraffic on air quality adjacent to roadways are nominal. ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT IMPACT 1 Short-term noise impacts from construction equipment. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect. ,r 26 1. All construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturdays and Sundays. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected -as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Conditions made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. IMPACT 2 There will be a cumulative increase in noise levels along arterial highways both on and offsite. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: 1. Detailed noise studies shall be conducted at the tentative tract map stage for onsite impacts and offsite impacts of the project. The cumulative impacts of this project and regional growth on West Newport will be evaluated and a noise wall fund similar to the "Jamboree Road Fund" shall be established to mitigate for those impacts on the West Newport area. 2. The maximum allowable exterior noise level is 65 CNEL and the maximum allowable interior noise level is 45 CNEL. 3. The project has been changed to reduce average daily trips by 46% from the original proposal resulting in a commensurate reduction in vehicular noise impacts. (b) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. 27 (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, in that: 1. The establishment of a noise wall fund represents a step toward solving a highway noise problem in the West Newport area that exists without the project. 2. Changes in noise levels attributable to the project are in a range which is generally not perceivable by the human ear (i.e., less than 2 dB CNEL). PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES IMPACT Increases in demand for all utilities and urban services including electricity, natural gas, water service, wastewater disposal, police, fire protection, and solid waste disposal. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmental effect, in that: Electricity, Natural Gas 1. The project site is immediately adjacent to existing infrastruc- ture and street systems. 2. Energy conservation standards shall be incorporated into project construction in accordance with California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Division T - 20, Chapter 2. Water Service, Wastewater Disposal 1. The project site is immediately adjacent to existing infrastruc- ture and street systems. 2. Water conservation design features shall be incorporated into buil- ding construction. MI M 3. Prior to construction of any project, the availability of water shall be verified by the serving agency. 4. Comprehensive master plans for water supply and sewerage for the entire site will be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the first tentative tract map. Police 1. Increased police costs shall be offset by project revenues. 2. A lighting plan shall be submitted for review by the Police Department to ensure adequate lighting of pedestrian walkways and parking areas. Fire Protection 1. The provision of adequate fire flow will be reviewed by the Fire Department. 2. Structures shall be equipped with fire suppressor systems as required by code. 3. A fire station site shall be reserved within the P-C District. Prior to the approval of any tentative tract map, the City Council shall approve a Master Plan of Fire Protection Services. The applicants shall deed all land and pay 25% of the funds needed to provide a new fire station - Building and Equipment - in the event the Master Plan identifies a site on the Banning -Newport Ranch. Solid Waste Disposal 1. A program shall be devised in the City for the sorting and pickup or disposal of recyclable material separated from other solid waste. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 29 (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Conditions made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. In particular, 1. The applicants shall deed all land and 25% of the funds needed to provide a new fire, station - Building and Equipment - in the event the Master Plan identifies a site on the Banning -Newport Ranch. 2. The proposed project will provide a secondary means of emergency vehicle access to the Newport Crest development. 3. City revenues will accrue a significant net annual increase. ENERGY CONSERVATION IMPACT Cumulative increases in demand for energy resources. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect. 1. Project construction will conform with State Energy Conservation standards are described in the California Administrative code, Title 24, Part 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2 (i.e., insulation techniques, water heating system controls, outside air cooling systems, window glazing, "air -tight" construction of buildings, etc.). 2. Residential units shall be sited to maximize opportunities for solar heating. 3. Incorporate architectural techniques within residential units to further the objectives of energy conservation. 4. Programs to educate residents as to methods and importance of energy conservation shall be initiated. 5. Office/industrial buildings shall be located to maximize pedestrian access. 6. The site shall be analyzed prior to locating building air intakes, to maximize ventilation efficiency. 7. Buildings shall be designed to incorporate natural ventilation within building circulation systems. WC 8. Each office/industrial building shall establish ventilation systems capable of shutting down during non -business hours, select and locate building heating systems to maximize conservation, and incorporate building lighting systems to produce optimal energy conservation opportunities. 9. All new structures will comply with applicable building code requirements. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Conditions made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. AESTHETICS IMPACT 1 Views from Newport Crest will be both adversely and beneficially affected. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect. 1. Views to the west and south shall be preserved for a person standing on the lower balcony level of the Newport Crest development. 2. To the extent feasible, buildings located to the north of Newport Crest shall be terraced below existing view horizons that are established by a person standing on the lower balcony level of the Newport Crest development. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. 33 (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Conditions made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. IMPACT 2 Loss of open space. (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant enviromental effect. 1. A landscape plan subject to the approval of the Planning and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments shall be submitted at the tentative tract map stage of planning. 2. A park of approximately five acres will be developed. 3. A greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. It shall be an average of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the appli- c ant or successors in interest. (b) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: The project will provide nearly twice the park dedication area than would be provided under the existing General Plan. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth. above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. 32 IMPACT 3 Views from Coast Highway. and the West Newport Area will include the residential units along Coast Highway and Bluff Road. FINDINGS (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environmen- tal effect, in that: 1. Building and grading shall blend with the landform to create a "natural" appearance, particularly as viewed from Coast Highway. 2. A landscape plan subject to the approval of the Planning and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments shall be submitted at the tentative tract map stage of planning. (b) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balan- ced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT 1 New residents will increase existing demands for recreation and open sp. (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ- mental effect, in that: 1. A landscape plan subject to the approval of the Planning and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments shall be submitted at the tentative tract map stage of planning. 2. a. Residential development within Areas 1 and 3 will be requried to comply with the Park Dedication Ordinance through a combination of land and fees. b. A park of approximately five acres in size shall be located between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street, and Balboa Boulevard with the specific size, location and design to be finalized at the tentative tract map stage. 33 c. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential tract. d. A greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. It shall be an average of •30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successors in interest. (b) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: Numerous alternative park locations were analyzed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission (including Seminiuk Slough at Coast Highway) and found not satisfactory for this project. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. 34 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS March 12, 1982 BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act .(CEQA) and the State EIR Guide- lines promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "(a) CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoid- able environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. Where agencies have taken action resulting in environmental damage without explaining the reasons which supported the decision, courts have invalidated the action. (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are iden- tified in the final EIR but are not mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other infor- mation in the record. This statment may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under Section 15088(a)(2) or (2)(3). (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding con- siderations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mention- ed in the. Notices of Determination." (Section 15089 of the Guidelines). The City of Newport Beach proposes to approve the Banning -Newport Ranch project in the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange. Because the actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, an environmen- tal impact report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach.• The EIR has identified certain significant effects that will flow from this project' and the City Council desires to approve this project, after determining that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA and the Guidelines, and the Statements of Facts has been approved. Statement of Overriding Considerations 1. The development of the proposed project will reduce the amount of silt and other debris entering the waterways. 2. Where feasible, the project applicants will redirect existing water runoff away from Coast Highway to reduce impacts of sheet flows across Coast Highway to the Lido Sands area. 35 3. The proposed residential development is less intense than the adjacent residential area. 4. The housing stock in the City of Newport Beach will be increased. 5. A park will be developed to add to the recreational opportunities in the West Newport area. 6. The office/industrial uses are planned to be compatible with existing and proposed adjacent land uses. 7. The proposed project represents a logical extension of urban services and facilities by the City of Newport Beach and the in -filling of vacant urban land. 8. Increased job opportunities within the City will be provided. 9. Transportation Management Plans will help to reduce traffic conges- tion. 10. The pedestrian/bicycle bridge/path (partially funded by the appli- cants) over Coast Highway adjacent to the West Newport Park will pro- vide safe passage across the highway for persons using the recreation amenities (beach and park) and for those persons traveling to areas north of Coast Highway. 11. The applicants will participate in 50% of all costs related to the pedestrian/bicycle bridge. 12. An alternative method of leaving or entering the West Newport Beach area will be provided to residents and visitors. 13. The project will partially implement the regional and local arterial highway system with onsite improvements to Bluff Road, 17th Street and 15th Street. 14. The proposed project will provide a secondary means of emergency vehicle access to the Newport Crest development. 15. Over $4 million in roadway improvements will be constructed. 16. The pedestrian/bicycle bridge/path along and over Coast Highway will ensure that safe access along the coast is provided from the inland side of the Coast Highway. 17. The applicants will deed all land and 25% of the funds needed to provide a new fire station - Building and Equipment in the event the Master Plan identifies a site on the Banning -Newport Ranch. 18. City revenues will accrue a significant net annual increase. 36 ! . P 19. Increased job opportunities within the City will be provided. 20. Most views from existing residential development adjacent to the project will be enhanced or protected. 21. An improved park will be made available to the public which will signi- ficantly enhance recreation opportunities in the West Newport area. 22. The proposed project will provide a greenbelt between new residential development and Newport Crest. 23. The development will be landscaped and designed in such a manner so as to provide an attractive entrance into the City of Newport Beach. 24. The roadway system improvements provided by the applicants will pro- vide sufficient system capacity for projected volumes (including both project related traffic and other traffic) to operate at satisfactory levels of service. Without these improvements, projected traffic with- out the project would not operate satisfactorily. 25. Addition of new residential development at densities up to 15 du/acre (in Area 3) will add to the stock of affordable housing in Newport Beach. 26. The ability of the applicants to transfer density from one area to another provides for flexibility in project design which will provide for a greater range of housing types. 27. The project will be phased according to a Development Phasing Program to be prepared prior to approval of a tentative tract map. This program will ensure that adequate roadway capacity is provided as the project builds out. 28. The planned office/light industria_1 park will create an attractive buffer between the mixed use, transitional area to the east and the proposed residential uses in the study area and Newport Crest. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are adopted in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 81-1: 1. Mitigation measures in the following areas are included in the P-C Development Plan and/or the General Plan, and are hereby incorporated by reference: a) Geologic Hazards b) Drainage c) Parks d) Development Phasing 37 e) Circulation System Improvement f) Pedestrian Bridge g) Views h) Ticonderoga Street i) Public Services - Fire Protection 2. The City shall explore all practical and feasible methods of reducing pollutants and silt to the tidal channel and shall consider incorpora- ting said methods in future tract map approvals. 3. A Transportation Management Plan shall be developed for all office and industrial development and shall meet the approval of the Planning Commission prior to tentative tract map approval, unless otherwise relegated to future review by action of the Planning Commission. Measures to be considered include: Preferential parking for ride -sharing vehicles • Transit subsidy, at least to extent of value of parking otherwise provided by employers • Flextime and staggered work hours and work schedules • Promotion of pedestrian and bicycle traffic carpool/vanpool /subscription and bus/charter bus programs (both internal and external to the company) • Transit system coordination • Other programs offering the prospect of reduced or shifted travel patterns 4. In conjunction with circulation improvements, the following shall be implemented: • Backbone bikeway along Coast Highway • Backbone bikeway on Balboa Boulevard (Bluff Road) The following shall be developed at the tentative map stage: • On -street pedestrian facilities and a compatible internal pedes- trian circulation system 5. Tentative tract maps and all future developments shall anticipate future transit service routes and provide adequate roadway width to accommodate bus stops and bus benches. 6. To reduce motor vehicle use and associated mobile source emissions, pedestrian and bicycle trails shall be provided on the tentative tract maps. 7. Transportation management plans and energy conservation design standards shall be implemented at the tentative tract level. 1° r.' y 8. Detailed noise studies shall be conducted at the tentative tract map stage for onsite and offsite impacts of the project. The cumulative impacts of this project and regional growth on West Newport will be evaluated and noise wall fund shall be established to mitigate for these impacts on West Newport. 9. Use of reclaimed wastewater to save fresh water shall be studied at the tentative tract level and incorporated into project plans if feasible. 10. Increased police costs shall be offset by project revenues. 11. Specific mitigation measures related to schools shall be developed at the tentative tract map stage if necessary. 12. Design of the industrial/office area shall coordinate uses to the east and create a gateway to the site. 13. Vegetation shall be used in screen interfaces between various uses. 14. Building and grading shall blend with the landform to create a "natural" appearance, particularly as viewed from Pacific Coast Highway. 15. Building design shall consider the roofscape as viewed from. Newport Crest and include feasible mitigation measures such as screening air- conditioning equipment, locating equipment at ground level, etc. 16. Residential areas shall be designed to encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel. 17. Residential units shall be sited to maximize opportunities for solar heating. 18. Residential units shall incorporate architectural techniques to further the objectives of energy conservation. 19. Onsite waste storage facilities and programs to minimize waste trans- portation and disposal costs be provided. 20. Programs to educate residents as to methods and importance of energy conservation shall be initiated. 21. Office and industrial buildings shall be located to maximize pedestrian access. 22. The site shall be analyzed prior to locating building air intakes, to maximize ventilation efficiency. 39 23. Buildings shall be designed to incorporate natural ventilation within building circulation systems. 24. Each project shall establish ventilation systems capable of shutting down during non -business hours. 25. Each project shall select and locate building heating systems to maximize conservation. 26. Each project shall incorporate building lighting systems to produce - optimal energy conservation opportunities. 27. Water conservation design features shall be incorporated into building construction. 28. Exposed slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce erosion. 29. Prior to construction of any project, the availability of water shall be verified by the serving agency. 30. A watering system shall be designed which minimizes water consumption; such as drip irrigation or tensiometers. 31. A lighting plat Public Works [ walkways and pa 49 Resolution No. 82-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND ADOPTING AN IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE FOR SAID AMEND- MENT. WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, as a part of the development and implementation of the Coastal Act, a Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held two public 'hearings to consider a certain amendment to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and adopted Resolution No. 1069 recommending to the City Council certain changes or amendments to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the environmental docu- ment in considering said amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed said amendment in six public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Planned Community District Regulations provide speci- fic controls regarding allowable land use types, densities, setbacks and various conditions of future development within a 75.5-acre site, including 25 acres currently within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan as shown on Attachment B and as noted below: 1. The uses on Sites 1, 2, and 3 as shown on Attachment B are as follows: Site 1: Multi -family residential development with a maximum of 11.5 dwelling units per buildable acre. A portion of the allowed units may be transferred to Site 3: CE� TRU AND CO RECT COPY CnY.CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 Site 2: A mixture of Administrative, Professional and Financial Com- mercial/General Industry/Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities with a maximum of 235,600 square feet of office development and 164,400 square feet of industrial development. Site 3: Multi -family Residential development with a maximum of 11.5 dwelling units per buildable acre. Residential densities in excess of 11.5 dwelling units per buildable acre up to 15 dwelling units per buildable acre may be permitted to accommodate dwelling units transferred from Site 1. 2. A fire station site is hereby reserved within the 75.5-acre site designated GPA 81-1 - Banning Newport Ranch. 3. A park of approximately five acres in size shall be located between Coast Highway, 15th Street, Superior Avenue, and Bluff Road with the specific size, location and design to be finalized at the tentative tract map stage. 4. A greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be an average of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. 5. The applicants shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Coast Highway opposite the West Newport Park. Also, the applicants shall provide a sidewalk from 15th Street extended to Superior Avenue on the north side of Coast Highway and provide facilities necessary to install a crosswalk at 15th Street extended and Coast Highway. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Planned Community District Regulations for the Banning - Newport Ranch are hereby adopted as the Local Coastal Program Phase III - Zoning and Implementing Ordinances for the 50-acre portion of the City's Coastal Zone designated as GPA 81-1 Banning Newport Ranch as well as the 25-acre portion of GPA 81-1 located in unincorporated County jurisdiction. ADOPTED this 12th day of March 1982. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Pro Tem , 44, kol L-f_ RESOLUTION NO. 1*0 U 3 1'4 A RESOLUTION 07 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING IN CONCEPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RE THE ADOPTION OF A REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR REQUIRED REVIEW (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-10) WHEREAS, by virtue of provisions of the Roos Bill, Chapter 1143 of Statutes of 1980, the City of Newport Beach is mandated to,amend the Housing Element of the General Plan; and / WHEREAS, a draft Housing Element has been prepared and considered by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach.at public hearings on April 23 and May 7, 1981; and WHEREAS, the draft Housing Element was considered by the Planning Commission at Study Sessions on March 19 and March 23, 1981; and WHEREAS, two citizens' forums have been held in order to seek out all interested parties, including groups representing all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, the views and proposals of all citizens interested in the amendment to the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan have been considered; and C�ffa c, ASTRU AND CO. RIOT COPY -CtA'/C6�iw! OF 7HE F NEWPORT BGACH �� WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing on the draft Housing Element on May 11, 1981;.and WHEREAS, the views of all interested citizens have been considered by the City Council; and WHEREAS', the provisions of Article 10.6 of the Roos Bill have been considered by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved certain amendments to the draft Housing'Element; and WHEREAS, the City Council.desires to approve, in concept, the draft Housing Element dated April 15, 1981,-as amended, and authorize its submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development.for review; and WHEREAS, 90 days are'needed for review by the State Department of, Housing and Community Development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council will hold additional public hearings to consider the final adoption of the'Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, after receipt of the report from'the State Department of Housing and -Community Development; and WHEREAS, an environmental document will 'be prepared on the Housing Element, which will be considered prior to adoption of the Housing Element; and 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council will consider the Department's findings, prior to final adoption of the Housing Element, along with comments of others interested in the Housing Element, NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the draft Housing Element of the Newport Beach General. Plan, .dated April 15,'1981, is approved in concept. The City staff is further authorized and directed to submit said draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review, consistent with the Roos Bill. The City staff is further authorized to take any other actions that are necessary to / accomplish said review of the Housing Element. ATTEST: City Clerk ADOPTED this day of MAY 11 1981. i Mayor 3 HRC/pr 5/11/81 - sb Resolution No. 82-103 x SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF - - - __ --- - bOgPORT BEACH ESTABLISHING THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL/P1A *]ING CMIISSION AD HOC HOUSING TASK FORCE. WHEREAS, on September 28, 1981 the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopted Resolution No. 11051 amending the Housing Element of the General Plan consistent with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65580 et seq, (Roos Bill); and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach is making a good faith effort to implement the policies and programs contained in the General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, Objective 7 of the Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element is to "promote and assist in the development of housing for low and moderate income households"; and WHEREAS, the implementation of Housing Element Objective 7 calls for the investigation and evaluation of the Tax-Exempt'Mortgage Revenue Bond and Community Development Block Grant Programs; and WHEREAS, Objective 7 further calls for the appointment of a task force to evaluate the Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Planning Commission has held hearings to identify residential sites suitable for increased densities; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 1982 the City Council initiated General Plan Amendment 82-1 to increase the allowable residential density on the North Ford site; and WHEREAS, it may be possible to use either the Tax -Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond or Community Development Block Grant Programs in conjunction with the development of the North Ford site. CPATff D RUE ND CO m COPY M� CN/.CIERK OF THE CITY OF MWPORT BEACH DAM ..__._.--.L...�`"�_ �� Na-1, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of 'Newport Beach that the joint City Council/Planning Commission Ad Hoc "Housing Task Force" is hereby established. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the functions and duties of the Housing Task Force shall be as follows: 1. The Housing Task Force shall consist of the Mayor, or Mayor Pro Tem, two (2) City Council members, and two (2) Planning U miissioners, appointed by the Mayor. Staff support shall be provided by the Planning Department. 2. The Housing Task Force shall report back to the City Council on or before September 13, 1982. 3. The Task Force shall act in an advisory capacity to the City Council and to Staff and oversee, coordinate, and review all matters relating to the city's participation in the Cmumuty Development Block Grant and Mortgage Revenue Bond r 4. The existence of the Committee shall be reviewed in the October 1982 review of City Council Cumiittees by the City Council. City Clerk RPL:nma Adopted this 12th day of July 1982. Mayor 7/2/82 - 2 - �q � 3 RESOLUTION NO.8 2- 1 5 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AND ACCEPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS AMENDMENT. WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the City of Newport Beach's General Plan, a Housing Element was adopted on February 11, 1974; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach revised its Housing Element to bring it into conformance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65580 et seq, (Roos Bill) on September 23, 1982 (Resolution No. 11051); and WHEREAS, the -Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended proposed amendments to the Newport Beach Housing Element on August 19, 1982. WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has submitted these revisions to the Department of Housing and Community Development of the State of California for their review and comments, as required by Government Code Section 65580 et seq; and WHEREAS, in response to some of the comments from the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Proposed Housing Element Amendment has been revised and said revisions are shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element, as amended, is in conformance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65580 et seq; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has read, reviewed and considered the environmental documentation, including public comments received during the public hearing, consisting of an Initial Study and Negation Declaration, copies of which are on file in the office of the Planning Director of the City of Newport -Beach, prepared in conjunction with these proposed amendments, has determined that the environmental documentation satisfies all of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (GUIDELINES) promulgated pursuant to CEQA, City Policy K-3, and that the environmental documentation was considered in the decisions reflected in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Newport Beach has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider these amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and C@Rf�li AS TRUE AND COP seCT COPY CIW.CtMK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BRACH DAM /-�� - t It WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt amendments to the Newport Beach Element as set forth in Exhibit "A" as revised by Exhibit "B", NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "A" as revised by Exhibit "B". ADOPTEDADOPTEDthis day of NOV 22 , 19qjl.. ATTEST: City Clerk - 2 - Mayor RPL:nma 11/15/82 Exhibit A 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 more limited effect. Put another way: it is 11reasonable 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 residential density of development within the city, consistent with applicable fiscal and environmental considerations. The policy of allowing increased residential density is only meaningful, however, when it is applied to specific sites within the city.--the­-ixensiag e�emeat-#s-+x-3•ess greferred-ve3xie3e-€er`-se}rie+ri�g-i-nereese+d dens�by-then-is-the-E#byls-eensag-graeess- 3 2. Page 2. implementation Plan: The following activities shall be a. b. Site Buildable Acreage 10.1 acres 8.7 acres 10.0 acres 6.8 acres 2g.5 acres The Planning Commission shall continue to conduct public 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. b. Public hearing shall be conducted within three six months after adeptsen-ef-bass-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 asx-Mantha one year after said adeptsen 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 preferable; 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 I 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 a mixture of [.9 P-t; zone are usec on larger parcels to accom lish 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. I 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. een3tirnet#on--groccca�rs—have--gzenter--devekopmenk-cros�,--and prev#de--a--�exet-�+m3�-e€--markcb--ever-+rhi.eh--f #xed ee3b3-�eey-be-dist�r#httt�ed:uu--Based-ron--th#3-�ncr,--kke 8eaan#ea#en-genera#�y-exempt3-prcrjee.�3-ro�-four•w+rik3-er-#eae fran:--i-Ns�-#ne#kysennrY-rirxl--requsremextr��+f�ho--fect•-tiket �'!e-EC111111#932615^edd3-f+aek.Mez�1'-bhah--Gtiake F:egisfature-Pee ##n�#ted-�--�=^-_:.: _ -'s^Belt:3aticn--o8-ierid--dsr#afdne-�mde�-kke 6nbd#v#3#en-�-�eh-te-tite3t�-where-fd�e--crr•-Mere nn#te-nre-be#nq-ereaEed,u-prev#des-a-farther-#nd#eat#en-khnt Eh#3-#3-nn-npprepr#ate-thre3hekd«3#ae-far-tire-genezaf-po##ey ef--state- tssvo'�!^-'"•'_-"-a=r-'i'etrog:rr2ing"tihat--3ma3i--#ndty=loaf cave#epere-doj-now-bavr-Ehe-eeononrS.e--f�.rrrtl--tcr-provide far-the-#ne�ue#en-oE-§ax--nnd-modernze-#neome-ken3ing-x#th#n khe-�tM#k3-eE-ffexsb#�#kY-a3-prersded-fn-seat#en-3B2}3: 91 Page 5. 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 wi�hout 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. rednek=en-xrr �-txarkek-re9,tx--crk-tkefr-property ;---germ-en rexta�-�rnr�tey.-ai-spy-haae-t,eclet3.+re- iinpae-ta-en khe-4ntsrC-eemMnx€ky�arkke-knrneMer-retC-af-rental-preperky fa---�ls�wed:----i�.�ly'r--such---peg€ezes--'mftY'--ekter---khe eena trneksen--er$--Wert--renkeier-anti--{�itereirr-ex�.��z--kke henezng-prebiem-fer-e��-renkere: 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. i Page 7. The federally funded Section 8 Rent Approximately 75% of these renters have very low 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 2. Imolementation Plan: The following activities will be undertaken in support of this objective: n---Wken--epp3i,:nor}.e---tedere3---rec�rl�scxrs--amp--state exist= --- the --- eitp--- wiil investigate--st�--parts eipet�en-�tr-tke-�sstrenc.�-e£ tax-exempt-mertgnge-revenue-bends-te-faei�itete-tke deve�epment;-eenstraetien;-end-�inaneing-e£-kensing for-}ew--and-moderate-income-henseke�ds: I b:--�Pke-city-Ni��-eansider-its-rene�+ed-partieipatian-in the--Eemmnnitp--Beve3epment--Beek--6rent--Program; sabsegnent-te-an-eea�netien-bp-tusk-farce-nppeinted by-the-@itp-Eennei�-te-exemine-tke-mast-nppraprinte uses--of--EBB6--ficn:ds--far--he+ ___�3--pnrpeses7 end-the-impact-ef-epp�ieeb�e-EHH6-rega�atians: 9ne--pessib�e--use--ef--EBB6--£ands--ska��--be--tke estab3iskment-c€-a--i�enxsi-ng--E3pportuirit}� Ftrnd.r-Nkiek mop-��t�i2eci-te-fae i�3tate--tip-developnce:rt-end eantinned-�t+ai-1a3��.it�r-of--affarc}a�}c-kotxsi.-eta, -for ska�i-be-enpite�iQed-Nitk-EBB6-assistenee;-as-may 9 Page 8 lope rate-irr4k4gx>rt Beae)t. --A- specY�9 e-gzogranr-may be--fe�rmtslateel--bY--Nkee- P�aaafng-Beflax�_mant -to--seek pr#vatrpaxt#eipnt#en-.irrthe--Duns}--.No- pretceds_af the--Fand--xea}d--be--ati}=sod--te--»revide--d#reek #n--aapportr--srf-.ie�wer•-iM,A•_,M,e.-.honsim�--devc}epment? devc}epment-preeesafngT-and-re}aced-aappert £nnetiene-that-d#reet}y-xedaee-hearing-eenatrnctien 'eeatsr--Ez#teria-for-Heaafng-9pptlztanity-Pand #mp}ementatien-xea}d-be-dev�leped-by-the-Planning Bepnrtmentr Ae--en--niteznat#ve--te--6BB6--£ands--the--Planning eemmereia}--3xrtkdiny.-ptrmft-feea--er�.or.-aaaeaasng mnjer-empleyere-for-tentribntiena-te-the-£and: er--The --- Planning -- Department---aka}}---exp}ere---the feea£bs}itY-'cti£-dns'esrti�`e'.r--to--apur-the-eenstraetfon Of-rental-an#tar c. The city shall seek to maintain rental opportunities by restricting conversions of each rental units to condominiums finless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental housing is 5% or higher for four consecutive quarters. Alf-chher-prev4aiena-eE-e4tp regalatiena-govern#ng-the-eenvereian-of-zea#dential prejeeta-eha}}-eentinae-in-effort. d. The City shall preserve mobile home park land uses through the-*stabl+.e�r% -of--a a combined program of mobile home park Lane evaluation to determine /0 Page 9. e. The City shall continue to work in cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide Section S 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. affordable to persons or families of low or moderate or Wrq accordance with Government Code 65900. The number is g. The City shall use i review and waive planning fees for projects with low and moderate income housing. Because rental housing is recognized as a significant source of h. On sites where a density increa granted as part of the density defined in Objective 3, and a devi tract map which includes at least total units for persons of loin and or alternative incentives mutually arcPntahle to 3. Target Date: The following implementation schedule shall be observed: e:--Pregram-4as--+�kis-she33-•i�-__. ' __=tgaked'-wstkza-ssx menbhs-€rexr•the•-dsbc-e S-�assa� •erg-`.`=�-eneb � sng �egss�atsan- a. Program 7a: This shall be done as projects with bs--Pregreai--'Abe--�'lria--stsn��--he--a'ex+�i'etee2"-Pi^ioY`•-te 3nnnnry-3�T-i982s e:--Pregrent— 7c --This--ahrab1--be- -initiated--fti-ti i-m-aix n+enthe--fY�onr-the--ef--sc�opt�rnr-ei-{�-hone ing elements ds--Bregram--adt--- '�r--?Lfr--- ehi-s--Trogreft--be implemented-iamedinteiy: c. Program 7c: This Ordinance is currently in effect. Page 11. T. 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 /,3 Page 12. ownership. increasing the rate of homeownership is often all that is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating neighborhood and to redevelop that neighborhood. mentk}y-expense-e€-ewn4ng-a-eenverted-an#t-4a-asaa}}y-h4ghcr than--t�-eFrat---o£--re�rNinc3r--as-_e-_�il.�.-.<yfr--Property #apreven�entaT--=nereeaed--snertgnge--eests7--pre€#ts--te--the eenverterT---and---aaaec4atfen--�iaes---€er---rn�ri�rkena:rce.__end detr4went-e€-}ewer-4neeme-heaaehe}da: 6n-the-ot4�er--ieand•�-the-prespeet-ef--cad. iirf3,xtictr-end tke-bene£i{�s-.c�£.=--�+«�e:••_exnerah#p---£nx--ded+�ii+f�i�y.-ef #nteraat- peynlenta7--ega4ky-�ba4}d-ap7--and--Preperky--ve}ae nppree#et#en-----tend-- ho-- offset--aho== -_- r-eesta---- The cenvera4en--e£--rents}--an4ta--er--eendent#h4amsY--Kh#eh--are tt+4nime}-ma4nkenanee-reapena4b#}#t4ea-make-khen�-attraek4ve-ke ene-person-ar- _::_=====r-heaaehe}daT-oielez�-kOuee3xrldsr-end ekhera--at--eaabs--kh--are-siei€ienitti�,•-d enaez�-{i�an-«nnM eenakrNet4en-eeaka- Presn--bl�-edtYie-7:x-`e�-rietirr-t4re--eonrersfen-e>£--rents} b e--s„e:nzvncu�-fn--tirbs�-regerd?--that+-n-proh#3�iteivir-ego#na t eenden+4n4am--etmvexs�.ans--•does--not--�,ee�w�w:,;:ly.--Preberve henasng-sf%ordesbi3ihy� for-}ewer-#neeme-hoaeehcle�a-.xcr-nreea demand:--Ak-kh4s-pesnt7-beweverT-tke-natare-e£-the-demand-4s }4ke}y-ke-ehenge:--fnakend-ef-rents}-an#ta-be4ng-eeeap#ed-by ene-femf3y�—they-ttk��-be-rented-by-e--eonsorti�yn..og-tennnts 4atadentaT-anmarr4ed-eeap}caT-eta:}:--there-4a-ev#donee-that kh4a- pattern--has•--erizeady--}>ec.;nme.-ested,iislxel..-3n--HeMpert reaa}t--.ra--a--}righer--#ne4dence--irf-i�3#ght-: -i.:__�___ -eate kraf€4eT-ne#ghberhoed-#nstab#}#ty7-and-a-h4gher�er4me-rate: Heaa4ng-reheb4}4ket4en-e£€erts-n�ey-eha33-be-,w•; e•�..as-a moons--e£--mad nteirrirg--�%e-- lio�4t g--for--low ---and Medoreta-4neome--heaaehe}da:-�-me--eeh#eve--th#b--eb?eetiveT severs}--}oee}--geMernt�enta--a€Eer--}ew--#ntereak--}eons--te e}der}y-eit#xena-Pend-�.i.,;M;��}e,�y,:.�,},e•-aekrea-ef Sands-Eer-th4s-of€ert-4a-genere}}y-the-Eehutan#ty-Beve}gptnenk B}eek-Brant-Program: ' Page 13. Implementation Plan: a:--�Pke--wit}«-s�zerl-3r-emene3—rt�-eone�omi.3ritrnr-eanaersien erdsnenee-te-permit-t}re--e�u-�_ __= .-o€-rentn�-an#ks =n-�,ro-j�et�--e€--fatrr-trees.-t�-ar— :eess--t,�r--eHnersk#p tenure ;-beeatise-�-t}ie-�-eggartKtn£t#es-thnb seek-�onve3rsiexr�rci+ri,3es-to—=__= `_..=-ke�ebxpers and-neK-entranbs-te-the-kens#ng-market: b---£n--sus--ev.}luabi:ort--v€---L�-Eemmarrity--Bose}egn�en £ Beek-5rcertN?x�agraffi.--tlxo--eitg�-ska��--costs-zc}er-bke £��stbi�gtp-rtrE--rrsi3sg-a--po-r�.ivn--e£-seer t�unds-£ar hettsing-rekebs�i£etian-�nrgeses- 3. Target Dates: n:--pregrem-9e---�h4s-ske��-be-4mp�emented-£nunedsnte�}+- a. The CDBG application shall be made for 1982 funds. b---pregram-9b program-gb- b. This program shall be utilized as projects are proposed. EXHIBIT B AMENDMENT OF OBJECTIVE 10 OF N.B. HOUSING ELEMENT J. Objective 10: To promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color. 1. Finding: Substantial legislation has been adopted at the federal government level to prevent discrimination in the sale or rental of housing4 Such legislation includes the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of loco M,4-1= SIT nF /-1k. r+4,,41 vinMl-r TnF ..P IOCA irA W..._..._ a. The Planning Department shall assign to 's staff liasion i entitle In 0 7ectzve I t e res .1- /61 The staff liason shall also provide the complainant he address and telephone number of each of these agen- explain the applicable filing procedures to the com- nt, and, if requested, assist the complainant in for- q information to the appropriate agency. b. The staff liason shall maintain records on all q discrimination complaints forwarded to the Citv and ed by the complainant to enforcement agencies, and request information from the appropriate enforcement es in order to monitor the progress, status, and res- n of such housing discrimination complaints. � �aed#a�e�y: _ a. Program 10a: This shall be implemented im- mediately. b. Program 10b: This shall be implemented im- mediately. -2- a: This shall d. Program 10d: This shall be implemented im- mediately. -3- /If kA s; CERTI�AND CO 2R@CT COPY CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH /I RESOLUTION No. 83-108 PATi A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR GPA 82-2(b) BELCOURT WHEREAS, Draft Environmental Impact Report 82-2(b) [DEIR az-2(b)) provided environmental impacts of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General. Plan; and WHEREAS, DEIR 82-2(b) was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines, and City Policy K-3; and WHEREAS, DEIR 82-2(b) was circulated to the public for comment and review; and WHEREAS, DEIR 82-2(b) was reviewed by the Citizens Environmental Quality Committee (CEQAC); and WHEREAS, written comments were received from the public and CEQAC during and after the public review period, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted public hearings to receive all public testimony with respect to DEIR 82-2(b); and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through a series of response to comments documents and various staff reports submitted to the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were fully and adequately responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code, Section 15146 (b); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising DEIR 82-2(b) and has found that DEIR 82-2(b) considered all environmental impacts of proposed General Plan Amendment 82-2(b) and is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommended to the City Council in Resolution No. 1103 that DEIR 82-2(b) be certified as adequate and complete; and e_1 WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, in the General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the community and to provide affordable housing opportunities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to provide a balanced community, with a variety of housing types and designs and housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to preserve and increase affordable housing for low- and moderate -income households; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to eliminate constraints to housing production and increase allowed density, wherever possible; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide incentives to the building industry to facilitate the provision of housing for low- and moderate -income households; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the unique opportunity to provide affordable housing on the Belcourt site; and WHEREAS the increased residential use in Belcourt will achieve an appropriate balance between employment and housing; and WHEREAS, the increased residential use in Belcourt will promote and assist in the development of housing for low- and moderate -income households; and WHEREAS, the increased residential use in Belcourt will promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color; and WHEREAS, the increased residential use in Belcourt will provide for the development of a variety of housing types and products for all income levels of the community; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the opportunity to require provision of affordable housing either on or off site in conjunction with residential development in the City; and - 2 - A WHEREAS, this City Council has reviewed all of the environmental documentation prepared to evaluate the proposed GPA, including all elements of the Final EIR and the recommendations of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby certify Final EIR 82-2(b) Belcourt as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the proposed General Plan Amendment and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. Said Final EIR 82-2 is composed of the following elements: a) Belcourt GPA 82-2(b), including Technical Appendices. b) Attachment 1 to the Draft EIR, including comments and responses and additional information. c) Planning Commission Staff Reports from September 22, 1983 and September 28, 1983, with attachments and exhibits. d) Planning Commission Minutes. e) City Council Staff Report of October 24, 1983, with attachments and exhibits. f) City Council Minutes. g) Comments and "responses received prior to final action and not contained in a) through f) above. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663-3884, (714) 640-2197. ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY_OF October, 1983. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR FT/kk 10/18/83 Rev. 10/27/83 - 3 - RESOLUTION No. 83-109 J CEI�If ID A RUE AN C0111C7 COPY/� C17Y CLERK OF THE CITY OF NCWPORT BEACH PATI11, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN [GPA 82-2(b)] WHEREAS, Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach provides that the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, may amend the General Plan or any part or element or map thereof; and WHEREAS, the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach contains, among other elements, the Land Use Element and map which will serve as a guide for future planning and development of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held public hearings at which it considered an amendment to the Land Use Element and map and adopted Resolution No. 1103, recommending to the City Council certain r: changes and amendments in said element and map; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared a final environmental impact report (EIR) in compliance with CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines; and . WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the certified Final EIR in making its decision on the proposed amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council by this Resolution adopts the Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, in the General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the community and to provide affordable housing opportunities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to provide a balanced community, with a variety of housing types and designs and housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community; and I •� e WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to preserve and increase affordable housing for low- and moderate -income households; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to eliminate constraints to housing production and increase allowed density, wherever possible; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide incentives to the building industry to facilitate the provision of housing for low- and moderate -income households; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the unique opportunity to provide affordable housing on the Delcourt sitep and WHEREAS, the increased residential use in Belcourt will achieve an appropriate balance between employment and housing; and WHEREAS, the increased residential use in Belcourt will promote and assist in the development of housing for low- and moderate -income households; and WHEREAS, the increased residential use in Belcourt will promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color; and WHEREAS, the increased residential use in Belcourt will provide for the development of a variety of housing types and products for all income levels of the community3 and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the opportunity to require provision of affordable housing either on or off site in conjunction with residential development in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt certain amendments to the Land Use Element and map and Residential Growth Element and Map of the Newport Beach General Plan, as set forth below; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Newport Beach as follows: 1. The City Council makes the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR together with the Finding that each fact in support of the Findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. - 2 - i 2. The City Council finds that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement of Facts.. 5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been avoided or mitigated by the imposition of Conditions on the approved General Plan Amendment and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Mitigation Measures attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social, and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 7. The City Council "finds that the unavoidable significant impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance, have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of Conditions on the approved General Plan Amendment and the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its decision on the project, the City Council has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 8. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. - 3 - Further, the City Council finds that a good -faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. 9. The City Council finds that the project should be approved and that any alternative to this proposed action should not be approved for the project based on the information contained in the Final EIR, the data contained in the Statement of Facts, and for the reasons stated in the public record and those contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 10. The City Council finds that a good -faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as indicated in the public record on the project, including the Final EIR. 11. The City Council finds that, during the public hearing process'on General Plan Amendment 82-2(b), the Planning Commission and the environmental documents evaluated a range of alternative development options and the project, as approved by this Resolution, is included within that range of alternatives. Therefore, the City Council finds that it is not necessary to refer the General Plan Amendment back to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation. The City Council has considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission in its decision on the project. 12. The City Council finds and determines that the Final Environmental Impact Report consists of the following documents: a) Belcourt GPA 82-2(b), including Technical Appendices. b) Attachment 1 to the Draft EIR, including comments and responses and additional information. c) Planning Commission Staff Reports dated September 22, 1983 and September 28, 1983, with attachments and exhibits. . .. d) Planning Commission Minutes. e) City Council Staff Report of October 24, 1983, with attachments and exhibits. f) City Council Minutes. -4 All of the above -information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663-3884, (714) 640-2197. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Land Use Element and map and the Residential Growth Element and map, are hereby amended, establishing the following land uses, Conditions, mitigation measures, policies, and limits on future development of the project site as indicated in Exhibits 1 and 2 which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. ADOPTED THIS 24th day of October, 1983. I ATTEST: City Clerk FET/kk 10/18/83 Rev. 10/27/83 Mayor - 5 - Exhibit 1 ' Land Use Element General Plan Amendment 82-2 Adopted _ October 24, 1983 Resolution No. 83-109 1 C $I'� h'UI PL •. .r ' i A/SON i xlya!C �� Ya I r�P ct. ♦C♦i'♦'1 S'♦ � ♦d 1 ri If •t(tJ U s�js• ` �'-P� o ° AERONUTRONIC t�"_.....'f:�� \ CA •4r hh . iy i� FORD •� • YKA , OY ,. r ,♦.FOQO v ,rr CI MN QLA r IJL4N0 1 If The language of the Land Use Element and the accompanying map shall be amended to designate Area 8 of Belcourt for Multiple -Family Residential use with a maximum of 168 dwelling units. Thus, the total residential units permitted on the Aeronutronic Ford site will be 412. Further, add the following language: 1. That 25% of all units in Area 8 above 38 units developed in Area 6 shall be moderately priced for sale units as defined by the city's Housing Element. 2. That park dedication fees shall be required for the "Affordable Housing Units." 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay its "fair -share" of the ultimate improvements to the City's circulation system, as may be determined by the City, except for 38 units presently permitted in the Planned Community. 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits, the applicant shall deposit with the City's Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for construction of sound -attenuation barriers on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport Area; the westerly side of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive (No) and Ford Road; and the southerly side of East Coast Highway in the Irvine Terrace area, except for 38 units presently permitted in the Planned Community. Exhibit 2 Residential Growth Element General Plan Amendment 82-2 Adopted October 24, 1983 Resolution No. 83-109 PG . Vi 1 ` I pJC vFi LIRbS PG - i J ri 9/S O.v Os ,s C .« ii y •K• ; T. 1 wog (�pER ^+1VP�op AERONUTRONIC ,0 4 FORD 0, �. ' v `FOR0 Ic tip ..• i :�j . e.. s^`',. ^�': The language of the Residential Growth Element and the accompanying map shall be amended to designate Area 8 of Belcourt for Multiple -Family Residential use with a maximum of 168 dwelling units. Thus, the total residential units permitted on the Aeronutronic Ford site will be 412. Further, add the following language: 1. That 25% of all units in Area 8 above 38 units developed in Area 8 shall be moderately priced for sale units as defined by the City's Housing Element. 2. That park dedication fees shall be required for the "Affordable Housing Units." 3. That prior to the issuance of.. any building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay its "fair -share" of the ultimate 'improvements to the City's circulation system, as may be determined by the City, except for 38 units. 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits, the applicant shall deposit with the City's Finance Director the sum proportional. to the percentage-of'future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for construction of sound -attenuation barriers on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport Area; the westerly side of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive (No) and Ford Road; and the southerly side of East Coast Highway in the Irvine Terrace area, except for 38 units presently permitted in the Planned Community. sk RESOLUTION No. 83-110 / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE AERONUTRONIC FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF f DWELLING UNITS IN THE P-C DISTRICT AND AREA 8 WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045.of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that final amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan must be approved by a resolution of the City Council setting forth full particulars of the amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 28, 1983, at which time it considered certain amendments to the• Planned Community Development Plan for Aeronutronic Ford to / increase the maximum number of permitted dwelling units in the P-C District and Area 8; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1104, recommending to the City Council that certain amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Aeronutronic Ford, as. set forth in the Planning Commission minutes of September 28, 1983, and by this reference made a part hereof, be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that said amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Aeronutronic Ford as set forth in said Exhibit 1 are desirable and necessary; and 1. WHEREAS, The City Council has conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments in accordance with all provisions of law, CERfJFIEG)AS�TRU��[t�CT C •c;tt.AMW OF THE CITY of NEWPORT BLUM DAM NOW', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Aeronutronic Ford as set forth in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the environmental documentation is hereby accepted. ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 1983. 4l MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK , 10/19/83 FT/kk Rev. 10/27/83 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 30, 1984 TO: Advanced Planning Staff FROM: Bob Lenard, Advanced Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Completion of Davis Lawsuit Displays for Rutan & Tucker Attached is a copy of the December 5, 1983, letter from Rutan & Tucker to Craig Bluell outlining various maps, charts, photographs, and miscellaneous information needed with respect to the Davis lawsuit. Pursuant to our meeting this morning, this assignment has been divided up as follows: Craig Bluell. Prepare maps numbers 1 and 2, charts numbers 1 and 6. Patty Temple. Map number 3, chart.number !, and miscellaneous number 1. Sandy Genis. Map number 1, charts numbers 3, 4, and 5, all photographs, and miscellaneous numbers 3 and 6. Bret Bernard. Miscellaneous number 5, and various graphics as assigned. I expect this information to be compiled by the end of this week or the middle part of next week at the very latest. If you have problems meeting these time constraints, please let me know. L+- . BOB LENARD Advanced Planning Administrator BL:dvh Attachments A. W. RUTAN II B8019T21 JAM ES D. TUCMCR, SR. NBBB•IBSOI H. ROOD CA HOWCLL N9Ee•I9B]I .,,FDA. W DAML' PATRICIA L STCARN5 GARVIN V. SHALLCNOCROER' WILLIAM J. CAPLAN JAMES R. MODRC GARY M. LAPC H L. IMIµEI MCCORMICK' MICHACL T. HORNAµ WILLIAM R. OICL' JANICC L. CCLOTTI RICHARD A. CURNUTT' JUDITH WOODWARD LCONARO A HAMPCL' M. TONI PCRRY JOHN B HURLBUT. JRMICHACL C. DRAFFIN MICHACL W IMMELL' PMILIP O. µOHN MILFORD W DAHL, JR.' JOEL 0 KUPCRS CAD THEODORC 1. WALLACC. JR.' ELI2AOCTH A. NEALC RONALD P ARRINGTON' DEBORAH H ALLCY RICHARD P SIMS' MARY M. GRECN MARSHALL M.PCARLMAN' KATHRYN L, TOBIN ROBERT C BRAUN' PHILIP C MAYNARD ROGER A ORABLC' NCILA R. BCRNSTCIN COWARD O. SYBCSMA. JR.- CVAIDIµI 1VICµ0 DALLAS THOMAS S. SALINOCR' STEVEN A. NICHOLS BARRY P. LAUBSCHER' THOMAS O. BROCKINGTON DAVID C. LARSCN' HARVEY M. MOORC CLIFFORD E. PRIEDEN' MAURKC SANCHEE ARTHUR G. KIOMAN' BRUCC HALLCTT MICHAEL D. RUBIN' WILLIAM T. CLIOPOULOS IRA G. RIVIN' CRIC A. NEWMAN JCFFRCY M. ODCRMAN' RANDALL M. OAOBUSH STAN WOLCOTT' CRAIG LADADIC RDECRT B. BOWER' TIMOTHY S. MCCANN LAWRENCC C. BERTWO' SCOTT D. POOCR5 MARCIA A. FORSYTH DAVID H. HOCHNCR WILLIAM M. MARTICORENA MARK B. FRASICR BRUCE O WALLACC KARIN T. µROOIUS ROGER M. SCHNAPP MCATMER A. MAHOOD RODCRT W. ALBERTS GABRICLLC M. WIRTM JOSEPH O. CARRUTH STCVEN T. GRAHAM ANNC NCLSON LANPMAR L PMGRUN. OGFeO.I. RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS CENTRAL BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER 611 ANTON BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX I950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 Mr. Craig T. Bluell Senior City Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 December 5, 1983 Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Dear Craig: TELEPHONE (7141 641.5100 (213) 625-75BS TELECOPIER (714) S46.9035 TWE 910 598•1883 CABLE AODRE55 RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASC REFER TO RECFn(FO PLF... ••';:G DEC 3 1983® C(•rY OF NRl•Y; ;?vr BEACH, / I 1 I Pursuant to our meeting on Friday, December 2, 1983, the following is a list of matters and items which you and Bob Lenard should immediately commence: MAPS 1) Prepare a large map of the City of Newport Beach (similar to the colored -in map), showing just the''names of the sites. 2) Prepare a large map of the City of Newport Beach (similar to colored -in map) highlight- ing undeveloped, non -committed, not in pro- cess sites. 3) Prepare blow-up maps of the following indi- vidual sites, for overlays of archeology, environment, noise, bluff, LCP, and other RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PMFNENSNIP CONSIVING OF PROFESSIONAL COFPoA.bON3 Mr. Craig T. Bluell December 5, 1983 Page Two constraints: a) Westbay b) Castaways c) Newporter North d) Freeway Reservation East e) Upper Buck Gully f) Eastbluff Remnant g) Caltrans East 4. Prepare a map of traffic accidents, similar to the one used by Rich Edmonston and Don Webb. CHARTS 1. Prepare chart of all three-story residential structures in the City, showing name, acreage, number of stories, units, and units per acre. 2. Prepare a chart sowing General Plan approvals since adoption of the Housing Element on. September 28., 1981, including GP.A. 81-1 (Beeco), 81-2 (Caltrans West, Freeway Reservation West), 82-1 (North Ford), 82-2 (Belcourt), and 83-1 (Newport Center);' these charts should show title of General Plan Amendment, date of adoption, parcels affected, prior residential density,'approved,density,,increase of density, number of low and moderate income units included, and percentage of low and moderate income units to increased density amount. 3. Prepare a chart showing the percentage of acreage in the City by density (zero to four, four to ten, ten to 15, 15-25, 25 plus), and also showing the number of housing units in the City by the same density categories. 4. Prepare a chart showing the number of units, and their breakdown and percentage by single family residence, duplex, multiple family, and RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PAMNCRSNIP CONSISTING OP PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Mr. Craig T. Bluell December 5, 1983 Page Three mobile home. Also include within this chart a statistical breakdown between rental and owner- ship for the total number of units. 5. Prepare a chart with respect to the $443 per month median rental rate, showing how many of the City's rental units are affordable to people at the following income levels for*both Orange County and Newport Beach 1980 median incomes: 50%, 80%, 100%, and•120%. 6. Prepare a chart with respect to the Oakwood Apartment rents in Newport Beach, and comparing those rents to other Oakwood complexes in Southern California. PHOTOGRAPHS (8' x 10" Black and White) Obtain prepared photographs of various "undesirable" (scjimbag) sites within Newport Beach. 2. Obtain photographs of three-story and higher residential structures throughout Newport Beach. 3. Obtain aerial photographs of Jamboree/ MacArthur, and San Diego Creek North sites, for use with overlays. %i62 I W 4. Obtain photographs of major landmarks within the City.- 5. Obtain photographs of residential projects outside of Newport Beach which would be con- fused with Newport Beach; in this regard, it is important to have pictures taken of easily discernable projects, such as certain gated RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF Mr. Craig T. Bluell December 5, 1983 Page Four communities in Irvine, Laguna Beach, or Huntington Beach, where the name of the pro- ject is evident from the photograph, so that anyone vaguely familiar with Newport Beach would recognize that these projects are out- side of the City's limits. MISCELLANEOUS 1. With respect to the older low -density areas in the City (e.g., Harbor Ridge, etc.), com- pare the tentative tract approvals with the General Plan densities at that time, so that we will be able to show that when the tracts were built, the allowable density was above that which the developer constructed. 2. Obtain report from the Airport Land Commission which indicates the Newport Beach Land Use Element is consistent with the Airport Master Plan, with minor exceptions; our discussions indicated that this report was issued in November of 1983. Obtain a copy of the demographics report which shows that Newport Beach does not have the highest median income; I believe you indicated that this may be on Sandy Genis' desk. 4. Modify the map to show that certain sites (5th and MacArthur, 5th and Marguerite, 5th Avenue, North Ford, Newport Village, Caltrans West, Freeway Reservation West), and others, are either in process or com- mitted. RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A .ARINCRSNIP CONIISMO OF PROICSSIONAL CORPORATIONS Mr. Craig T. Bluell December 5, 1983 Page Five 5. Talk to Dave Harshberger, Marine Safety Director, with respect to population counts on the beaches during the past few summers. Ascertain whether he will be a good witness for trial. 6. With respect to traffic issues, talk to the Police Department to see if we can obtain statistics regarding drunk driving violations, speeding violations, and numbers of accidents during the past few years, in order to show that traffic impacts and problems have been increasing in Newport Beach over the past few years. Please let me know if any of my descriptions of these pro- jects is unclear. As always, should you have any questions re- garding this letter, our conference last Friday, or any other facet of the Davis case, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Joel JDK:bc ccs: Bob Burnham Leonard A. Hampel Jeffrey M. Oderman & TUCKER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 31, 1984 TO: Patty Temple, Senior Planner FROM: Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Commercial, Industrial, and Office Reductions Attributable to GPA 78-2 and GPA 79-1 in conjunction with our upcoming trial, I need you to prepare some supplemental information relating to General Plan Amendment 78-2 and 79-1. As you are aware, the charts you prepared regarding residential changes resulting from those General Plan Amendments came out excellent. In talking with Len Hampel, we came to the conclusion that it would be beneficial to illustrate how General Plan Amendment 78-2 and 79-1 were primarily directed at commercial office and industrial projects; and further, that this resulted in a net decrease in demand for housing within Newport Beach and the region. I think if you take a look at some of the EIR's, including General Planning Amendment 80-3 and subsequent amendments, you'll be able to find information on Generation of Employees and Demand for Housing. Please see if you can put together some kind of a chart that would illustrate the commercial office and industrial reductions attributable to 78-2 and 79-1, and somehow graphically compare those reductions to the residential reductions. :9 DW •� BL:dvh CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 21, 1984 TO: Pat Temple, Senior Planner FROM: Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Housing Lawsuit Exhibits 1. Airial Photos. We are still missing Newporter North, Freeway Reservation East, Upper Buck Gully, Eastbluff Remnant, CalTrans East, and the large exhibit for Jamboree/MacArthur and San Diego Creek North. The exhibit on Westbay needs to have the park colored in. 2. GPA Approval Since Housing Element (Chart number 2). This exhibit needs to be enlarged. 3. T. T. Approvals versus G.P. Designations (Misc. #1). My notes on this are slightly garbled. We need to talk to Joel. The exhibit definitely needs to be enlarged, but I also have a note to expand it, send a copy to Dave Dmahowski for review, and make sure we have good common denominators (talk to me). 4. 78-2 and 79-1 Office Reductions. Both the detailed chart and the bar graph exhibit should be enlarged. We need to include, somewhere, the assumptions regarding employees per square foot. 5. Parking Standards. Please get a copy of the actual Coastal Guidelines to send to Joel and Len. 6. Buildable Acreage. I believe you are going to modify the little one -page explanation that I gave you, to make it more accurate. 7. Time -Line. This exhibit needs to be enlarged. 8. Height Limit Illustrations. The use of these exhibits should be coordinated with what Craig is doing on the Expanded Height Limit Map. 64G f -� BOB LENARD BL:dvh HOUSI GPA 81-1 Beeco (45.2 acres res) 81-2 CalTrans, West (13 acr 81-2 Big Canyon - 16 (11 ac 82-1 North Ford (79 acres) 82-2(b) Belcourt-Area 8 (12 83-1(e) Newport Center (76. PERMITTED/APPROVED DENSITY Date Acres DUs DUs/Acre Max. Permitted Westcliff 1952-1967 493.324 1649 3.34 SFR(8) Cameo Shores 1958 64.05 177 2.63 SFR(8) Irvine Terrace 1959-1963 152.5 416 2.73 SFR(8) Harbor View West 1959-1967 97.585 266 2.7 SFR(S) Cameo Highlands 1960 44.3 142 3.20 SFR(8) Eastbluff 1963 165.28 462. 2.79 SFR(S) Harbor View East 1966-1971 167.159 490 2.93 SFR(8) Harbor View Homes 1968-1972 321.183 1169 3.64 SFR(S) Big Canyon 1970-1972 165.239 476 2.88 SFR(8) Spyglass Hill 1971-1972 155.552 350 2.25 SFR(8) Jasmine Creek 1st 1973 379 4.39 SFR(8) 2nd 1973 346 4.0 10/acre 3rd 1976 324 3.74 10/b.a. Broadmoor Seaview 1976 51.411 167 175 Harbor Ridge 1977-1978 ;, 166.257 392 2.36 4/b.a. i Tentative Tract Maps - Applications Since 9/28/81 TTM 11744 1. Applicant: Lyttle/Corona del Mar 2. Date of Application: 12/23/81 3. Location: 311 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar 4. Number of Units: 5 5. Low/Moderate Units: N/A 6. Approved: Removed from calendar at applicant's 'request, March 18, 1982 due to difficulties with an easement. 7. N/A TTM 11785 (Revised) 1. Applicant: J.M. Peters Company 2. Data of Application: 3/30/82 3. Location: Southwest corner -of Bison Avenue and Belcourt Drive North (Belcourt Area 7) 4. Number of Units: Same as previous tract (56) 5. N/A 6. Approved: 4/22/82 7. N/A TTM 11806 1. Applicant: Emil Tessin 2. Date of Application: 4/26/82 3. Location: 487 Morning Canyon Road, Corona del Mar 4. Number of Units: 7 5. Low/Moderate Units: 4 required per SB626 (Mello) prior to adoption of P-1 6. Approved: Withdrawn from consideration at request of applicant 6/24/82 7. No explanation given TTM 11906 1. Applicant: Max Morgan 2. Date of Application: 1/28/83 3. Location: 120 - 32nd Street 4. Number of Units: 17 5. Low/Moderate Units: 2 per P 1 6. Approved: 6/27/83 7. N/A 1 `. TTM 11935 1. Applicant: The Douglas Allred Development Company 2. Date of Application: 4/12/83 3. Location: Southeast corner of San Miguel Drive and Pacific View Drive 4. Number of Units: 50 5. Low/Moderate Units: 10% per Housing Element 6. Approved: 6/13/83 7. N/A TTM 12035 1. Applicant: Wale Development Corporation 2. Date of Application: 7/22/83 3. Location: 406 E. Bay Avenue 4. Number of Units: 10 5. Low/Moderate Units: 1 per P-1 6. Approved: 10/11/83 7. N/A TTM 10814 (Revised) 1. Applicant: The Irvine Company 2. Date of Application: 7/14/83 3. Location: Northeast of San Joaquin Hills Road (Big Canyon Area 10) 4. Number of Units: 21 5. Low/Moderate Units: Revision of previously approved 36 unit tract. 6. Approved: 12/12/83 7. N/A TTM 11604 (Revised) 1. Applicant: J.M. Peters Company 2. Date of Application: 7/18/83 3. Location: Southeast corner of Jamboree Road and Bison Avenue (Belcourt Area 8) 4. Number of Units: 168 S. Low/Moderate Units: 28 (required by GPA 82-2(b)) 6. Approved: In Process 7. N/A TTM 12079 1. Applicant: Rumney Enterprises 2. Date of Application: 11/10/83 3. Location: 487 Morning Canyon Road 4. Number of Units: 14 5. Low/Moderate Units: 1 per P-1 6. Approved: Approved by P.C. 1/19/84; 7. N/A Scheduled for C.C. 2/84 Commercial Reductions GPA's 78-2 + 79-1 78-21) Reduction Employees3) Newport Center Office 549,600 2143.4, Retail 51,000 51.0 Civic 12,000 12.0 TOTAL 612,600 2206.4 79-12) KCN Hotel 440 171.6 Office & Ind. 422,325 1647.1 Retail 21,000 21.0 Jamboree/Mac Arthur Office 8,713 34.0 Retail 8,712 8.7 San Diego Creek Retail 104,544 104.5 Office Ind. 409,464 1596.9 North Ford Retail 67,240 67.2 Off. Ind. 190,000 741.0 Ind. 190,000 190.0 Aero Ford Ind. 1,323,000 1323.0 Newport Center Retail i 9,750 9.8 Office 731,842 2854.2 Bayview Landing Retail 90,000 90.0 Castaways Retail 177,800 177.8 79-1 Total Hotel 440 rooms 171.6 Office 1,762,344 6873.2 Ind. 1,513,000 1513.0 Retail 479,046 479.0 3,754,390 + 440 rooms 9036.8 TOTAL 4,366,990 + 440 rooms 11243. At 1.26 workerj)per dwelling unit, the two GPA's reduced demand by 8923 housing units. 1) Summary of Newport Center General Plan Amendments. 2) Info from 1-4-80 memo from RPL to Mayor Ryckoff. 3) Employee generation factors are as follows: Office 3.9 per ksf Hotel .39 per room Retail 1 per ksf Industrial 1 per ksf 4) Workers per dwelling unit source 1980 census. GPA 78-2 CUMULATIVE' RESIDENTIAL and GPA 79-1 and COMMERCIAL IMPACTS 70.4% 45.4% Percentage of reduction', to future allowable. 8923 1626 du's I du's . Housing' supply/demand reductions e Residential' -Commercial' Residential' Reduction 1625*du'si Commercial' Reduction 4,766,990 sq.ft.i % Residential' Reduction 45.4%• % Commercial' Reduction 70.4%i Reduction in Employees' 11,243_, Reduction in Housing Supply 1625 du's Reduction in Housing Demand 8923 du's (1.26 workers per d.u.) PARKING STANDARDS Current City Standards Prior City Standards Coastal Standard ill space per d.u. (round up) P.C.'s 2 per d.u. Belcourt Area's 1, 6, 3 per d.u. RDS-R-1 2 per unit 3 per unit 2000 RDS-R-3, R-4 3 spaces up to 2400 plus 1 per 600 R-A, R-1 2 per SFR 2 per unit in "B" R-1.5 2 per SFR 1 per unit in duplex R-2 2 per SFR 3 per SFR 2000 3 per duplex R-3, R-4, C-R 2 per SFR 1 per unit in duplex, triplex, or fourplex 1 per unit for 1st four plus 2 per unit in groups of 5 or more units 2 per unit in "B" district 2 per unit (1978 - 1983) �' m N .•1 � N r l m m r m r G 7 c i x m Q Y 1 NI Q U M O Y I H Q F H O O N ,,Mqq +ml ; O Q E v V 0 m NO C N W N {GNP O U N a v0 O U« N N M N a H £ •M N U .1 •.I m U Y U ..Yj yyb M Cc N N N k N H v c n, 0 w 8 0 o o "o n m a 1 art v v > m W N Y A M m H m W 0 a M E N r H G Y Y M 3 C H VI v O F rAHm ro0 a tln V E QU QU r Y vl v H roF 0 W O I v U U P Gm ,0 M 1 EE N U U H a s F N N W A G O O . O U k k N G k a ££ O Y F O a m N 1 W-W M N N F W N W O of U N W F H ro O C C M M H Y v H N m N O W U G C O O N N U•ti U > p MMM Oro W U Y.M -rlro C v> Q •O F F Y '� H O> a •NI 7 U N W H r 0 H M N N m m T YH N m m 00 N•O t'1I N 4>> O A Z m Nm R m vl _ H W W O C L, H 0 M .N H .+ Y •p ,p Ip Ip � 1 .1M aO Q N N Nroro ['J W A N w�w au a�uWm61 6 1976 1977 11978 E7.9 1980 1981 11982 111983 1984 5 Issue Ident. & 5 LCP/Land Use Plan 77 Work Program 82 ' 9 General Plan JGPA 112 77 Review _ 78-2 78 11 L.U. B Cir. GPA 12 78 1 Alter. 79-1 79 10 Housing 9 7 11 82-1H 12 1 80 Element 81 82 82 83 83-2b 2 Housing Element Implementation 81 10 Cty. GPA 9 1 R-3 4 79 Annex. 80-2 80 83 217 83 GPA 81-1 Beeco 82 81 61 GPA 81-2 CalTrans West 81 83 81 82 8 82 83 83(DeAza 9 Triangle MHP) 1 P-1 8 1 Coastal Residential 82 Mello 82 83 Development Permits 82 GPA 82-1 North Ford 83 Housing Task Force 83 82 7 1982-83 CDBG 1983-84 82CDBG 2-2b 82 Belcour 8 -Mort. Rev. Bond Program 8 7 GPA 10 (Npt.Ctr.) 83 3-le O I r - 4T� rzi► iez), I r—LODiz tJc7Ct- ; �f to l,5p t= Lfvr- 60A. l � A MAXIM Lim gpr A rf. 6� cr poap W=-Tp�r- WAL16 is LAWSUIT GRAPHIC EXHIBITS (as of January 23, 1985) Completed 1. CalTrans East Vacant Parcel Aerial 2. Westbay Vacant Parcel Aerial 3. Castaways Vacant Parcel Aerial 4. Eastbluff Remnant Vacant Parcel Aerial 5. Jamboree-MacArthur/San Diego Creek North Vacant Parcel Aerial 6. Newporter North Vacant Parcel Aerial 7. Land Use Map *8. Residential Density (Du's/Gross Acre) Map *9. Residential Density Distribution Bar Graph 10. Housing Unit Types Distribution Pie Chart * Please return In Process (State of Completion) 1. Freeway Reservation East Vacant Parcel Aerial (By 25 Jan. -- Bret) 2. Buck Gully Vacant Parcel Aerial (By 30 Jan. --.Mary-Jane) 3. Residential Density (DU's)/Net Acre) Map (? -- Bret/Mary-Jane) 4. Residential Height Map (By 30 Jan. -- Mary -Jane) *5. Residential Units/Densities Sequential Chart (By 24 Jan. -- Bret) 6. Residential Units Bar Graph (By 30 Jan. -- Bob/Mary-Jane) CHRONOLOGY OF PLAINTIFFS' VARIOUS CHALLENGES AGAINST THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (1980-1985) TITLE OF DATE OF ACTION SUBJECT DISPOSITION DISPOSITION DAVIS City's motion to dismiss HCD as real party in 05/21 81 City's motions and demurrer sustained. interest, demurrer to HCD's Cross -Complaint (Cardenas) against City, and motion to strike HCD's Answer and Cross -Complaint against City. UaylS nuu appeal or 7/Gl/81 oraer aismissing muu U4/Ub/aL nuu•s appeal aenied; trial court order of 5/21/81 as a real party in interest in Davis. (DCA 4) affirmed. Plalntitt's motion for appointment o referee to review 1981 Newport Beach Housing Element. ex (Crosby) 05/10/82 Plaintiffs' motion denied. DAVIS City's motion for summary adjudication to 06/03/82 City's motion granted: validate 1981 Housing Element. (Crosby) i) Mooting any challenge to 1974 Housing Element. ii) Determining 1981 Housing Element valid as a matter of law under Gov. Code §§ 65583(a), (b) DAVIS City's motion for summary adjudication to 06/30/82 City's motion granted to dismiss claims re: dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under: (Crosby) i) Constitutional right to travel. i) Right to travel. ii) Constitutional due process clause, ii) Due process clause. iii) Constitutional equal protection clause. iii)Gov. Code. § 12900 et seq. iv) Government Code § 12900, et seq. City to apply for 1982 CDBG funds. (Crosby) DAVIS Plaintiffs' motions for: 08/31/82 1. Preliminary injunction requiring City (Crosby) 1. Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction to apply for 1982 CDBG funds. denied. 2. Reconsideration of 6/3/82 ruling re 2. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration granted 1981 Housing Element. but 6/3/82 Order reaffirmed. Assistance Plan re 1982 CDBG funds. (HUD) JLG 9/10/82 Challenge to Newport Beach Housing Assistance Plan re 1982 CDBG funds. BARNES Complaint for injunction and Petition for Writ 11/8/82 Petitioners' application for alternative writ and re City's alleged violations of Ralph M. Brown (Goldstein) TRO denied. Act (Government Code § 54940, et seq.) DAVIS Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction 11/10/82 Plaintiffs motion denied. re alleged violations of Ralph M. Brown Act (Goldstein) DAVIS Demurrer by Detendant The Irvine Company 11/10/82 Demurrer sustained; The Irvine Company dismissed to Complaint (Goldstein) as a Dartv. HUD I OCFHC Administrative Complaint to Newport 01/21/83 OCFHC Administrative Complaint denied. Beach 1982 CDBG application (HUD) DAVIS Plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint to 03/02/83 Plaintiffs' motion to amend re Ford Aero claims include, inter alia, Ford Aero (Goldstein) denied. DAVIS City's motion and Plaintiffs' cross -motion 03/23/83 City's motion and Plaintiffs' cross -motion denied. for summary adjudication re 1982 Newport (Goldstein) Beach Housing Element City's issuance of any development approvals (Goldstein) pending trial. DAVIS City's motion tor protective order blocking 09/26/83 City's motion granted re Ford Aero deposition._ depositions. (Goldstein) DAVIS Plaintiffs' motions: 1. For writ of mandate to invalidate 1982 Housing Element, Zoning Code and Subdivision Code. 2. For joinder of The Irvine Company, Max N/A (motions Hearing dates vacated due to appellate stay order; Morgan, Allred Company and Marriott. filed in Aug. motions never rescheduled or placed on calendar 3. For preliminary injunction enjoining & Sept. 1983) after stay dissolved. City from issuing land use approvals pending trial. DAVIS Plaintiffs' peremptory challenge to judge 09 30 83 Plaintiffs' peremptory challenge denied. (C.C.P. § 170.6) (Goldstein) GARRISON I Petition for Writ to invalidate subdivision 11 22/83 Motion of Respondents City, et al. to quash approvals due to alleged inadequacies in (Sheffield) service of summons and Petition granted. 1982 Housing Element. DAVIS Plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication 01/12 84 Plaintiffs' motion denied. to invalidate 1982 Housing Element, Zoning (Goldstein) Code and Subdivision Code. DAVIS 1. Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider 02 02/84 1. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration 1/12/84 ruling. (Goldstein) granted, but 1/12/84 order reaffirmed. 2. Plaintiffs' renewed motion for summary 2. Plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication adjudication to invalidate Housing Element, ordered off -calendar. Zoning Code, and Subdivision Code DAVIS Plaintiffs' application to challenge judge 03 13 84 Plaintiffs' challenge for cause denied. for cause (C.C.P § 170(a)(5)) (Owens) DAVIS Plaintiffs' appellate petition to reverse 9 30 83 07/10/84 Plaintiffs' appellate peremptory writ denied. denial of Plaintiffs' peremptory challenge. (DCA 4) DAVIS City's motion for summary adjudication and to dis- 12/17 84 City's motion granted and second and third causes miss Second and Third Causes of Action challenging (Goldstein) of action dismissed. Newport Beach Housing Element. HUD II JLG Administrative Complaint challenging City's 01 30 85 JLG's Administrative Complaint denied. use of CDBG funds in North Ford Development Aamt. (HUD) UAVlS Ylalntiirs, motion for leave to rile Supplemental Ul/31/SS Plainti£rS' motion denied. Complaint challenging City's 1984 Housing Element. (Goldstein) DAVIS Pltfs' appellate writ to reverse 12/17/84 ruling. 02/05/85 Plaintiffs' appellate alternative writ denied. (DCA 4) GARRISON II Complaint and Petition for Writ to Invalidate 02 08 85 Motion of Respondents City, et al. to dismiss Subdivision approvals because of alleged in- (Schwab) granted, and judgment entered dismissing action. adequacies in Newport Beach Housing Element. F C I R B Construction Industry Research Board 2509 EMPIRE AVENUE - BURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91504 - (818) 841.8210 (800)252-8109 in Calif. only April 19, 1984 To - Questionnaire Respondents From - Ben Bartolotto, Research Director Subject: Copy of Comparative Analysis of Fees Toward the end of 1983 you responded to our survey questionnaire on fees charged to new housing development. That survey was intended to update and compare the results of a similar survey conducted by us in 1976. Enclosed is your copy of the report prepared using the questionnaire -survey results. Thank you for your cooperation. Ben Bartolotto Research Director Encl. d. o C I R B 11 Construction Industry Research Board 2509 EMPIRE AVENUE • BURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91504 • (818) 841.8210 [(800)252-8109 in Calif.] COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FEES CHARGED TO NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN SELECTED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES IN 1975 AND 1983 Prepared by Construction Industry Research Board Ben Bartolotto, Research Director January 1984 The Construction Industry Research Board is supported by grants from the Construction Industry Advancement Fund of Southern California, the Fund for Construction Industry Advancement, the California Construction Advancement Program, and northern California's Construction Industry Advancement Fund. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 1983 UPDATE 2 INFRASTRUCTURE FEES 4 CONCLUSION 6 TABLES AND APPENDICES TABLE 1 - COMPARISON OF 1975 AND 1983 FEE -SURVEY RESULTS 3 TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE FEES, AVERAGES AND RANGES OF FEES CHARGED IN 1983 5 TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE FEES, INCREASE FROM 1975 TO 1983 8 APPENDIX A - JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN FEE SURVEY 9 APPENDIX B - INFRASTRUCTURE FEES CHARGED TO NEW SINGLE- FAMILY HOUSING, SELECTED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS, 1975-83 10 APPENDIX C - PLANNING -RELATED FEES CHARGED TO NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING, SELECTED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS, 1975-83 12 APPENDIX D - BUILDING- AND ENGINEERING -RELATED FEES CHARGED TO NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING, SELECTED SOUTIERN CALIFORNIA JURISDIC- TIONS, 1975-83 14 0 In 1975 the Construction Industry Research Board, CIRB, surveyed the fee structures of 32 major building -permit -granting jurisdictions in Southern California. The 32 jurisdictions were selected from 8 counties: Los Angeles; Orange; Riverside; San Bernardino; Santa Barbara; Kern; Ventura; and San Luis Obispo. The purpose of the 1975 survey was to compare develop- ment -process fees assessed by jurisdictions in a wide geographic area and to show the impact of those fees on the cost of housing. Each of the 32 jurisdictions surveyed was asked to provide fee data for 17 specific types of fees. All fee data from the 1975 analysis were converted to a cost per housing unit for a hypothetical 100-unit subdivision. The subdivision was assumed to be built on 25 acres consisting of single-family detached homes each with three bedrooms and 1-3/4 bathrooms. It was assumed that developers provided all site improvements.* For those jurisdictions surveyed in 1975 and for those fees reported, fees averaged $1,245 for each single-family housing unit. Since 1975, however, major changes have occurred in the fee structures of most jurisdictions. The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 and the reduction in tax revenues that followed resulted in major increases in development fees throughout California. Substantial increases occurred in existing fees, and new fees were established. The new fees were imposed mainly to pay for infrastructure improvements. *The subdivision was further described as follows: "The project is on flat land and requires the usual connections/assessments for sewer, water and flood control. The subdivision requires the installation of 4,800 lineal feet of roadway including curbs and gutters, driveway aprons, and sidewalks on both sides of the street. There are 80,700 cubic yards of flat -land grading. 01 1983'UPDATE Because of the major changes in fee structures since 1975, and especially since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, an update of the 1975 survey was deemed warranted. And, in the latter part of 1983,questionnaires were sent to the same 32 jurisdictions surveyed in 1975. As might be expected, the passage of time took its toll on the comparability of the 1975 survey results and the updated 1983 information. However, responses from 28 of the original 32 jurisdictions provided sufficient data for comparison. The 28 jurisdictions account for two-thirds of the single-family housing production in the eight -county region. (See Appendix A, page 9, for listing of jurisdictions and categories of fee data used from each jurisdiction.) The survey data in this update are grouped in three categories: infrastructure -related, planning -related, and building/ engineering related. Infrastructure -related fees, which are usually administered by the planning, engineering or building, departments of the various jurisdictions, are grouped separately in this analysis because of the growing interest in infrastruc- ture financing. Results of the 1975 and 1983 surveys are tabulated by juris- diction for infrastructure, planning, and building/engineering fees in Appendices B, C and D, respectively (pages 10 thru 15). Estimates are not shown for fees and jurisdictions when the 1975 and 1983 data are not comparable or when a particular fee is not charged by a jurisdiction,' The latter is more often the case for infrastructure fees. The results of the 1975 survey and of this update are compared in summary form in Table 1, following. The results in Table 1 are stated in 1983 dollars to eliminate increases resulting from inflation. 2 n TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF 1975 AND 1983 FEE -SURVEY RESULTS Average Fees Charged to New Single -Family Housing in Selected Southern California Jurisdictions and Real Increase from 1975 to 1983 Average Fees Charged Per Housing Unit* (Stated in 1983 Dollars) 'Fee Category** 1983 Infrastructure $60647 Planning 92 Building/Engr. 985 Sum of Averages $7,724 Effective Ave.****$5,176 1975 $1,009 50 703 Increase(1975-1983) Amount . +$5,638 + 42 +558.8% + 84.0% + 232 + 40.1% $1,762***** +$5,962 +338.4% $1,624***** +$3,552 4218.7% For those jurisdictions surveyed,and for those fees reported the sum of the averages for all fee categories totaled $7,724 in 1983. When that amount is discounted for those jurisdictions that do not charge for certain fees, the "effective" average of fees charge in 1983 is $5 J76. That amount is $3,552 more *Based on responses from 28 Southern California jurisdictions in the survey update. The 28 jurisdictions account for 67% of the single- family housing production in the eight -county area from which they were selected. The eight counties are: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Ventura and Kern. **See Appendices A, B, C and D for specific jurisdictions and fees in the survey. ***Real increase excludes increase that is attributed to inflation. Both 1975 and 1983 amounts are stated in 1983 dollars (see footnotes to Appendices B, C and D). ****The effective average represents the average of fees charged after discounting for jurisdictions that do not charge specific infras- fructure fees. *****The 1975 amount shown here differs from the original $1,245 per unit estimate. Part of the difference is due to restating the 1975 figures (shown here) in 1983 dollars and part is due to the fact that results from only 28 of the original 32 jurisidictions are used in the 1975- 83 comparison. 3 than the comparable $1,624 charged in 1975.* This represents a real (inflation -adjusted) increase of 218.7%.** INFRASTRUCTURE'FEES It is apparent from Table 1 that infrastructure fees are by far the most costly fees and account for most of the increase exhib- ited from 1975 to 1933. Table 2, page 5, summarizes the averages and ranges of infrastructure fees charged for each category of infrastructure.' The average infrastructure charges for roads, schools, and parks are $1,635, $1,313 and $1,128 per unit, respectively. In individual jurisdictions, fees per housing unit ranged as high as $3,050 for parks, $2,400 for water and $2,054 for roads. Data from other fee surveys reveal that infrastructure fees range even higher in jurisdictions that are not included in this survey. For example, in certain San Diego County jurisdictions school fees and flood control fees may each exceed $4,000 per housing unit, and sewer fees may reach $2,500 per unit.*** Park fees were found to average as much -as $22,000 in one Southern California community and'$5,000 in a Northern California community.**** *The 1975 average for the original 32 jurisdictions surveyed was $1,245. The difference is due to restating the 1975 amount in 1983 dollars and to the fact that results from only 28 of the original 32 jurisdictions are used in this update. **The U.S. Department composite -construction -cost index was used to increase the 1975 amounts to 1983-dollar equivalents. ***Construction Industry Federation, '11ajor-Fee Schedules, San Diego Region, September 1982. ftrConstruction Industry Research Board, "Parks and Recreation Dedications and Fees, California Cities and Counties," November 1981. 4 0 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE FEES Charged to New Single -Family Housing In Selected Southern California Jurisdictions Average and Range of Fees Charged in 1983 Average Range of Charged Per Fees Charged Type of Infrastructure Housing Unit* Per Housing Unit* Parks $11128 $ 360 to $3,050 Schools 1,313 636 to 1,811 Roads 1,635 1,100 to 2,054 Flood Control 358 205 to 500 Sewer 905 294 to 1,620 Water 926 176 to 2,400 Other 382 52 to 600 *Based on responses from 21 of the 28 Southern California jurisdictions in the survey update. The 21 jurisdictions account for 40% of the single-family housing production in the eight -county area from which they were selected. The eight counties are: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Ventura and Kern. 5 A Table 3, page 8 , compares average infrastructure fees charged in 1975 and 1983 for 21 Southern California jurisdictions.* The sum of the averages of all infrastructure fees totaled $6,647 per unit in 1983 compared with $1,009 per unit in 1975 (stated in 1983 dollars). More than half of the 1975-83 increase occurred because new fees were instituted after 1975. For the most part, these new fees and most of the increases in already -established fees were instituted after the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. Some jurisdictions do not charge for all infrastructure items. When these zero charges are averaged in, the effective -average charge for each single-family housing unit is estimated to be $4,099 in 1983 (approximately 62% of the $6,647 sum of the averages). The $4,099 "effective" average charge is 370.6% higher than the comparable $871 effective -average infrastructure charge of 1975 (stated in 1983 dollars).** CONCLUSION The effective -average infrastructure charge is useful in estima- ting the total amount paid by builders (and ultimately by home owners) for infrastructure improvements. If it is assumed that the average charge for jurisdictions included in this survey approximates the state average, then builders of single-family housing paid $417.6 million for infrastructure improvements in 1983 (see calculations, following). *Twenty-one of the twenty-eight jurisdictions in the 1983 survey update provided information on infrastructure fees. These 21 jurisdictions account for 40% of the single-family housing construction in the region. **The lower effective average is intended to reflect the effective average for the region as a whole and takes into account the varying incidence of different infrastructure fees. 'For example: it is estimated that 16% of all new housing units in the region are charged for new roads outside the development; 75% are charged for parks; 65% for schools; and 75% or more of the new units are estimated to have sewer, water and flood -control capacity charges. 0 I If it is assumed that comparable charges for multi -family housing units are proportional to dwelling -unit square footage, then the average fee for a multi -family unit is 60% of the single-family charge, or a $2,459 per unit charge (effective average). Again, assuming this average applies statewide, then multi -family builders paid a total of $170.5 million for infrastructure improvements in 1983. (Calculation follows.) 1983 Effective Average Total Housing Infrastructure Infrastructure Production* Fee Per Unit Revenues Single -Family Units 101,874 $4,099 $417.6 Million Multi -Family Units 69,347 2,459 170.5 Million Total 171E $3,435 $588.1 Million The total paid through fees for infrastructure improvements,,. based on the 171,221 new units produced in 1983, is estimated at $588.1 million, or an.average of $3,435 for each new unit produced in the state. Other planning and building/engineering fees add an estimated $902 per unit for each new unit produced.** This raises the total of fees charged to $4,337 per unit, including infrastruc- ture charges. Based on California's 1983 housing production of 171,221 units, fees paid statewide totaled an estimated $742.6 million (171,221 x $4,337). The average fee bill of $4,337 per unit for all fees included in this survey represents 7.5% of the average construction cost of each housing unit.*** 110tal housing units in building permits issued in California in 1983. Source: Unpublished monthly data, U.S. Bureau of the Census. **The $902 is derived using the fee estimates from Table 1 for single- family housing and discounting for the smaller size of multi -family units. ***Based on building -permit valuations construction costs for all new units statewide averaged $58,000 per unit. 'Single-family units averaged $78,000 and multi -family units averaged $40,200 per unit. VA TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE FEES Charged to New Single -Family Housing In Selected Southern California Jurisdictions Increase from 1975 to 1983 Parks Schools Roads Flood Control Sewer Water Other Sum of Averages Average Fees Charged Per Single -Family Housing, Unit* (Stated in 1933 Dollars) 1983 1975 Real Increase Fees Fees 1975-1983** $1,128 $ 429 +$ 699 1,313 -0- + 1,313 1,635 -0- + 1,635 358 123 + 235 905 244 + 661 926 213 + 713 382 -0- + 382 $6,647 $1,009 Effective Average*** $4,099 $ 871 +$3,228 *Based on responses from 21 Southern California jurisdictions. The 21 jurisdictions account for 40% of the single-family housing production in the eight -county area from which they were selected. The eight counties are: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Ventura and Kern. *','Real increase excludes increase that is attributed to inflation. *ftlhe effective average represents the average of fees charged after discounting for jursidictions that do not charge these fees. E�3 FAWDIANOXIM JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN FEE SURVEY Selected Southern California Jurisdictions New Fee Data Provided by Jurisdictions in Survey* Single -Family (By Categry of Fee) Units** n ra- klianning u ng ngr. Jurisdiction (1982) structure Related Related Anaheim 375 X X X Bakersfield 1,944 X X X Carson 107 X X Chino 56 X X Costa Mesa 75 X X X Fullerton 184 X X X Glendale 52 X Huntington Beach 73 X X Irvine 69 X X Long Beach 70 X Los Angeles City 732 X X Los Angeles County 1,147 X X Newport Beach 74 X X X Ontario 210 X X X Orange City 132 X X X Orange County 1,196 X X X Palm Springs 412 X X X Rancho Mirage 101 X X Riverside City 108 X X X Riverside County 2,239 X X X San Bernardino County 2,986 X X X San Luis Obispo 488 X X X Santa Ana 49 X X Santa Barbara County 318 X X Thousand Oaks 86 X X Torrance '149 X X X Ventura City 33 X X X Ventura County 353 X X _ Number of Jurisdictions in Survey by Fee Category*** 23 26 20 Single -Family Housing Produced by Surveyed 13;818 8,216 13,676 12.733 Jurisdictions x of Region in Survey**** 67% 40% 662 61% *Where indicated by 'W', the jurisdiction provided at least partial data for the fee category shown. **New single-family units authorized by building permits issued in the jurisdiction. ***A total of 28 jurisdictions provided estimates for the various categories of fees surveyed. ****Single-family units in building permits totaled 20,734 in the eight -county region. The eight counties are as follows: Ins Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Ventura, and Kern. E Jurisdiction Anaheim 1975 1983 Bakersfield 1975 1983 Chino 1975 1983 Costa Mesa 1975 1983 Fullerton 1975 1983 Huntington Beach 1975 1983 Irvine 1975 1983 Neo975 Beach 11983 Ontario 1975 1983 Orange City 1975 1983 Orang75County 19 1983 Palm Springs 1975 1983 Rancho Mirage 1975 1983 Riverside City 1975 1983 Riverside County 1975 1983 Santa Ana 1975 1983 Santa Barbara County 1975 1983 Thousand Oaks 1975 1983 Torrance 1975 1983 Ventura City 1975 1983 Ventura County 1975 1983 INFRASTRUCTURE FEES(1) Charged to New Single -Family Housing Selected Southern California Jurisdictions 1975 and 1983 Estimated Coat Per Housing Unit Parks Flood Schools Control Sewer Water Roads(') Other $300 $ 88 $220 $149 0- (3) 579 500 338 612 $52 -0- $ 1 $ 65 $ 40 $1,050 425 850 500 $698 (4) (4) $1,811 $950 $176 $ 455 1,206 $350 800 $ 757 2,395 $ 200(6) 4,160 $ 351 3,050 $182 -0- 360 $1,800 $250 600(6) $1, 500(6) $300 500(6) $1,200 $100 850 $ 180 1,020 $1,750(7) $399(8) -0- $2,054 $636 $570(8) -0' -0- $800 $636 $ 100 -0- $170 $ 118 $ 493 1,194 $1,500 205 1,620 2,096 -0- - (4) $1,200 $1,500 $600(4) $340 425 -0- $492 -0- -0- $1,000 $1,800 $550 550 $140 540 $ 23 300 $180 294 $130 632 -0- $ 420 $950 1,000 Avers.e--Selected Jurisdictions (Not Adjusted for Inflation) 1915 S 248 -0- $ 71 $141 1983 1, 228 $1,313 358 905 Avers.BBe--Restated in 1983 Dollars(ll) 1975 $ 429 -0- $123 $244 1983 1,128 $1,313 358 905 Average Real Increase (in 1983 Dollars) 1975 to 1983 +$�699 +$1, 313 +$® +$661 See footnotes on the following page. 10 -0- $1,100 -0- $2,400 $ 85 640 $623 $483 (10) (4) $360 $926 $1,635 $382 $926 $1,635 $382 +$713 +$1,635 +$3882 Footnotes! (1) Fees are standard charges based on a 100-unit single-family subdivision on 25 acres. Not included are charges that may be assessed on specific projects as part of development agreements. Complete information was not available for all jurisdictions and responses may not be representative of the region or state. (2) Exclude fees for streetwork in the subdivision. "Road fees" are charged for offsite facilities. (3) Traffic -signal assessment. (4) The 1975 fee amount is not shown since it represents only the standard hook- up fee and the comparable hook-up fee is not available for 1983. The 1983 amount is a capital -improvement charge which did not exist in 1975 and may be considered as the net increase over 1975. (5) Community enrichment library fee, instituted in 1982. (6) 1982 estimate from "1982 Community Development Fee Schedule for Orange County," Orange County Chapter of the Building Industry Association. (7) Currently,offsite roadway improvements may be required if ,critical sections of the circulation system will be significantly affected (more than 1% increase in traffic). The $1,500 to $2,000 amount is an estimate of an alternative fair -share roadway assessment which would be charged to all developments. This assessment is being considered by the City. (8) Property -development tax. (9) Public -facility charge, instituted in 1978. (10) General capital -improvement charge, instituted in 1978. (11) 1975 charges are adjusted to 1983 dollars based on the increase in the Department of Commerce composite cost index. This index increased by 73% from 1975 to 1983. 11 APPENDIX C PLANNING -RELATED FEES Charged to New Single -Family Housing (Excludes Infrastructure Fees) Selected Southern California Jurisdictions 1975 and 1983 Estimated Cost PHousingUnit* Tentative Recorder en. an Zone IR ENVIR. Jurisdiction Map Map Changa Assessment** Anaheim 1975 $ 3.50 $20.00 -- $ 3.50 $ 0.25 1983 13.50 75.00 $ 9.50 9.50 0.50 Bakersfield 1975 $ 1.30 -- $ 2.00 1983 $ 4.05 2.95 $22.50 7.90 Carson 1975 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 1983 10.50 15.00 50.00 Chino 1975 $ 1.00 $ 2.25 $ 1.75 1983 19.25 $14.50 7.25 1.20 Costa Mesa ' 1975 $ 2.25 $25.00 $11.00 1983 2.25 $30.00 25.00 11.00 Fullerton 1975 $ 3.00 $20.00 $ 1.50 $ 3.50 1983 9.00 25.00 4.00 1.00 Glendale 1975 $11.00 $ 1.75 $11.50 $ 1.75 1983 28.50 4.40 28.50 1.00 Long Beach 1975 - $ 2.35 $ 5.25 1983 $56.50 $ 1.00 $ 4.00 10.00 25.00 Los Angeles City 1975 $11.75 $13.00 1983 30.75 44.88 Los Angeles County 1975 $15.90 $12.50 1983 77.72 26.60 Newport Beach 1975 $ 5.00 $ 2.25 $ 3.90 1983 45.00 13.00 100.00 Ontario 1975 $ 7.50 -- $ 2.50 $ 1.75 $ 0.75 1983 12.00 $19.00 13.00 4.00 1.00 Orange City 1975 $ 3.75 $10.25 1983 9.85 17.50 Orange County 1975 $ 3.50 $ 1.25 -- $ 5.00 -- 1983 42.40 41.30 $50.00 20.00 $25.00 Palm Springs 1975 $ 4.00 $ 7.00 1983 50.00 37.50 Rancho Mirage 1975 $ 2.50 $11.00 -- $ 7.00 $10.00 1983 5.00 38.50 $ 5.00 5.00 3.00 *Fees are standard charges based on a 100-unit single-family subdivision on 25 acres. Each housing unit has 1,400 square feet of living space. Complete information was not available for all jurisdictions and responses may not be representative of the region or state. **Excludes costs related to the preparation of EIRs. 12 PLANNING -RELATED FEES (CONT'D) Map Map Amendment Change Assessment** Riverside City 1975 $ 2.50 $11.00 -- $ 7.00 $10.00 1983 17.00 17.00 $12.00 12.00 10.00 Riverside County $ 2.15 1975 $ 3.75 $ 7.00 -- $ 3.05 1983 31.00 20.25 $23.45 15.65 25.00 San Bernardino County 1975 $10.00 $ 3.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.80 1983 39.16 17.00 20.70 11.44 1.45 San Luis Obispo County 1975 $ 7.00 $ 2.00 $10.00 1983 10.05 3.00 7.50 Santa Ana 1975 $ 6.00 -- $ 2.50 $ 3.00 1983 72.50 $ 5.00 5.00 5.00 Santa Barbara County 1975 $ 7.00 $ 6.25 $ 3.25 $ 1.00 1983 7.35 2.00 3.30 3.30 Thousand Oaks 1975 $ 2.00 $ 0.25 1983 12.50 6.00 Torrance 1975 $ 2.50 -- $ 2.10 $ 0.50 1983 9.35 $ 2.90 4.35 0.73 Ventura City 1975 $ 2.50 $ 1.75 $ 5.10 1983 10.00 30.00 7.65 Ventura County 1975 $ 4.25 $ 8.50 $.3.25 1983 80:00 '21.00 Average --Selected Jurisdictions (Not Adjusted for Inflation) 1975 $ 5.30 $ 8.09 $ 7.67 $ 4.01 $ 3.54 1983 27.12 23.69 14.02 10.48 16.66 Average --Restated in 1983 Dollars*** 1975 $ 9.17 $14.00 $13.27 $ 6.94 $ 6.12 1983 27.12 23.69 14.02 10.48 16.66 Average Real Increase (in 1983 Dollars) 1975 to 1983 +$17.95 +$9.69 +$0.75 +$3.54 +$10.54 *See footnote on previous page. **See footnote on previous page. ***1975 charges are adjusted to 1983 dollars based on the increase in the U.S. Department of Commerce composite cost index. This index increased by 73% from 1975 to 1983. 13 hJ12*DQ1"*li�, BUILDING- AND ENGINEERING -RELATED FEES(1) Charged to New Single -Family Hous [�g (Excludes Infrastructure Fees)( 1 Selected Southern California Jurisdictions 1975 and 1983 Estimated Cost Per Housing Unit(3) Jurisdiction Grading, Greet- Work Building Permit Plan Check Electrical Plumbing Mechanical Anaheim 1975 $12.10 $142.00 $142.00 $ 71.00 $41.75 $34.25 $19.00 1983 30.00 350.00 295.00 191.95 57.00 52.00 34.50 Bakersfield 1975 $ 57.54 $121.00 $32.00 $25.00 $13.00 1983 17.00 292.00 42.00 26.00 17.00 Carson 1975 $20.80 $179.00 $143.20 $ 51.00 $ 63.00 $26.00 1983 69.45 744.00 614.56 139.00 153.00 61.00 Costa Mesa 1975 $ 4.48 $114.56 $142.00 $ 71.00 $34.75 $47.62 $21.00 1983 85.00 105.00 378.60 242.45 35.10 36.00 50.25 Fullerton 1975 $111.00 $ 54.00 $33.00 $34.00 $11.00 1983 322.00 207.00 41.00 47.00 17.00 Huntington Beach 1975 $116.50 $ 58.25 $28.00 $25.75 $10.00 1983 292.00 190.00 90.63 73.13 24.44 Irvine 1975 $ 4.48 $172.50 $101.40 $48.43 $22.89 $51.00 1983 25.00 368.00 229.45 39.35 48.00 28.90 Los Angeles City 1975 $23.67 $240.00 $142.50 $121.13 $ 49.00 $ 40.50 $29.00 1983 68.50 331.50 189.40 161.72 124.95 110.16 61.71 Los Angeles County 1975 $ 75.00 $179.00 $143.20 $51.00 $ 63.00 $26.00 1983 199.10 430.50 350.00 70.50 100.50 53.25 Newport Beach 1975 $ 9.20 $ 55.00 $149.00 $ 74.50 $25.00 $20.25 $20.25 1983 177.00 256.00 433.00 281.45 47.90 45.00 29.50 Ontario 1975 $ 4.48 $ 22.10 $145.00 $ 72.50 $25.00 $20.25 $11.00 1983 4.48 175.00 329.41 211.25 50.50 47.00 22.00 Or1975 City $ 7.24 $ 36.00 $132.00 $ 65.00 $26.00 $22.00 $ 8.00 1983 12.13 60.48 31-3.00 203.45 57.00 33.00 12.00 Orangge County 1975 $ 4.48 $114.56 $172.00 $101.40 1983 20.89 204.95 507.50 329.88 Palm Springs 1975 $ 4.11 $ 25.83 $119.00 $ 59.50 $18.50 $23.10 $14.50 1983 8.35 196.20 325.00 211.00 60.00 50.00 30.00 Riverside City 1975 $ 4.48 $ 13.07 $142.00 $ 92.30 $20.50 $21.50 $11.00 1983 21.49 108.75 373.00 349.60 41.00 30.00 14.00 Riverside County $ 4.48 $112.00 $ 56.00 $27.00 $21.50 $14.00 1983 8.76 295.00 191.75 29.25 45.50 19.00 San Bernardino County 1975 $ 4.48 $145.00 $ 72.50 1983 6.48 449.00 150.00 San Luis Obispo Co. 1975 $145.00 $ 72.00 1983 313.00 234.58 Torrance 1975 $ 4.48 $150.00 $152.00 $ 76.00 $24.00 $20.90 $14.00 1983 13.34 207.12 336.00 168.00 61.65 40.35 25.25 Ventura City 5 $ 4.48 $142.00 $ 71.00 $47.62 $47.00 $21.00 1983 20.00 313.00 203.00 47.00 47.00 21.00 Average --Selected Jurisdictions 1975 (Not Adjusted for Inflation) $ 7.83 $ 87.14 $143.02 $ 82.94 $34.27 $32.56 $18.81 1983 38.06 184.26 364.92 248.48 60.81 57.80 30.64 Average --Restated in 1983 Dollars(4) 1975 $13.55 $150.75 $247.42 $143.49 $59.29 $56.33 $32.54 1983 38.06 184.26 364.92 248.48 60.81 57.80 30.64 Average Real Increase (in 1983 Dollars) 1975 to 1983 +$24.51 +$33.51 +$117.50 +$104.99 +$1.52 +$1.47 -$1.90 See footnotes on the following page. 14 Footnotes: (1) Fees are standard charges based on a 100-unit single-family subdivision on 25 acres. Each housing unit has 1,400 square feet of living space. (2) Infrastructure fees, including charges for sewer, water, flood control, and roads outside the subdivision, are tabulated separately. (3) Complete information was not available for all jurisdictions and responses may not be representative of the region or state. (4) 1975 charges are adjusted to 1983 dollars based on the increase in the U.S. Department of Commerce composite cost index. This index increased by 73% from 1975 to 1983. 15 1 CRYSTAL C.1 SIMS LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 2 2700 North Main Street, 11th Floor Santa Ana, California*92701 3 Telephone: (714) 935-8806 4 RONALD L. ROUDA LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES 5 1544 West Sth Street Los Angeles, California 90017 6 Telephone: (213) 381-2131; 385-9691 7 TOBY J. ROTHSCHILD LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LONG BEACH 8 205 East Broadway Long Beach, California 90802 9 Telephone: (213) 434-7421 10 ' GREGORY VEACH (LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO 11 429 Third Avenue Chula Vista, California 90210 121Telephone: (714) 722-1935 13iJONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER RICHARD A. ROTHSCHILD 141WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, INC. I3535 West Sixth Street 15 Los Angeles, California 90020 Telephone: (213) 487-7211 16 Attorneys fo- plaintiffs/Petitioners 17 OLIVE DAVIS, ALFREDO ORTIZ, MARIA ORTIZ, SHARION GARRISON, DOROTHY is !McALEAVEY, ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY (MOUSING CORPORATION 19 RICHARD W. PETHERBRIDGE 2011722 North Broadway Santa Ana, California 92706 21ITelephone; (714) 835-0935 22 Attorney for Plaintiffs/Petitioners FRANK H. BARNES, MARION S. BARNES, 23 JOSEPH P. BOYLE, and ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL 24 ' 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 32-95-85 m x i " 1 2' 3 n • 5 6 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE -STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 10 11 OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARON GARRISON; 12 DOROTHY M. MCALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; 13 JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, 14 a non-profit corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR'HOUSING 15 COUNCIL, a non-profit 16 corporation, ' Plaintiffs/Petitioners, 17 v. 18 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY 19 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 20 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE 21 COMPANY, a corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 22 Defendants/Respondents, 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- CASE NO, 32-95-85 - F, PLAINTI S' RENEWED REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs renew their request that municipal defendants, the City of Newport Beach, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, within thirty (30) days after service of this document, answer the following interrogatories and request for admissions pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030 and 2033. -2 - A x 1 A. Instructions: 2 . 3 1. Reference to Exhibits 1 through'59 is to the 4 exhibits listed in Revised List of Exhibits in Support of Motion' 5 -:or Peremptory Writ of Mandate filed by Petitioners and dated 6 July 12, 1982. 7 t 2. in responding to these interrogatories, you 9 are required to furnish all information that is available to you, 10 including information in the possession of your attorneys, or 11 other persons directly or indirectly employed by -or connected 12 with you or your attorneys, and anyone else acting in your behalf 13 or otherwise subject to your control. ' 14 15 3. In responding to these interrogatories, you 16 must make a diligent search of your records and of other papers 17 and materials in your possession or available to'you or your 18 representatives. If you cannot obtain the records or information 19 to answer these interrogatories, you should explain in your 20 answer the circumstances and what has been and is being done to 21 obtain the information. 22 23 4. If any document is withheld under claim of 24 privilege, so as to aid the Court and the parties hereto to 25 determine the validity of the claim of privilege, furnish a list 26 signed by the persons supervising your,response identifying each 27 document for which the privilege is claimed, together with the 28 following information with respect to each such document: �• x I �A" 1 (a) The identity of the person who signed it 2 or over whose name it was sent.or issued, including his or her, 3 last known business and home address and phone numbers; A 5 (b) The business and home addresses and phone 6 numbers of the person to whom it was directed; 7 8 (c) The nature and substance of the document 9 with sufficient particularity to enable the Court and parties . 10 hereto to identify the document; 11 12 (d) The date of the document; 13 14 (e) The identity of the person who has 15 custody of, or control over, the document and each copy thereof; 16 17 (f) The basis on which any privilege is t8 claimed; 19 20 (g) Whether any non -privileged matter is 21 included in the document; and 22 23 (h) The number of the interrogatory or 24 request for admission to which such -document corresponds. 25 26 B. Definitions: 27 28 1. The term "genuine" as used here in connection , , , x I® J es 1 with a document means to state, without limitation; 2 3 (a) That the writing is genuine as that term 4 is used in Code of Civil Procedure § 2033 and authentic as that 5 term is used in California Evidence Code § 1400; and 6 7 (b), That the writing, in the case of copy, is 8 a true and correct copy of the original. 10 2. The term "person" as used herein includes any 11 individual, firm, corporation, partnership, receiver, joint 12 venture, estate, trust, association, and all other forms of 13 entities, including the parties to this suit and their officers, 14 agents, employees and representatives. 15 1611 3. The term "docwnent" as used herein means any 17 writing. and any other tangible thing in your. custody, possession 18 'or control or known to you, whether printed, recorded-, reproduced 19 by any process, or written or produced by hand, including but not 20 limited to letters, reports, agreements, communications, includ- 21 ing intra-department communications, correspondence, telegrams, 22 maps, memoranda, summaries or records of personal conversations, 23 diaries, minutes or records of meetings, conferences, expressions 24 or statements of policy, lists of persons attending meetings or 25 statements of policy, lists of persons attl:nding meetings or 26 conferences, reports, and/or•summarie{s of interviews, reports, 27 and/or summaries of investigations, opinions or reports of con- 28 sultants, brochures, pamphlets, drafts of any documents, -5- 1 revisions of'drafts of any documents, invoices, receipts and 2 original or preliminary notes. As to each document, any comment 3 or notation appearing on same but not a part of the,original text 4 is to be considered a separate document. 5 6 4. The word "identify" when used herein in connec- 7 tion with a person means'to state: 8 9 (a) The person's full name; 10 11 (b) The person's last known business and home 12 addresses; 13 14 (c) The person's last known business and home 15 telephone numbers. 16 17 S. The word "identity" when used herein in con- 18 nection with a document means to state: 19 20 (a) The date on the document; 21 22 (b) The name and address of each person who 23 prepared the document; 24 25 (c) The identity of the person to whom the 26 document was directed; 27 28 (d) The name, address, and telephone number 11 -6- 1 of the present custodian of'the document; 311 (e) An identifying description of the docu- 4 ment; and 5 6 (f) If you will do so without requiring a 7 motion to produce, attach to your responses to these interroga- 8 tories a true and correct copy of each said writing. 9 10 .6. "Low and moderate income families" shall have 11 the meaning specified in Health and Safety Code Section 50093. 12 13 7. "Affordable" refers to housing costs which do 14 not exceed 25% of a family's gross income as specified in Health 15 and Safety Code Section 50053. 16 17 8. "The City" means and includes the City of 18 Newport Beach, its City Council and Planning Commission, as well 19 as each and every officer, agent, employee or representative of 20 the City, City Council and Planning Commission. 21 22 9. "city's Housing Element" means and includes the 23 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach, 24 adopted by the City on September 28, 1981, by City Resolution 25 No. 11051. 26 27 10. "Each" means each and every. 28 -7- 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 11. "HCD" means and includes the State of Califor- nia Department of Housing and Community Development, and each officer, agent, employee, or representative of HCD. 12. "You" shall include your agents, representa- tives and attorneys. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: /910� That Exhibit 1 is,genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: /P/W!r_ //Z` That Exhibit 2 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION N0. 3: /%,4 �tsR /kf, r C°wy iJ That Exhibit 3 is genuine. 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION N0. 4: t / //.✓r e vC �7 / �N 20 That Exhibit 4 is genuine. 21 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:saL L' 23 That Exhibit 5 is genuine. 24 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: 26 That Exhibit 6 is genuine. 27 28 n -8- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7': That Exhibit 7 is genuine. 3 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: AA'W1 ' 5 That Exhibit 8 is genuine. 6 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: 8 That Exhibit 9 is genuine. 9 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:' 11 That Exhibit 10 is genuine, as to pages 1 through 10 12 of the May 16, 1979, Minutes of the Newport Beach Planning 13 Commission. 14 15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: ` 16 That Exhibit 11 is genuine, as to Volume 33, pages 17 188 to 194, of the Minutes of the Newport Beach City Council. 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: / 20 That Exhibit 12 is genuine, as to pages 1 through 14 21 of the August 16, 1979, Minutes of the Newport Beach Planning 22 Commission. 23 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: G f✓� 7Lgf �' • �,� f lwtw ' 25 That Exhibit 13 is genuine, as to Volume 33, pages 26 '229 to 232, of the Minutes of the Newport Beach City Council. 27 28 -9- . II, a 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: y 2• That Exhibit 14 is genuine, as to the pages included 3 in that exhibit. 4 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: 6 That on or about June 24, 1977, the City submitted an 7 application for Community Development Block Grant funds to the 8 Department of Housing and Urban Development. 9 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: 11 That Exhibit 15 is genuine. W 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:d°"� 14 That Exhibit 15 was prepared by the City. 15 '�GD 'lcv;aw q i9fy/-64 A 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:�� 171 That Exhibit 17 is genuine. if;? 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:�v� 20 That Exhibit 17 was received by Robert L. Wynn on 21 or about September 17, 1980. 22 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: /f 11/- 24 That Exhibit 17 was sent or delivered to members of 25 the City of Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission 26 in September or October, 1980. 27 28 -10- 0 lI 2 W } .... r-0 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: - That Exhibit 18 is genuine. /fr/ %/•£ 3 e 4e ;.! 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: 5 That Exhibit 18 was received by Robert Wynn on or 6 about August 23, 1981. •7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23:/4 9 That Exhibit 18 was sent or delivered to members of 10 the City of Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission 11 in'August or September,•1981. 12 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: �ra� - /�U/J /.U.� � ��� /lam=•�" 14 That Exhibit 22 is genuiiie. 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: 17 That Exhibit 22 was received by Robert Wynn on or 18 about June 17, 1977. 19 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26:wle 21 That Exhibit 23 is genuine. G �� 'eYA 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: #41,11 24 That Exhibit 23 was received by Robert Wynn on or 25 about March 22, 1978. 26 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. / 28: Del/'etl/ 28 That Exhibit 24 is genuine. -11- 1 3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: That Exhibit 25 is genuine. G44: �- 7-le- 4 &� A4�1 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: 5 That Exhibit 25 was received by the City on or about 6 September 11, 1979. 7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: 9 That Exhibit 25 was sent or delivered to each member 10 of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission in September '11 or October, 1979.�� 12 1311 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: 14 That Exhibit 26 is genuifte. 15 7Tt 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: 17 That Exhibit 26 was received by the City on or about 18 September 19, 1981. 4444:1- W] 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: 21 That Exhibit 26 was sent or delivered to members of 22 the City Council of the City of Newport Beach prior to Septem- 23 ber 28, 1981. afl" 24 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: 26 That Exhibit 29 is genuine. 27 28 -12- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: That Exhibit 29 was sent or delivered to members of the City Council of the City of Newpor,t.Beach prior to March 8, 1982. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: That Exhibit 30.is a true and correct copy of the Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, adopted by the City Council on May 29, 1973, as amended through General Plan'Amendment 80-1, adopted March 24, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: That Exhibit 32 is genuine. -/�`� " f I•� � /i!J " /FL��iLf�f '-6�/..GL /i�'D �a i-C REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: n,k ff 31 ��, n' That Exhibit 33, as corrected in the Request for'Taking Judicial Notice dated Maw 1982, is genuine as to Volume 36, pages 96 through 102, of the Minutes of the City Council of the oc�City of Newport Beach. , � REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: ��- That Exhibit 34 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: 111 � That Exhibit 35 is genuine.. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: /� „r/� •r That Exhibit 36 is genuine, -13- 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: i 2 That Exhibit 37 is genuine. 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44:/1ja0,/C�- 5 That the only amrndannts to the Land Use Elem nt adopted by the 6 City since the adoption of General Plan Amendment 80-1 have been ,7 General Plan Amendment 80-2, adopted September 22, 1980, and 8 contained in Exhibit 32, and General Plan Amendment 81-1, adopted 9 March 12, 1982, and contained in Exhibit 36. 10 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: 12 That Exhibit 38 is genuine. 13 1411 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: 15 That Exhibit 38 was prepared pursuant to an agreement 16 or contract with the City. 17 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: �/09, 19 That the City. Council of the City of Newport Beach 2011 approved the preparation of Exhibit 38. 21 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48:4/� 23 That Exhibit 38 was sent to or delivered to each of 2411 the members of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. 25 2611 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: 27 That Exhibit 40 is genuine. 28 �� - - - S��j� r�szr.L -14- 1 REQT-EST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: That Exhibit 40. was sent or delivered to each member 3 of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach prior to 4 ; anuary 9, 1978. / 6REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51:� 7 That Exhibit 41 is genuine. S /eel r.G a • 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52. 10 That Exhibit 41 was sent or delivered to each member '11 of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach on or about 12 October 16, 1978. 13 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: 15 That the City of Newport Beach participated in the 16 Community Development Block Grant Program for the years 1975 17 through 1977. 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Dp M 20 That the City of Newport Beach has not participated 21 in the Community Development Block Grant Program from 1978 to 22 present. /y 23 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: 25 That the letter from Herbert L. Roberts to Mayor Paul 26 Ryckoff, dated September 18, 1978, was sent or delivered to each 27 member of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach on or 28 before October 10, 1978. . 1 , f 1,11 REQUEST. FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: 2 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach 3 voted not to participate in the Community Development Block 4 Grant Program for 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981. �( 5 6II REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57:Acl`� 7 3hat the City received Exhibit 4s;�exeluding the letter from 811 John H. Gibson to Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, in February or March, 911 1982. 10 11) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: X4"Y- 12 That the City of Newport Beach has not signed a 1311 cooperative agreement with the County of Orange in connection 1411 with the mortgage revenue bond issue referred to in Exhibit 43. 15 16II REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59: //�/� 17 That Exhibit 43, excluding the letter. from John H. 1811 Gibson to Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, is genuine. 19 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: ' /.r,11,11,� �N` � �r /1:ar. c'' 21 That Exhibit 4 is genuine as to items 2 and 3 �A22 referred to in the letter from Mark Pizano to the Planning 23 .. ommissioner �ated October 8, 1981. 24 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61: 26 That Exhibit 45 is genuim c. 27 26 -16- J_ I k 1 REQUEST,FOR ADMISSION NO. 62: 2 That the City of Newport Beach received Exhibits 44 and 3 45 in October, 1981. �f 4 Vj 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63 : 6 That Exhibit 48 which is attached to Request for Taking 7 Judicial Notice, dated May 7, 1982, is genuine. 8 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: 10 That Exhibit 54 is genuine as to the excerpts contained 11 • therein. 12 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65: 14 That Exhibit 55 is genuine as to Volume 35, pages 119 15 to 126 and 298 to 302, of the Minutes of the City Council of the 16 City of Newport Beach. 17 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66: 1� 19 That Exhibit 56 is genuine as to excerpts contained 20 therein. 21 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 67: { 23 That Exhibit 57 is genuine.- A, 24 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 68: 26 That Exhibit 60 is genuine as to Volume 36, pages 175 27 to 177, of the Minutes of the City Council of the City of Newport 28 Beach. ' .17- 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2B �j REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.-69: That the City of Newport Beach received on or about April 13, 1981, the letter from Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Heather.. dated April 61 1981, together with all of the attachments contained.as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April 5,.1982, and submitted by peti- tioners in this case. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 70: That the letter by Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Heather, dated April 6, 1981, and the.attachments, referred to in the previous Request for Admissions, is genuine. j'I /"4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71: That the memorandum from City Manager to Mayor and City Council dated April 27, 1981, and attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Eugene Scorio, dated April. 5, 1982, is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72: eCcrvl1,.� That the letter from Bill McCue to Mayor Marlene M. Dostil, dated July 26, 1977, and attached ,as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Eugene Soorio, dated April 5, 1982, is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73: &. % That the letter from Robert L. Wynn to Bill McCue, dated August 41 1977, and attached as Exhibit E to the Declara- tion of Eugene Scorio, dated April 5, 1982, is genuine. -18- L Y • ' I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74: 2 That the memorandum from the Fair Housing Council to 3 City of Newport Beach, dated November.91 1977; and attached as 4 Exibit F to the Declaration of Eugene Scorio, dated April 5, 1982, is genuine., 5 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 75: 7 That Exhibit F attached to the Declaration of Eugene 8 Scorio, dated April 5, 1982, was received by the City of Newport 9 Beach in November, 1977. &4"A a�-� 10 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76: 12 The City Council of the City of Newport Beach did not 13 approve a request by the Fair Housing Council for $586.00 to 14 support the Fair Housing Forum, as that request is contained in 15 Exhibit F to the Declaration of Eugene Scorio, dated April 5, 16 1982. 17 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77: 19 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach 20 has never approved membership by the City of Newport Beach in 21 the Orange County Fair Housing Council. 22 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78: 24 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach 26 has never adopted a resolution commending the Orange County 26 Fair Housing Council. 27 28 CiA,.�Qinr7C :k'Z^us�.�_rl.+aed. ...,...r..•., —19— 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79: 2 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has 311 never entered into a contract with the Orange County Fair Housing 411 Council for services_ performed by the Orange County Fair Housing 5 Council, d�J r� C,✓ •Ka /""` 7 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80: � That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has 911 never appropriated any money to the Orange County Fair Housing 1011 council 11 12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81: 13 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach did 14 not make any appropriation of money to the Orange County Fair 15 Housing Council in response to the letter of April 6, 1981, from 16 Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Heather, attached to 17 the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April 5, 1982. 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. '82: Q'/. xU .yr.. 20 That the Orange County Fair Housing Council provides 21 counseling, conciliation and mediation services for dealing with 22 racial discrimination complaints concerning housing in the 23 County of Orange. 24 / 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83: 26 That the City of Newport Beach has no factual basis 27 for disputing the figures contained in Exhibit 8 to the April 6, 2811 1981, letter from Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline -20- Heather, attached to the Declaration of Eugene R April. 5, 1982. Scorio dated 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 84: 0/6 "1'?'V4 5 That the City of Newport Beach Ooes not provide the 6 services that the Orange County Fair Housing Council has been 7 rendering to the residents of the City. 8 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 85: ��.`/•f� '/tt"� eta« "'" / ..- 10 That the Orange County Fair Housing Council provides 11 the services listed on Exhibit 9 of the April 6, 1981, letter 12 from Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Heather 13 attached to the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April 5, 14 1982. 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 86: 17 That the provision by the City of Newport Beach of 18 services comparable to those being provided by the Orange County 19 Fair Housing Council to residents of the City of Newport Beach, 20 as itemized on Exhibit 8 to the April 6, 1981, letter from 21 Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Heather, attached 22 to the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April 5, 1982, 23 would cost the City of Newport Beach in excess of $20,000 per 24 year. 25 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 87: 27 That the provision by the City of Newport Beach of 28 1 services comparable to those being provided by the Orange County 1 Fair Housing Council to residents of the City of Newport Beach, 2 as itemized on Exhibit 8 to the April 6, 1981, letter from 3• Eugene R.,Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Heather, attached 4 to..the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April 5, 19821, 5 would cost the City of Newport Beach in excess of $100,000 per 6 II year. 7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 88: k�✓ 9 That the 3-5% residential impact fee on commercial 10 building permit fees, as proposed in the City's Housing Element, 11 page 108, would generate $4.3 to $72'on a commercial structure 12 valued at $500,000, or $155 to $239 on a commercial structure 13 valued at $2,000,000. �! " v& 14 15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION ON. 89!� �)�7 16 That the allowable densities of development on all 17 undeveloped sites in the City, excluding Newport Center, and 18 the Beeco Property, are four dwelling units per acre. 19 20• REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90:�'p�� 21 That Newport Center contains the only site in the City which is presently permitted to be developed at residential 23 II densities in excess of 12 dwelling units per acre. W, 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 91:f"� 26 That the City has more than•297 acres of undeveloped 27 land in the City. 28 -22- 1 II REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 92: / 2 That the 297 acres of non -committed rindevelo ed land p 3 11 cited at page 116 of the Housing Element, refers to land currently designated 4 for residential use by the City's land use regulations, and does not include 5 I remaining undeveloped land which is designated for other than 6 residential uses by the City's land use regulations. 7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93A: "Ie4� 9 That the site numbers listed on pages 49 and 50 10 of the City's Housing Element correspond to the site numbers•, ,__ 11 1 and parcel names attached hereto as Exhibit 66, which is a 12 11 copy of the document of the City of Newpo)_t Beach entitled 1311 Undeveloped Parcels, September 1980. 14 15 I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93B: W 16 That Exhibit 66, attached hereto is genuine. 17 18 REQUESTS FOR AD14ISSIONS NOS. 94 to NO. 134 refer to the site 19 numbers in Exhibit 66, attached hereto. 20 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 94:4g1Y 22 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 23 built on Site No. 1 under the current Land Use Element is 40. 24 �'�' " 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 95: J 26 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 27 W; built on Site No. 1 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 348 dwelling units. 23. 1 "'7 2 i REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 96:L#� That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 3 built on Site No.,l immediately prior to the -adoption of 4 General Plan Amendment No. 78-2 was 426 dwelling units. 5 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 97P,1�2 CS ` . 7 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 8 built on Site No. 2 under the current Land Use Element is 9 24 dwelling units which are transferred as a credit to Site 10 No. 26. ( ' 11 12 I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 98:001/00s✓�' 13 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 14 built on Site No. 2 immediately prior to the adoption of 15 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 42 dwelling units. 16 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 99:1OD -tSL 18 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 19 built on Site No. 2 immediately prior to the adoption of 20 General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 84 dwelling units. 21 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 100:�% 23 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 24 built on Site No. 3 under the current Land Use Element is 25 212 dwelling units. 26�or�Q� Ivy, 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 101: '/✓�� 92 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 1 • ' 1 , built on Site No. 3 immediately prior to the adoption of 2 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 440 dwelling units. 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 102: 5 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 6 built on Site No. 3 immediately prior to the adoption of 7 General Plan Amendment•78-2 was ,114—dwelling units. 8 9 REQUEST -FOR ADMISSION NO. 103:�/Y` vL c ✓1� C� 10 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 7 11 built on Site No. 4 under the current Land Use Element is J 12 80 dwelling units. 13 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 104:13 W-" 15 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 16 built on Site No. 4 immediately prior to the adoption of 17 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 160 dwelling units. 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 105:81� 20 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 21 built on Site No. 4 immediately prior to the adoption of 22 General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 338 dwelling units. 23 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 106: 25 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 26 built on Site No. 5 under the current nand Use Element is 27 151 dwelling units. h 28 �_, 'n��W)r�� -25- a, F. '"' 7/ 14 -1REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 107: 5 6 7 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 5 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 325 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 108: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 8 built on Site No. 5 immediately prior to the adoption of 9 General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 320 dwelling units. . II t 1110 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 109: 3.2 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 13 built on Site No. 6 under the current Land Use Element is 14 108 dwelling units. 7 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.10: � 17 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 3.811 built on Site No. 6 immediately prior to the adoption of 19 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 198 dwelling units. 20 2 3 �� Yn►� rn+a A1k . 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. ].11: < 22 That the number of units allowed to be built on 23 Site No. 8 under the current Land Use Element is 76 dwelling 29 units.�� (�+" 25 26 �(hG REQUEST FOR ADMISSION N0. 112: 27 That the nuncr of dwelling units allowed to be 28 built on Site Nb. 8 immediately prior to the adoption of General -26- Plan Amendment 79-1 was 100 dwelling units. 2 3. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 4 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 5 built on Site No. 8 immediately prior to the adoption of 6 General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 290 dwelling units. 7 , 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 114:� 9 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 10 built on Site No. 9 under the cu Land Use Element is 11 68 dwelling units. 12 v 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 115: 14 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 15 built on Site No. 9 immediately prior to the adoption of 16 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 140 dwelling units. 17 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO,. 116:✓n,_ 19 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 20 built on Site No. 9 immediately prior to the adoption of 21 General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 147,dwelling units. 22 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 117: 24 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 25 built on Site No. 12 under the current Land Use Element is 26 406 dwelling units. 27 28 -27- 1 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 118: J / 2 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 3 built on Site No. 12 immediately prior to the adoption of 4 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 900 dwelling units. 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 119:(/�� 7 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 8 built on Site No. 13 under the current Land Use Element is 9 300 dwelling units. a �e✓� 10"'� 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 120:� 12 That on May 16, 1979, the P1_ar}ning Commissibn of 13 the City of Newport Beach approved he development of 610 14 dwelling units on Site No. 13. 15 1G REOUEST.FOR ADMISSION NO. 121: 17 That on May 16, 1979, the Planjoing Commission of x8 r the City of Newport Beach(approveP the development of 610 x� dwelling units on Site No. 13,,of which 132 dwelling units 20 err• -yam were equire to be rental as opposed to ownership units. 2x 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 122: 23 That on July the City Council of the 24 City of Newport Beach disapproved the development of 450 . 25 dwelling units on Site No. 13. 26 „ 27 28 -28- 4� N 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 127: V r 2 That Site No. 15 was designated as Recreational 3 and Marine Commercial immediately prior to the adoption of 4 General Plan Amendment 78-2. pvaIvt 5 .31 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 128: v 7 1 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 8 8 10 11 ,' 12 built on Site No. 16 under the current Land Use Element is 0. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION N0: 129: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 13 built on Site No. 16 immediately prior to the adoption of 14 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 145 dwelling units. ja7 15 OL.,+ Dv -IA 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 130: Iv/ 17 That the number of dwelling units all -.)wed to be 18 built on Site No. 22 under the current Land Usc: Element is 19 120 dwelling units. IP14, ' 20 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 131:(/ 22 That the number of -dwelling units allowed to be 23 built on Site No. 26 under the currant Land Use Element is 24 505 dwelling units, of which 121 dwelling units are credited 25 from Site No. 1 and 24 dwelling units are credited from 26 Site No. 2•. 27 -30- 1a A i, a REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 132: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 3• built on Site No. 26 immediately prior to the adoption of 4 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 339 dwelling units. 1j 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 133: v 7 I . That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 8 built on Site No. 26 as a result of the adoption of General 9 Plan Amendment 78-2 was 538 dwelling units.,iL 10 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 134: 12 That on October 19, 1978, the Planning Commission 13 II of the City of Newport Beach recommended to the City Council of 14 the City of Newport Beach that the number of dwelling units 15 allowed to be built on Site No. 26-be 800 dwelling units. 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 135: 18 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach 19 has never approved for placement on a municipal ballot the 21 II approval of a low rent housing project under Article Y.XXIV of the California Constitution.,�,ti� 22 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 136: 24 That Exhibit 67 attached hereto is genuine. 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 137: 27 That the funds available to the City of Newport 28 II Beach under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, a31- 1 2 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 as amended, can be used by the City for subsidizing the cost of land on housing to be occupied by low and moderate income persons. Q1j�' ';�7 /:. Io P REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 138: v That only one housing project under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 has been approved for development in the City of Newport Beach. 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 139: That the Section 8 housing project referred to in the previous request for admission was a project sponsored by the Lutheran Church of the Master and was a project 4fo'r housing low and moderate income senior citizens. A4r- � If you fail to comply with the provisions of Section 2033 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to this Request for Admissions, each of the matters of which an admission is requested will be deemed admitted. 32. 2' 3i 41 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 , and, (c) Identify, as that term is used in Definition No. 4 above, all persons possessing knowledge of facts relevant to your answer to sub -part (a) of this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO'. 2: Has the City'of Newport Beach entered into any agreement with the Orange County Housing Authority regarding the implementation of Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 within the City of Newport Beach. /1/ ,9 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2 is anything but an unqualified no, then state the following: 1. Identify any documents which embody such an agreement. 2.. State whether such an agreement applies to existing housing, or to newly constructed housing, or to both. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Has the City of Newport Beach supported in any way the Minority Bank Deposit Program which is administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. %✓,2 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 4 is anything but an unqualified no, please state: 1. Identify any documents which embody such support. -33- 2. State any actions taken by the City in support 2 of the Minority Bank Deposit Program. 3 4 'INTERROGATORY N . 6: 5 Has the City of Newport Beach undertaken any 6 affirmative efforts to utilize minority businesses in any 7 work contracted by the -City. 8 9 INTERROGATORY N . 7: 10 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is anything 11 but an unqualified no, please state the following: 12 1. Identify any documents which embody the 13 affirmative actions. 14 2. State the nature of such affirmative action. •15 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 17 Identify all actions taken by the -City of Newport 18 Beach within the past ten years to promote housing opportunities 19 for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital 20 status, ancestry, national origin, or color. 21 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 23 Identify any elected officials of the City of 24 Newport Beach who knew prior. to September 28, 1981 that some 25 of the residential housing in the City is. built on land leased 26 from The Irvine Company. 27 28 -34- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I` 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P6 27 28 XNTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify the elected officials of the City of Newport Beach who knew prior to September 28, 1981 that lease payments on residential land owned by The Irvine Company and leased to residents of the City would increase in the next five years. 'ham INTERROGATORY NO. 11: As to each of the officials identified in Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 10, state the following: 1. Identify the•bases or sources for their information. 2. Identify the nature of such information known to each of them.prior to September 28, 1981. 3. Identify the approximate date or dates on which such information was acquired. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify whether any of the following of the City employees, or categories of City employees knew prior to September 28, 1981 that some of the residential housing in the City was built on land leased from The Irvine Company: 1. The City Manager. 2. The Planning Director. 3. Any of the non -clerical. and non -secretarial staff•of the Planning Department of the•City. -35- M r 1 2 3� 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify whether any of the City employees listed in Interrogatory No. 12 knew prior to September 28, 1981 that lease payments on residential land owned by The Irvine Company and leased'to residents of the City would increase in.the next five years. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: As to each of the employees of the City identified in Interrogatories 12 and 13, state the following: 1. Identify such employee by name -and position. 2. Identify the bases or sources for their information. 3. Identify the nature of such information known to each of them prior to September 28, 1981. 4. Identify the approximate date or dates on which such information was acquired. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Has the City ever supported an application by the Southern California Association of Government to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Bonus Units under the Area Wide Supplemental Section 8 Housing Program. 7Pii INTERROGATORY NO. 1G: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 15 is anything but an unqualified no, please state the following: 1. Identify any documents which embody the city's -36.. j support. 2 2. Identify any other means by which the City 3. contends it has supported the actions specified in Interrogatory 4 No. 15. 5 • B INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 7 State each fact and identify each document 8 which you contend supports the City's adoption of Resolution 9 No.. 8630, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 26, adopted 10 November 10, 1975. 11 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 13 State each fact and identify each document 14 which the City contends supports its adoption of Resolution 15 No. 9485, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 78-21 adopted 16 December 20, 1978, in regard to the following sites enumerated 17 in Exhibit 66, attached hereto: 18 1. Site No. 1, Westbay. 19 2. Site No. 21 Eastbluff Remanent. 20 3. Site No. 3, Newporter North. 21 4. Site No. 4, Big Canyon (Area 10). 22 5. Site No. 8, Freeway Reservation East. 23 6. Site No. 9, Baywood Expansion. 24 7. Site No. 15, Bayview Landing. 25 8. Site No. 26, Newport Center. 26 27 INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 28 State each fact and identify each document which -37- 3 the City contends supports its adoption of Resolution No. 9689, 2 adopting General Plan Amendment 79-11 adopted December 10, 1979, 3 as to each of the following sites, as enumerated in Exhibit 66, 4 attached hereto: 6 1. Site No. 11 Westbay. 6 2. Site No. 2, Eastbluff Remanent. 7 3. Site No: 3, Newporter North. 8 4. Site No. 4, Big Canyon (Area 10). g 5. Site No. 5, Castaways. 10 6. Site No. 6, Fifth Avenue Corridor Parcels, 11 also known as Fifth Avenue Parcels. 12 7. Site No. 9, Baywood Expansion. 13 8. Site No. 12, Beeco Property. 14 9. Site No. 13, Aeronutronic Ford. 15 10. Site No. 15, Bayview Landing. 16 11. Site No. 16, Mouth of Big Canyon. 17 12. Site No. 22, North Ford. 18 13. Site No. 26, Newport Center. 19 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 21 State each fact and identify each document which 22 the City contends supports the disapproval by the City Council 23 of the City on July 10, 1979, of the development of 450 24 dwelling units on Site No. 13 as identified on Exhibit 66, 25 attached hereto. 26 .. 27 INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 28 State each fact and identify each document which -38- 1 the City contends supports the failure.o£ the City Council 2 of the City to approve the development of 610 dwelling units on Site No. 13, as recommended by the Planning Commission 4 of the City on May 16, 1979. Site No. 13 is the Aeronutronic g Ford Site as identified on Exhibit 66, attached hereto. 6 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 8 State each fact and identify each document which 9 the City contends supports its failure to approve the development 10 on Site No. 131as recommended by the Planning Commission 11 on August 16, 1979. Site No. 13 is identified on Exhibit 66, 12 attached hereto. 13 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 23 15 State each fact and identify each document which 16 the City contends supports the action by the City Council of 17 the City on August 27, 1979, approving the development on 18 Site No. 13 of 300 dwelling units without any requirements 19 as to dwelling units affordable to either low or moderate 20 income families. Site No. 13 is identified on Exhibit 66, 21 attached hereto. 22 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 24 State each fact and identify each document which 25 the City contends supports its failure to apply for community 26 development block grant funds from the'Department of Housing 27 and Urban Development for -the federal fiscal years 1978, 1979, 28 1980, and 1981. ..�9_ J.. .S n u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 25: State each fact and identify each document which the City contends supports the failure by the City Council of the City to do any of the following in relation to the Orange County Fair Housing Council: 1. Approve membership by the City in the Orange County Fair housing Council. 2. Adopt any resolution commending the Orange County Fair Housing Council. 3. Contribute any money to the Orange County Fair Housing Council. Vw MW"n^n%Mnnv "^ 116. State each fact and identify each document which the City contends supports the failure by the City Council of the City to approve the signing of a cooperative agreement between the City and the County of Orange in. connection with the mortgage revenue bond issue referred to in Exhibit 43. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: State each fact and identify each document which the City contends supports the failure of the City Council of the City to approve for placement on a municipal ballot the approval of a.low rent housing project under Article XXXIV of the California Constitution. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Identify the precise meaning of the word committed .40- 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for each of the parcels as to which.it is used on pages 124 and 125 of the Housing Element, and in particular specify whether it means that a tentative or final subdivision map has been approved for that parcel or whether any other development approvals have been made for that parcel. INTERROGATORY NO 29: cam/ As to the parcels identified in Interrogatory No. 28 identify the particular use to which such parcel has been committed and identify any document which supports the City's contention that such parcel is committed to such use. INTERROGATORY NO 30: Has the City prepared or contracted for the prepara- tion of any study or document which amends or modifies the study embodied in Exhibit 38. If so, please identify each such document. DATED: September 10, 1982 41. IndeavNo Y I 4& _ (J" UNDEVELOPED PARCELS Site Number Parcel 1. Westbay 2. Eastbluff Remnant '3. Newporter North 4•. Big Canyon Area 10 5. Castaways 6. Fifth Avenue'Corridor Parcels 7.' Freeway Reservation West 8. Freeway Reservation East 9. Baywood Expansion 10. Caltrans West 11. Caltrans East 12. Beeco 13. Aeronutronic Ford 14. Harbor Point 15. Bayview Landing 16. ' Mouth of Big Canyon 17. Koll Center 18. Emkay--Newport Place 19. Jamboree and MacArthur 20. San Diego Creek North 21. San Diego Creek South 22. North Ford. 23.. Newport Dunes 24. Buck Gully 75. Dean Property 26. Newport Center 27. North Bay (unincorporated) 28. Irvine Coastal Area (unincorporated) 29. Beeco (unincorporated) �` •-� - - t :�� Via• fi� -� ' /18 = i-V In ..i :. � T/ �f/ �•r L_/% � 1 7 few r 21 �c ./r �•y�\��.�� `�`1(.On ifjt4,4^-s�%''c"'-=tir1 f.�IL�. �.• \� ,\ ,./`�.i tilr', 1. � �1 \�E ,. F Sty.\ �'^.`:r`-�_ �-`t�'S'-�'--.' '�.r- ,`e •-•�, 3.. t.—: ��`" • �' , ;' �=� .a ! + •� / J0.,1 �-'i � .w •''�•.^`_ ��C�_"� r: Csti✓-'' r � : t.l 1/ r `\` .•/�r �1I�`_ .' �-� ,may',', i r �)�-�.. .qa+, �-Clt� �l•5�,.�i^1—�-. �^ ` �1 ,�'7 •t .S/w'.i�' _ - � �' tti�Y :! till• �• ��{'4.,,/�.• ate'+,, •� H•:. �.1;._,.r ..,�< , `Y. 7 �T'ir( ,..%.. i .. a'. Tt.Y� /, yr� C .; ` "' u`_ p 3'5 i •. .1., . 10, �.`:`Ldiy'1G -'+=`•-•-;'�ij �• �- 'i�u Viii t9 q�t...f i-...• l., l:Fx LSill'r1 __ ;.!.i\(.�y\:s- °V�� \i�-'j• I 1i11""-.�-� _ .,,_,;��•\'..y4't;.. �..1".,,1. t• i,,, �. .,<,`_-\.r;,- -�._ Y,v�� - i 11i1i:.,t:L'Ilf:jla.'��\ �Zr �..•Y?�'�✓�, �J.{PtC.M+:i^I:.Y'caw'�Gr-,I1�'ir.=�' etn oe "E Po T ama -� d__ _ SITE #I WESTBAY 1. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential/Density Transfer Area 2. Existing Zoning:• .Planned Community (No development plan adopted) 3. Site Area: 71. Acres. 4. Allowable Uses: Low Density Residential at 4 DU's per buildable acre with 75% of the units to be transferred to Newport Center. It is estimated that 161 units could be built as follows: a) On -Site 40 DU's b) Off -Site 121 DU's The site also includes a 6.4 acre County - owned parcel at the southern end and a 6.0 acre City park near the e.xtension of Monte Vista, dedicated as a part of the Sea - Island �N�v Condominium Project. There is a ten -foot wide relocatable pedestrian and bike easement along the bluff top with access from Irvine Avenue and University Drive. urem NEWforr o'Y •5. Timi.ng: No immediate plans for development. r I cz ar sT. SITE #2 EASTBLUFF REMNANT 1. General.Plan Designation: Low Density Residential/Density Transfer Area 2. Existing Zoning: R-3-B 3. Site Area:• 8 Acres 4. Allowable 'Uses: Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses would be allowed on this site, with alI- development rights transferred to Newport Center. It is estimated that 24 units could be built as follows: On -Site 0 DU's Off -Site 24 DU's 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. urrrR Nrwrorcr MY J7 SITE #3 NEWPORTER NORTH 1., General Plan Designation: Low -Density Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned'Community (P-C) 3. Site Area: 88 Acres 14. Allowable Uses: Low -density residential development at 4 DU's per buildable acre with 25% of the allowable units transferable to either Newport Center or North Ford at the option of the property owner. Additionally, the structures shall be clustered to accommodate archaeological sites and marsh sites. It is estimated that approximately 212 DU's could be built. 5, Timing: No immediate plans for development. SITE #4 BIG'CANYON - AREA 10 1. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 80 dwelling units. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community - with 'adopted P-C Development Text. 3. Site Area: 15 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Medium Density Residential uses with a maximum of 80 dwelling 'units. 5. Timing: Planning Commission public hearings scheduled for Fall 1980. Possible construction by Spring 1981. SITE #5 1. General Plan Designation: CASTAWAYS The northerly 60 acres of the site is designated for "Low Density Residential" at 4 DU's per build- able acre. The southerly 5 acres of the site is designated for "Recreation and Marine Commercial Uses" with the exception of hotels and motels. 2. •Existing Zoning: Planned Community (no adopted P-C Text) 3. 'Site Area: 65 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Low Density Residential development at 4 DU's per buildable acre. •It is estimated that 151 dwelling units could be built. A ten foot by 50 foot relocatable pedestrian and bike trail easement has been•granted on the site. The trail is located along the bluff top from Polaris Drive to a point fifty feet to the south. Recreation and marine Commercial uses (exclusing Hotels and Motels) on i 5 acres. It is estimated that f 40,000 sq. ft. of develop- ment will occur. 5. Timing: Applications are being pro- cessed and construction coul< begin in 1981. WY I ,� SITE #6 5th AVENUE PARCELS 1. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential at 4 DU's per buildable acre. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community and R-1-B 3. Site Area: 35 Acres 4. Allowable Uses Low Density Residential uses.. At 4 DU's per buildable acre, approximately 108 dwelling units.would be allowed. 5. Timing:' No immediate plans for development. SITE 1/7 ' FREEWAY RESERVATION -WEST 1. General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - No development text 3. Site Area: 10 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: The Land Use Element allocates an additional 100 units to Dig Canyon which could be al- located to this site, subject to a P-G text and L/U Map Amendment. 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. HwY I 0 SITE B8 i FREEWAY RESERVATJON-'EAST 1. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential with a • maximum of 4 DU's per buildable acre. 2. Existing Zoning: P-C 3. Site Area: 25 Acres. 4. Allowable Uses: Residential with a maximum of 4 DU's per buildable acre. It is estimated that 76 DU's could be built on this site. 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. SITE #9 i BAYWOOD EXPANSION 1. General' Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 68 dwelling units. 2'. Existing Zoning: Planned Community 3.• Site Area: 9 Acrbs -4. Allowable Uses: Residential with a maximum of 68 dwelling units. 5. Timing: Spring 1981 construction. SITE 110 CALTRANS WEST 1'. Genera) Plan Designation: Recreational apd Environmental Open Space 2. Existing Zoning: Open Space :.. 3. Site Area: 17 Acres -4, Allowable•Uses: Open,Space Uses. 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. SITE 411 CALTRANS EAST 1. Genera's Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified 3. Site Area: 22 Acres -4. •Allowable Uses:. Parking, public recreational and visual - environmental purposes. 5. Timing: Hoag Hospital is negotiating with the State to purchase this parcel for expansion of hospital facilities. If the purchase occurs, it is antirinatarl that tha LIE SITE #12 BEEN 1. General'Plan Designation: Low Density Residential/Specific Area Plan. 2. Existing Zoning: P-C 3. Site Area: 50 Acres 4. •Allowable Uses: Residential at 4 DU's per buildable acre. It is estimated that 150 dwelling units could be built on the 'site. 5. Timing: The property owner is considering a request to change the designation of this site to allow for a mixture of Industrial and Office Uses. there are no immediate plans SITE' #13 AERONUTRONIC FORD 1. General Plan Designation: General Industry, Administrative, Professional and Financial Com- mercial, and Residential 2. Existing Zoning: P-C 3. Site Area: 102 Acres (Undeveloped) 4. Allowable•Uses: Additional development is limited to: Office and Industrial 360,000 Residential 300 units 5. Timing: Residential 300 Units 1981 Office and Industrial 64,000 sq.ft. '1981. 123,000 sq.ft. 1983 123,000 sq.ft. 1986 25,000 sq.ft. 1990 ®� 25,000 sq.ft. 1992 •gym 015oN �aaapa w aaata�a�aaaaaaaa r DI r r ' • � r r y r ♦ 11�ti. M ♦ J // ' ✓���Y aa"aa�rmuuuaaa Folio RD. SITE #14 HARBOR POINT 1. Gbneral Plan Designation: Low -Density Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: R-1-B 3. Site Area: 10.6 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Low -Density Residential 5. Timing: The City is currently processing a Final Tract Map for twenty-one lots. Construction should begin in the spring of 1981. 0 Aak SITE N15 BAYVIEW LANDING 1. General Plan Designation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential. 2.' Existing Zoning:. Unclassified (U) 3, Site Area: 19 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Recreation and Environmental Open Space for public recreation uses with a view park and bike path on upper portion and R-V camping on the lower portion, or similar recreational uses of no greater intensity. As an alternate. use, Low Density Residential development at a maximum of 4 DU's per buildable acre may be located on the lower portion.of the site only to preserve existing public views. 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. MC.IFIO eoAST SITE #16 MOUTH OF BIG CANYON n 1. General Plan Designation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) 3. Site'Area: 48.5 Acres 4.' Allowable Uses: Open Space. Two relocatable ten -foot wide pedestrian and bike trail easements have been granted on this site. One trail is an the north side of the site, the other on the south side; both trails extend from Jamboree Road to Back Bay Drive. 5. Timing No plan for site improvement is being considered. SITE #17 KOLL CENTER 1. General Plan Designation: Government, Educational and Institu- tional Facilities; Administrative, Professional and Financial Com- mercial; Retail and Service Com- mercial; and General Industry. 2. Existing Zoning: P-C (with adopted development text). 3. Site Area: 159 Acres, approximately 34.7 acres vacant (excluding courthouse site). 4. Allowable Uses: Office Site A Office Restaurant Retail Hotel Office Site B Office Restaurant Office Site C Office Office Site D Office Office Site E Office Future development is limited as follows: 10,198 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. ± 440 rooms (subject to Use Permit) 200,685 sq, 7,000 sq, 358,200 sq, 93,051 sq, 5,725 sq, B SITE #17 KOLL CENTER (Cont. - Page 2) Office Site f -0- Office Site G -0- Retail Site 1 Office 20,000 sq.ft. Retail 60,120 sq.ft. Industrial Sites 1 & 2 Industrial 31,775 sq.ft. Orange County Courthouse 25,625'sq.ft. Koll Center Total Office Restaurant Retail Industrial Courthouse Hotel 687,859 sq.ft. 12,000 sq.ft. 60,120 sq.ft. 31,775 sq.ft. 25,625 sq.ft. ...817,379 sq.ft. 1440 rooms (subject to Use Permit) 5. Timing: A Development Phasing Plan has been adopted for Office Site C allowing 100,000 sq.ft. in 1981 and 132,830 sq.ft. in 1982. A Phasing Plan is currently under consideration for the remaining Koll/Aetna-owned property and to revise The Irvine Company -owned Block C. G 0 SITE #18 I• EMKAY - NEWPORT PLACE 1. General Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial, General Industry, and Retail and Service Commercial. 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - with adopted development text. '3. Site Area: 145 Acres, approximately 20 acres vacant. 4. Allowable Uses: Industrial, Commercial and Office uses. Remaining development is limited to 503,924 sq.ft. 5. Timing: The approved Traffic Phasing Plan allows 247,220 sq.ft. in 1980 and 78,442 sq.ft. in 1981. An additional 178,262 sq.ft. is subject to a future phasing plan. r u SITE V 9 JAMBOREE and MacARTHUR 1. General •Plan Designation: Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities with a secondary alternate designation of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) 3. Site Area: 2 Acres •4. Allowable Uses: Freeway loop ramp and/or "Park and Ride" Facility, or as a secondary alternate a mixture of Retail, Service, Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial uses with density limitations to be established in the P-C Development Plan.• S. Timing: There are no immediate plans for development. SITE #20 SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH 1. peneral Plan Designation: Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities•with a secondary alternate designation of Retail and Service Commercial. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) 3. , Site Area: 12 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: "Park and Ride" Facility or secondary alternate use of Retail and Service Com- mercial uses not to exceed 52,727 square feet. 5. Timing: There are no immediate plans for development. N' t SITE #21 SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH 1. General Plan Designation: Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities with a secondary alternate use of General Industry. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) 3. Site Area: 47 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: A desilting basin,or as a secondary alternate, General Industrial development not to exceed 204,732 square feet. S. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 0 SITE #22 ' NORTH FORD 1. General Plan Designation: General Industrial, Residential, Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial, Retail and Service Commercial, and Govern- mental, Educational and Institu- tional Facilities. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) .3..' Site Area: 68.0 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Commercial, Office, Residential, Institutional and Industrial. Residential = 120 units Industrial = 295,000 sq.ft. Retail 28,500 (subject to Traffic Phasing P1an-TPP) 5. Timing: Industrial Residential Retail 0 1981 1983 = After TPP 64 SITE 823 NEWPORT.DUNES 1. General Plan Designation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space. 2. Existing.Zoning: Unclassified 3. • Site.Area: 70 Acres Land +25. Acres Water 4. Allowable Uses: Public, Marine -oriented Park, and related facilities would be permitted under Newport Beach planning programs.. However, under Orange County's proposed Local Coastal Program, uses permitted would include marine uses includ- ing an additional.70 to 100 boat slips, 50 to 100 new dry boat storage spaces, and marina amenities, as well.as non -marine facilities s-uch as a campground, a 250 to 300 room hotel, an additional restaurant, and full hookups and support for an expanded RV park accom- modating up to 440 vehicles. 5. Timing: Newport Dunes, Inc. has applied to Orange County for amendment of the.Newport Dunes' lease to allow redevelopment of the site. When and if necessary $ approvals are obtained, the Lessee will commence with redevelopment. owl J • • . CY r ♦ r ' SITE #24 BUCK GULLY 1: General Plan Dgsignation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low'Density Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: R-1-B 3. Site Area: 57.6 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Open Space or Low Density'Residential uses. Since a substantial portion of the site has slope areas greater than 2:1•, and other environmental constraints, residential development is not likely. 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 1. General Plan Designation SITE 1,25 DEAN PROPERTY Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial with an alternate of Multi -Family Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: AP (Administrative Professional) 3. Site Area: 4.5 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Office uses. A 69,720 sq.ft. project has been approved. 5. Timing: Spring 1981 SITE #26- NEWPORT CENTER 1. General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial,; Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; Residential; and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 2. Existing Zorring: Mixed - Total development limited by "General Plan Amendment 79-1. 3. Site Area: 330 Acres (122 vacant) 4.. Allowable Uses: a) Existing development includes the following: Office & Medical Commercial Theater Hotel Residential Civic Automobile Golf Course Tennis Club 1,844,001 sq.ft. 1,181,000 sq.ft. 1,750 seats 377 rooms 199 DU's 82,000 sq.ft. 5 acres 18 holes 24 courts b) Future additional includes: Office & Medical Commercial Retail Theater Hotel Residential Civic 896,342 sq.ft. 87,000 sq.ft. 2,000 seats. -0- rooms 637 DU's 2,400 sq.ft. 1 ♦ (j� f SITE 026 NEWPORT CENTER (Cont. - Page 2) 5. Phasing of Committed Development: Following is a phasing schedule for the remaining committed development in Newport Center. a) 1980 Sea Island Residential' 132 Units Pacific Mutual Office 245,000 sq.ft. Restaurant 10,000 sq.ft. Civic Plaza Office 81,812 sq.ft. Library •. 14,000 sq.ft. b) 1981 Corporate Plaza Office 248,850 sq.ft. Civic Plaza Office 152,894 sq.ft. Theater 1.,350 seats Restaurant 8,000 sq.ft, Art Museum 10,000 sq..ft. C) 1982 Corporate Plaza Office 101,150 sq.-Ft. 6. Non -Committed Development: Following is the remaining develop- ment in Newport'Center for which no phasing schedule has been developed: SITE N26 ' NEWPORT CENTER (Cont. - Page 3) Office and Medical 66,636 sq.ft. Commercial Retail 69,000 sq.ft. Theater 650 seats Residential 505 DU's It is doubtful that any of the non -committed development would be constructed prior to 1982. . 4 7. Development proposed in General Plan Amendment 80-3: Office and Medical 880,000 sq.ft. Commercial Retail 20,000 sq.ft. Hotel' 700 rooms A phasing schedule will be developed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. L` 1. General Plan Designation SITE #27 NORTH BAY Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential on most of the site. 2. Existing Zoning: City of Newport Beach Zoning - Unclassified (U) County of Orange Zoning - General Agriculture 3. Site Area: Approximately 80.83 acres, including the 11.0 acre Bay View School site. 4. Allowable Uses: The Newport Beach General Plan permits Recrea- tion and Environmental Open Spare uses directed towards the development of a regional park. The alternate use would be Residential Develop- ment at 4 dwelling units per buildable acre. This site is impacted by several site considera- tions which would limit development to less than 200 units. The County's "draft" Local Coastal Plan proposes a combination of Open Space and Residential Devel- opment between 3.E and 18 DU's per acre. Low and moderate income housing is being proposed for the residential de- velopment. S. Timing: No immediate plans for development. SITE #28 IRVINE COASTAL AREA 1. General Plan Designation: Most of the development will occur within the City's "Sphere of Influ- ence." The Newport Beach General Plan does not contain proposed uses for this area. 2. Existing Zoning: A-1 "General Agriculture" (County of Orange -zoning) 3. Site Area: 9,370 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Following are the uses proposed in the Orange County LCP for this area: Residential 1785-2000 DU's (depending on outcome of public purchase efforts) Hotel 2,000 rooms Tourist CommerciAl .250,000 sq.ft. 5. Timing: Beginning in 1982: ultimate development within ten to twenty years. Cotdr i ¢,� ! IRVINE' COAST AEIa , Laauna: al • SITE #29 BEECO (UNICORPORATED) 1. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: Specific Area Plan directed towards the development of a harbor with marine service and commercial, re- creational and open space uses and associated neighborhood "Retail & Service Commercial." *As an alter- nate use, without a harbor, resi- dential and associated Retail and Service Commercial. County of Orange Zoning: Multiple -Family Residential/"Oil Overlay" - R-4/110" Light Industrial/"Oil Overlay" - MI/"0" General Commercial/"Oil Overlay" - C-1/11 0" Multiple -Family Residential' - R-4 3. Site Area: Approximately 450.0 acres of unin- corporated territory. 4. Allowable Uses: On 350 acres the City's General Plan permits the construction of a harbor with boat slips, marine service and commercial uses, and recreational and open space uses. Also permitted are 2108 residential units with asso- ciated Retail & Service commercial 4 C ' $ITE• #29 BEECO (UNINCORPORATED) (Con't. - Page 2) uses to provide necessary neighborhood commercial. On the remaining 100 acres, the General Plan permits residential development at four dwelling units per buildable acre. This allows an esti- mated total development of approximately 2,408 dwelling units. Residential de- velopment could be -clustered; however, no individual development would be per- mitted to exceed fifteen dwelling units per buildable acre. If the proposed West Newport Harbor proves to be infeasible, the 2108 re- sidential dwelling units will be per- mitted on 350 acres of the site. Associated Retail -and Service Commercial uses to provide necessary neighborhood commercial will also be permitted. On - the remaining 100 acres the General Plan permits residential development at four dwelling units per buildable acre. This allows for the same estimated total de- velopment of approximately 2,408 dwelling units: This residential development could be clustered; however, no indivi- dual development would be permitted to exceed fifteen dwelling units per build- able acre. 5. Timing: There are no immediate plans for development of this area. UNDEVELOPED PARCELS - STATISTICAL SUMMARY Site 1980 1981 1982 1983 or Later Undetermined, 1. Westbay 40 DU's 2. Eastbiuff Remnant 0 3. Newporter North 212 DU's 4. Big Canyon Area'10 80 DU's 5. Castaways 151 OU's 40,000.sq.ft. 6. Fifth Avenue Parcels 108 DU's 7. Fwy. Reservation -West 100 DU's l- 8. Fwy. Reservation -East 76 DU's 9. .Baywood Expansion 68 DU's 10. CALTRANS-West 11. CALTRANS-East 12. 13. BEECO Aeronutronic Ford 300 DU's 150 DU's2• (� 64,000 sq.ft. 296,000 sq.ft. 14. Harbor Point 21 DU's 15. Bayview Landing3• 16. Mouth of Big Canyon 17. Koll Center 100,00 sq.ft. 1'32.830 sq.ft. t440 rooms 584,549 sq.ft. 18. Emkay-Newport Place 247.220 sq.ft. 78,442 sq.ft. 178,262 sq.ft. 19. Jamboree & McArthur 3. 20. San Diego Creek -North 3. 2i. San Diego Creek -South 3. 22. North Ford 295.000 sq.ft. 120 DU's 28,500 sq.ft. 23. Newport Dunes 25.000 sq.ft. 9. ±300 rooms 24. Buck Gully 25. Dean Property 69;720 sq.ft. 26. Newport Center 132 DU'•s 505 DU's 4. 360,812 sq.ft 439,744 sq.ft. 101,150 sq.ft. 145,636'sq.ft. 27. North Bay (unincorporated) 2• 200 DU's • 28. Irvine Coastal Area (unincorporated) 5• 200 DU's 200 DU's 1,600 DU's 2. 2,000 rooms j 29. BEECO (unincorporated) 250,000 sq.ft 2.500 DU's TOTALS 132 OU's 620 DU's 200 DU's 6• 320 OU's 7' 2,740 rooms 10. 8 598,032 sq.ft. 1,086,906 sq.ft. 233,980 sq.ft. 296,000 sq.ft- 1,211,947 sq.ft !I. 1. Subject to Land Use Map Amendment. 7. Includes 200 DU's in unincorporated areas. 2. Under City's General Plan. 8. Includes 4300 DU's in unincorporated areas. 3. Assumes primary use. 9. Under Orange County's Plan. 4. Includes units transferred from sites 1 and 2. 10. Includes 200D rooms in unincorporated areas. 5. Under Orange County's General Plan. 11. Includes 250,00 sq.ft. in unincorporated areas. 6. Includes 200 OU's in unincorporated areas. I•'ebruary 19, 19,sI ').2;.MV Mr. Robart• L. t•tynn City manager ' City of :;owport 13each Attentions Mn. Pat Tel:lple 3300 tlewport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 1261A Dear ::r. t?ynn: Gabject: Cm;,^lunity Uevrloi;'.ant :luai, Cral,t Brant ':a. J:-7"r•:iC-oi•-0':�: II-77-JiQ-JG-US4G Report of ;:onitori:r: Virlit On 1'9hruary 13, 19fi1, :'1r• anbecca Denite , Co.­illiiity Plamlinq and Dc••+relopment P1ePrc enl:at ivl , col;ducted a;1' 0 ; ritc rn itor- fn of- the City of :ivwport 1)each's Co:.^„;amity Mocl; 5,rar.t Pro- cn•an. .... IJrlllites I,:ct With pat ,(,.i. 1r of th(': 1)epz,rt.mc:1t to review tbo fO1.lo:Ji;l7, ar^a:+. i1) j'11'O•�7:::': '%1; C/'r!•^::, (2) proclrna bo'•::±fito, i31 Houmiro lAc:ii1L3i1r;1 PIP-1- .•.Inrltatioll, n,1Cl ( ) citi-,oil Partit-ciiatior pin-, The follol•Areg includon a su•z:a ry ol° fir,(iii••;3 n.r.1rr•co.::r,lnatio':.. Pro ,ram Pronresr, An of. September. 2, 1.9,So, the City bar, r,ral•:•x',ol)n 1:10:. of it:, ':otrll better of Crddit of $522,000. :i1:1CC all fut,dr, have betTl drrd:'il Flllr,l tli('. J)^1liOr Citin*n 01:11•.r•Y ]mn ki-ea Co"1Pletq!i, the city'C pro:ira.i hil;i : Lon {7lAnc'! out an O!. February 12, 1111U. Proiram Pencri_t itra:, war monitored the last two years ,•ln:I in in chvn1illnce with the nigolations in effect tit u)o I:i::, the r,ro•:r.:c war.; br.i^; r:orri-:!,2 Oat - It ai";)earn frost a site visit to the cnior ;'nntrlr ttl•:t this a;.tivity is beinci carrird ont nubrtantially ns sin scribnI. in the z1oplicatioal. Jlau_in;;_11:iistr)nr.,_Plan �IIA: 1 I_i,lYl:n�a:, t.ioli This itosa was also monitored lart year with no nubstantial charur 1S o. talc date of this monitoring. AGindicated ill last ycar.'s ,u7•;itnril+•:, 1.1;17 r'ity has; i7ro;�ortio,laC1 ly overner.ved the elderly with little a sira;lnc r provi-le-d for En.lilibs, 1:1 WA 2 C the 1977 HAP, the City proposed to use tho Section'0 :•:xisting program to meet all of ita family houninq ncedr,. vowever, the lack of perfor- nlance in mooting these needs indicat'_a that the lot, aacanc:y rates and high rates in the City make it infeasible to totttlly dcpcncl on this program. If• in the future, the City decide:, to participate in the each Grant Program, a plan to moet• itr, identified fa:ai.ly housin; needs will have to be suh-,itted. Cit:i?m� Partirinatio_1 Previou . :aoniterinry and review of file 4oct:a:ent:atio : indicated that the, city coroplind with the. applicable Citizen participatir-: rcciuireirenta. In the fut:urn, the City t;il.l bo requirecl to cocaly with S.:ctioa 570.3(" "Citizet: partici, at-iort lZequirc:znat;:" Of the current r<rc;ulations. S•7e thank you for your cooperation and !rill contimm to ha awai.lable for technical azrietallce, as needed. If you 1:nvc a::y ruoctiorls, please con- tact Ma. Rebecca Beniten your COmmunity Plan:lin:j a:1d Developraont Repre- sentative at (213)600-5360. sircerolyr Vie ctor, Cor-Mnunity Planning and Devclopixent 9.204P DIi� TE;;:rpt f IDJU � cc: �'onitcs, 9.20-11.' Crisp, 9.=-T Roberts,•9.2C X5060 2/19/O1 �f (VERIFICATION — 446. 2015.5 C. C.�'.) L ], STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF 2 1 am the 3 4 in the above entitled action or proceeding; I have read the foregoing 5 6 and know the contents thereof.- and 1 certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein 7 stated upon n0• itjannation or belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. 8 9 10 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. 11 Executed on (date) W (place) , California 12 13 r Signature 14 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013a, 2015.5 C. C. P.) 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES lama resident of the county aforesaid; lam over the age of eighteen years and not apart), to the within entitled action; my business 16 address is; 17 3535 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90020 18 September 10 /9 82 , I served the within PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS interested parties 20 on the in said action, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid. In the United States mail 21 at- Los Angeles, California addressed as follows., 22 23 See attached. 24 25 26 27 1 declare; under penalty, of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. { 28 Executed on SepteMber 9 , 1 982 at T.nc; Anggi QrqZ] , California ' fit X� M. H. PECK i 0 t IL . RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD HAMPEL 2 JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERQ 3 Attorneys at Law 611 Anton Boulevard 4 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 5 6• MICHAEL MILLER City Attorney 7 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard .8 Newport Beach, CA 92660 9 10 ROBERT K. BREAK WILLIAM M. WYNDER 11 LATHAM & WATKINS 660 Newport Beach Center Drive, 12 Suite 1400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 13 14 15 3.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 11 2 i! j 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RUTAN & TUCKER LE021ARD A. H'AMPEL' JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG Attorneys at Law 61V Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 641-5100 MICHAEL MILLER City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640-2201 Attorneys for Defendants City of Newport Beach, City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach -rt0 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ) ORTIZ; SHARION GARRISON; DOROTHY M. ) McALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION ) S. BARNES: JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE ) COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORA- ) TION, a non-profit corporation; ) ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, ) a non-profit corporation, ) i ) Plaintiffs/Petitioner, ) ) VS. ) ) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; CITY COUNCIL ) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING) COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT ) BEACH; THE IRVINE COMPANY, a corpora- ) tion; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, ) Defendants/Respondents, ) and ) DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY ) DEVELOPMENT, ) Real Party in Interest. ) NO. 32 95 85 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED RE- QUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND SECOND SET OF INTERROGA- TORIES I I- ' U '' 1 Defendants City of Newport Beach, City Council of the City 2 of Newport Beach and Planning Commission of the City of Newport 3 Beach (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the City") _•4 hereby provide these supplemental responses to Request for 5 Admissions Nos. 79, 83, 86 and 87, inclusive, and Interrogatories 6 Nos. 8, 12, 13, 14, and 17 through 27, inclusive, of Plaintiffs' 7 Renewed Request for Admissions and Second Stat. of Interrogatories 8 propounded upon the City, as follows: 9 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 10 The City makes the following supplemental responses subject 11 to all pertinent objections regarding admissibility and relevancy 12 that may be interposed at trial. Initially, it should be noted 13 that the City has not completed its investigation of the facts 14 relating to this case, has not completed its discovery in this 15 action, and has not completed its preparation for trial. The 16 following supplemental responses therefore are given without 17 prejudice to the City's right to produceevidence of any 18 subsequently discovered facts. 19 Some requests and interrogatories seek to ascertain 20 information which may or may not exist in City files. In the 21 course of preparing its supplemental responses to these requests 22 and interrogatories, the staff employees of the City most 23 knowledgeable concerning the subject matter of the requests and 24 interrogatories have been questioned regarding the existence of 25 the information requested in the City documents. Where the 26 existence and location of such documents are know or are readily 27 available, those documents have been identified. However, the 28 City has not conducted an exhaustive search of all of its own -2- r 0 0 1 files for purposes of uncovering such documents which may contain 2 information falling within the scope of the requests and 3 interrogatories. Such a search would take literally years to - 4 accomplish. Notwithstanding the objections interposed by the 5 City to specific requests and interrogatories, the City has 6 already made its files available to Plaintiffs for examination, 7 inspection and copying. In this regard, and not by way of 8 limitation of any of the foregoing, the City would point out 9 that in the course of preparing its defense in this action, 10 it has analyzed its own files, prepared compilations, abstracts 11 and summaries therefrom, and has prepared documentary material 12 for the purpose of aiding its attorneys in preparation for trial. 13 The City claims the attorney -client and work product privileges 14 with respect to these documents. 15 The City interprets the term "genuine" in the Request for 16 Admissions to mean that the subject document is a true and 17 correct copy of the document in the files of the City, and the 18 City utilizes this definition of "genuine" in its responses to 19 the Requests for Admissions herein. 20 Many of the requests and interrogatories go far beyond any 21 appropriate subject matter of this action, and tend to oppress, 22 burden, annoy and harass the City. Most of the objections inter- 23 posed herein are common to many of the requests and interroga- 24 tories. Therefore, in order to avoid the extreme burden of 25 being forced to repeat identical objections numerous times, the 26 City objects generally to the "Instructions" and "Definitions" 27 and to Plaintiffs' Requests and Interrogatories as follows: 28 1. The requests and interrogatories are irrelevant to the -3- 0 J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 OPA 0" 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 subject matter of this action and are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 2. The requests and interrogatories request information regarding matters of little or no practical value to Plaintiff, and less burdensome means of discovery could produce the desired information. 3. The requests and interrogatories require disclosure of irrelevant as well as relevant matters, and thus are overly broad. 4. The requests and interrogatories are burdensome, oppressive, harassing, and/or annoying to the City, such that requiring answers results in injustice to the City. 5. Answering the requests and interrogatories places a burden and expense on the answering party that should equitably be borne by the propounder. 6. Much of the information sought by the requests and interrogatories is equally available to Plaintiffs, such that the interrogatories essentially require the City to prepare Plaintiffs' case for them. 7. The requests and interrogatories and their "Definitions" and "Instructions" are impermissibly "boilerplate" and "shotgun" in nature. 8. The requests and interrogatories and their "Definitions" and Instructions" are vague, uncertain and ambiguous. 9. The requests and interrogatories impermissibly seek to probe into the motives of the legislators who enacted the legislation which is the subject of these interrogatories. 10. The information requested by the interrogatories and requests is protected by the attorney work -product privilege.// -4- 1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79: 2 Admitted. 3 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83: :4 The City objects to Request for Admission No. 83 on the 5 ground that the City is under no obligation or duty to review 6 the figures contained in Exhibit B to the April 16, 1981 letter 7 from Eugene Scorio to Newport Beach Mayor Heather, which figures 8 presumably were generated by Mr. Scorio, and which figures were 9 transmitted to the City for the sole purpose of requesting 10 funding, without any accompanying base data or any certification 11 as to their validity or accuracy. 12 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 86: 13 Denied. 14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 87: 15 Denied. 16 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 17 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the ground that 18 the promotion of housing opportunities for all persons regardless 19 of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, 20 or color is a legal requirement under the Constitutions and laws 21 of the United States, and the State of California, and a require-• 22 ment contained in the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General 23 Plan, with which the City is presumed to have complied as a 24 matter of law; and because Interrogatory No. 8 seeks to require 25 the City to disprove a negative, which is a logical impossibility. 26 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 27 1. Yes. 28 2. Yes. -5- 1 3. Yes. 2 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 3 None of the City employees listed in Interrogatory No. 12 --4 knew prior to September 28, 1981 that lease payments on residen 5 land owned by The Irvine Company and leased to residents of the 6 City would increase in the next five years. 7 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 8 (1) 1. Robert Wynn, City Manager; 9 2. James Hewicker, City Planning Director; 10 3. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator; 11 4. Craig Bluell, Senior Planner; 12 5. Patricia Temple, Senior Planner; and 13 6. Sandra Genis, Associate Planner. 14 (2) The Irvine Company's ownership and leasing of certain 15 certain residential properties in Newport Beach and 16 adjacent areas is a matter of common knowledge to 17 residents of the City of Newport Beach. 18 (3) See No. (2). 19 (4) Impossible to determine due to the nature of the 20 common knowledge, and its transmittal through word 21 of mouth and media reports. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 23 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 17 on each and every 24 of the following grounds: 25 (a) The interrogatory impermissibly seeks to discover 26 the mental thought processes of City legislators in 27 their enactment of City legislation, quasi-judicial 28 determinations, and policies, which thought processes -6- 1 2 3 4' 5II 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 OVI 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under California and federal law. (b) The interrogatory seeks to invade the work product privilege of the City's counsel in that it calls for the City's counsel to provide an analysis of written data which is equally available to all parties. (c) The interrogatory calls for information which con- stitutes public records and, as such, is equally available to all parties, such that the interroga- tory is oppressive and burdensome to the City. (d) The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and, as such, is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action or to the discovery of admissible evidence. (e) The interrogatory seeks to ascertain information and other data which a consultant expert witness has provided the City in the preparation of this case and, as such, violates the attorney work product privilege. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 18 on each and every of the following grounds: (a) The interrogatory impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators in their enactment of City legislation, quasi-judicial determinations, and policies, which thought processes -7- 0 0 0 1 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under 2 California and federal law. 3 (b) The interrogatory seeks to invade the work product _ 4 privilege of the City's counsel in that it calls 5 for the City's counsel to provide an analysis of 6 written data which is equally available to all 7 parties. 8 (c) The interrogatory calls for information which con- 9 stitutes public records and, as such, is equally 10 available to all parties, such that the interroga- 11 tory is oppressive and burdensome to the City. 12 (d) The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and, 13 as such, is not calculated to lead to the discovery 14 of information relevant to the subject matter of 15 this action or to the discovery of admissible 16 evidence. 17 (e) The interrogatory seeks to ascertain information 18 and other data which a consultant expert witness 19 has provided the City in the preparation of this 20 case and, as such, violates the attorney work 21 product privilege. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 23 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 19 on each and every 24 of the following grounds: 25 (a) The interrogatory impermissibly seeks to discover 26 the mental thought processes of City legislators in 27 their enactment of City legislation, quasi-judicial 28 determinations, and policies, which thought processes -6- 0 0 0 1 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under 2 California and federal law. 3 (b) The interrogatory seeks to invade the work product _ 4 privilege of the City's counsel in that it calls 5 for the City's counsel to provide an analysis of 6 written data which is equally available to all 7 parties. 8 (c) The interrogatory calls for information which con- 9 stitutes public records and, as such, is equally 10 available to all parties, such that the interroga- 11 tory is oppressive and burdensome to the City. 12 (d) The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and, 13 as such, is not calculated to lead to the discovery 14 of information relevant to the subject matter of 15 this action or to the discovery of admissible 16 evidence. 17 (e) The interrogatory seeks to ascertain information 18 and other data which a consultant expert witness 19 has provided the.City in the preparation of this 20 case and, as such, violates the attorney work 21 product privilege. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 23 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 20 on each and every 24 of the following grounds: 25 (a) The interrogatory impermissibly seeks to discover 26 the mental thought processes of City legislators in 27 their enactment of City legislation, quasi-judicial 28 determinations, and policies, which thought processes -9- 0 } J 1 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under 2 California and federal law. 3 (b) The interrogatory seeks to invade the work product = 4 privilege of the City's counsel in that it calls 5 for the City's counsel to provide an analysis of 6 written data which is equally available to all 7 parties. 8 (c) The interrogatory calls for information which con- 9 stitutes public records and, as such, is equally 10 available to all parties, such that the interroga- 11 tory is oppressive and burdensome to the City. 12 (d) The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and, 13 as such, is not calculated to lead to the discovery 14 of information relevant to the subject matter of 15 this action or to the discovery of admissible 16 evidence. 17 (e) The interrogatory seeks to ascertain information 18 and other data which a consultant expert witness 19 has provided the City in the preparation of this 20 case and, as such, violates the attorney work 21 product privilege. 1. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 23 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on each and every 24 of the following grounds: 25 (a) The interrogatory impermissibly seeks to discover 26 the mental thought processes of City legislators in 27 their enactment of City legislation, quasi-judicial 28 determinations, and policies, which thought processes -10- 1 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under 2 California and federal law. 3 (b) The interrogatory seeks to invade the work product _4 privilege of the City's counsel in that it calls 5 for the City's counsel to provide an analysis of 6 written data which is equally available to all 7 parties. 8 (c) The interrogatory calls for information which con- 9 stitutes public records and, as such, is equally 10 available to all parties, such that the interroga- 11 tory is oppressive and burdensome to the City. 12 (d) The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and, 13 as such, is not calculated to lead to the discovery 14 of information relevant to the subject matter of 15 this action or to the discovery of admissible 16 evidence. 17 (e) The interrogatory seeks to ascertain information 18 and other data which a consultant expert witness 19 has provided the City in the preparation of this 20 case and, as such, violates the attorney work 21 product privilege. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 23 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 22 on each and every 24 of the following grounds: 25 (a) The interrogatory impermissibly seeks to discover 26 the mental thought processes of City legislators in 27 their enactment of City legislation, quasi-judicial 28 determinations, and policies, which thought processes -11- 1 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under 2 California and federal law. 3 (b) The interrogatory seeks to invade the work product _ 4 privilege of the City's counsel in that it calls 5 for the City's counsel to provide an analysis of 6 written data which is equally available to all 7 parties. 8 (c) The interrogatory calls for information which con- 9 stitutes public records and, as such, is equally 10 available to all parties, such that the interroga- 11 tory is oppressive and burdensome to the City. 12 (d) The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and, 13 as such, is not calculated to lead to the discovery 14 of information relevant to the subject matter of 15 this action or to the discovery of admissible 16 evidence. 17 (e) The interrogatory seeks to ascertain information 1g and other data which a consultant expert witness 19 has provided the City in the preparation of this 20 case and, as such, violates the attorney work 21 product privilege. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: 23 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 23 on each and every 24 of the following grounds: 25 (a) The interrogatory impermissibly seeks to discover 26 the mental thought processes of City legislators in 27 their enactment of City legislation, quasi-judicial 28 determinations, and policies, which thought processes -12- , 1 2 3 =4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under California and federal law. (b) The interrogatory seeks to invade the work product privilege of the City's counsel in that it calls for the City's counsel to provide an analysis of written data which is equally available to all parties. (c) The interrogatory calls for information which con- stitutes public records and, as such, is equally available to all parties, such that the interroga- tory is oppressive and burdensome to the City. (d) The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and, as such, is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action or to the discovery of admissible evidence. (e) The interrogatory seeks to ascertain information and other data which a consultant expert witness has provided the City in the preparation of this case and, as such, violates the attorney work product privilege. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 24 on each and every of the following grounds: (a) The interrogatory impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators in their enactment of City legislation, quasi-judicial determinations, and policies, which thought processes -13- I' 0 1 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under 2 California and federal law. 3 (b) The interrogatory seeks to invade the work product = 4 privilege of the City's counsel in that it calls 5 for the City's counsel to provide an analysis of 6 written data which is equally available to all 7 parties. 8 (c) The interrogatory calls for information which con- 9 stitutes public records and, as such, is equally 10 available to all parties, such that the interroga- 11 tory is oppressive and burdensome to the City. 12 (d) The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and, 13 as such, is not calculated to lead to the discovery 14 of information relevant to the subject matter of 15 this action or to the discovery of admissible 16 evidence. 17 (e) The interrogatory seeks to ascertain information 18 and other data which a consultant expert witness 19 has provided the City in the preparation of this 20 case and, as such, violates the attorney work 21 product privilege. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 23 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on each and every 24 of the following grounds: 25 (a) The interrogatory impermissibly seeks to discover 26 the mental thought processes of City legislators in 27 their enactment of City legislation, quasi-judicial 28 determinations, and policies, which thought processes -14- lei .0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under California and federal law. (b) The interrogatory seeks to invade the work product privilege of the City's counsel in that it calls for the City's counsel to provide an analysis of written data which is equally available to all parties. (c) The interrogatory calls for information which con- stitutes public records and, as such, is equally available to all parties, such that the interroga- tory is oppressive and burdensome to the City. (d) The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and, as such, is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action or to the discovery of admissible evidence. (e) The interrogatory seeks to ascertain information and other data which a consultant expert witness has provided the City in the preparation of this case and, as such, violates the attorney work product privilege. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 26 on each and every of the following grounds: (a) The interrogatory impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators in their enactment of City legislation, quasi-judicial determinations, and policies, which thought processes a`f 1 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under 2 California and federal law. 3 (b) The interrogatory seeks to invade the work product _4 privilege of the City's counsel in that it calls 5 for the City's counsel to provide an analysis of 6 written data which is equally available to all 7 parties. g (c) The interrogatory calls for information which con- stitutes public records and, as such, is equally 10 available to all parties, such that the interroga- 11 tory is oppressive and burdensome to the City. 12 (d) The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and, 13 as such, is not calculated to lead to the discovery 14 of information relevant to the subject matter of 15 this action or to the discovery of admissible 16 evidence. 17 (e) The interrogatory seeks to ascertain information 18 and other data which a consultant expert witness 19 has provided the City in the preparation of this 20 case and, as such, violates the attorney work 21 product privilege. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 23 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 27 on each and every 24 of the following grounds: 25 (a) The interrogatory impermissibly seeks to discover 26 the mental thought processes of City legislators in 27 their enactment of City legislation, quasi-judicial 28 determinations, and policies, which thought processes -16- 2 3 :4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 10 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under California and federal law. (b) The interrogatory seeks to invade the work product privilege of the City's counsel in that it calls for the City's counsel to provide an analysis of written data which is equally available to all parties. (c) The interrogatory calls for information which con- stitutes public records and, as such, is equally available to all parties, such that the interroga- tory is oppressive and burdensome to the City. (d) The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and, as such, is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action or to the discovery of admissible evidence. (e) The interrogatory seeks to ascertain information and other data which a consultant expert witness has provided the City in the preparation of this product privilege. DATED: December / , 1982. RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG 0 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I have read the toreggo�__in��g SUpplEM n M RESPONSES OF CITY OF NEWPOR BEACH TO PLAINTIFFS' Fi13�WJ� FODUFST FOR AAMISSIONS AND SEO(M ,S'j �,,,,,,,m bknow its contents. M CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH ❑ I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. ® I am ❑ an Officer ❑ a partner )M a the Senior Plannerof the Planning Denartztn of the City of Newport Beach a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I have read the foregoing document and know its contents. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. ❑ I am one of the attorneys for a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I have read the foregoing document and know its contents. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true. Executed on Dec 20 , 199— at N Beach California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that tie foregoing is true and correct. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF DO (other than summons and complaint) Received copy of document described Signature PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE 1 am employed in the county of Orange State of California. I am over the age of IS and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, California 92626. On DEC, 20 19 82 1 served the foregoing document described as SUPPIXbffiNTAL RESPONSES OF in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at: COO a Mesa. QA fo_Knia addressed as follows: CRYSTAL C. SIMS, ESQ. Legal Aid Society of Orange County 2700 N. Main St., llth F1. Santa Ana, CA 92601 JOHN E. MC DERM0 T, ESQ. JCNATHAN IEHRER-GRAIWER 3535 West Sixth Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 RICHARD W. PEPHERBRIDGE 1722 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 ® (BY MAIL) 1 caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at rnai-a Mafia. , California. ❑ (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. Executed on �• 20 19 82 at Costa Mesa California. ® (State) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. ❑ (Federal) 1 declare that 1 am employed in the office of a member of the made. bar of his court at ose direction the service was r Signature Ise S. Ciavarello 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG Attorneys at Law 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 641-5100 MICHAEL MILLER City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640-2201 Attorneys for Defendants City of Newport Beach, City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and Planning Commission of -the City of Newport Beach SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ) ORTIZ; SHARION GARRISON; DOROTHY M. ) McALEAVY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION ) S. BARNES; JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE ) COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, ) a non-profit corporation; ORANGE ) COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a non- ) profit corporation, ) Plaintiffs/Petitioner, ) VS. ) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; CITY COUNCIL ) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLAN- ) NING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW- ) PORT BEACH; THE IRVINE COMPANY, a ) corporation; DOES 1 through 100, ) Inclusive, ) Defendants/Respondents, ) and ) DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY ) DEVELOPMENT, ) Real Party in Interest. ) NO. 32 95 85 RESPONSE OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1, 21 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 } Defendants City of Newport Beach, City Council of the City of Newport Beach and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the City") respond to Request for Admissions Nos. 1 through 139, inclusive and Interrogatories Nos,. 1 through 30, inclusive, of Plaintiffs' Renewed Request for Admissions and Second Set of Interrogatories propounded upon the City, as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The City makes the following responses subject to all perti- nent objections regarding admissibility and relevancy that may be interposed at trial. Initially, it should be noted that the City has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not completed its discovery in this action, and has not completed its preparation for trial. The following responses therefore are given without prejudice to the City's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts. Some requests and interrogatories seek to ascertain informa- tion which may or may not exist in City files. In the course of preparing its responses to these requests and interrogatories, the staff employees of the City most knowledgeable concerning the subject matter of the requests and interrogatories have been questioned regarding the existence of the information requested in the City documents. Where the existence and location of such documents are known or are readily available, those documents have been identified. However, the City has not conducted an exhaustive search of all of its own files for purposes of un- covering such documents which may contain information falling within the scope of the requests and interrogaties. Such a -2- 1 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ill 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 search could take literally years to accomplish. Notwithstanding the objections interposed by the City to specific requests and interrogatories, the City has already made its files available to Plaintiff for examination, inspection and copying. In this re- gard, and not by way of limitation of any of the foregoing, the City would point out that in the course of preparing its defense in this action, it has analyzed its own files, prepared compila- tions, abstracts and summaries therefrom, and has prepared docu- mentary material for the purpose of aiding its attorneys in prep- aration for trial. The City claims the attorney -client and work product privileges with respect to these documents. The City interprets the term "genuine" in the Requests for Admissions to mean that the subject document is a true and cor- rect copy of the document in the files of the City, and the City utilizes this definition of "genuine" in its responses to the Requests for Admissions herein. Many of the requests and interrogatories go far beyond any appropriate subject matter of this action, and tend to oppress, burden, annoy and harass the City. Most of the objections inter- posed herein are common to many of the requests and interroga- tories. Therefore, in order to avoid the extreme burden of being forced to repeat identical objections numerous times, the City objects generally to the "Instructions" and "Definitions" and to Plaintiffs' Requests and Interrogatories as follows: 1. The requests and interrogatories are irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; -3- 1 2 3 4 5, 61I 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 0ViI 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The requests and interrogatories request information regarding matters of little or no practical value to Plaintiff, and less burdensome means of discovery could produce the desired information. 3. The requests and interrogatories require disclosure of irrelevant as well as relevant matters, and thus are overly broad. 4. The requests and interrogatories are burdensome, oppres- sive, harassing, and/or annoying to the City, such that requiring answers results in injustice to the City. 5. Answering the requests and interrogatories places a burden and expense on the answering party that should equitably be borne by the propounder. 6. Much of the information sought by the requests and in- terrogatories is equally available to Plaintiffs, such that the interrogatories essentially require the City to prepare Plain- tiffs' case for them. 7. The requests and interrogatories and their "Definitions" and "Instructions" are impermissibly "boilerplate" and "shotgun" in nature. 8. The requests and interrogatories and their "Definitions" and Instructions" are vague, uncertain and ambiguous. 9. The requests and interrogatories impermissibly seek to probe into the motives of the legislators who enacted the legis- lation which is the subject of these interrogatories. 10. The information requested by the interrogatories and requests is protected by the attorney work -product privilege. QIM 77 1 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 je 10, 11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: The City denies that Exhibit 13 is genuine, as to Volume 33, pages 229 to 232, of the Minutes of the Newport Beach City Council. -5- 1 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 OM 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: The City denies that on or about June 24, 1977, the City submitted an application for Community Development Block Grant funds to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admitted. —6— 1 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 111 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: The City objects to Requets for Admissions 28 on the ground that Plaintiffs' Exhibit 24 purports to be a document of the County of Orange, whose genuineness cannot be verified by resort to City files. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admitted. -7- 1 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 `A 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: Admitted. —8— 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Ka RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: The City denies that the City of Newport Beach has not participated in the Community Development Block Grant Program from 1978 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: The City objects to Request for Admission No. 55 on the ground the City is unable to determine the existence of the document referred to in Request for Admission No. 55 from the description contained therein. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: The City denies that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach voted not to participate in the County Development Block Grant Program for 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: The City denies that Exhibit 44 is genuine as to items 1, 2 and 3 referred to in the letter from Mark Pizano to the Planning Commissioner dated October 8, 1981. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: The City denies that Exhibit 54 is genuine as to the ex- cerpts contained therein. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66: The City denies that Exhibit 56 is genuine as to excerpts contained therein. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 67: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 68: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 70: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73: Admitted. -10- 1 2 3! _41 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 75: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79: The City objects to Request For Admission No. 79 on the ground that a response to Request For Admission No. 79 requires knowledge of the services allegedly performed by the Orange County Fair Housing Council, and the City has no knowledge of the existence, nature or scope of such alleged services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 82: The City objects to Request For Admission No. 82 on the ground that a response to Request For Admission No. 82 requires knowledge of the services allegedly performed by the Orange County Fair Housing Council, and the City has no knowledge of the existence, nature or scope of such alleged services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83: The City objects to Request For Admission No. 83 on the -11- w 1 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9! 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ground that the City is under no obligation to review the figures contained in Exhibit 8 to the April 16, 1981 letter from Eugene R. Scorio to Mayor Heather, which figures presumably were generated by Mr. Scorio, and which figures were transmitted to the City without any accompanying base data or any certification as to their validity. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 84: The City objects to Request For Admission No. 84 on the ground that a response to Request for Admission No. 84 requires knowledge of the services allegedly provided to the residents of the City by the Orange County Fair Housing Council, and the City has no knowledge of the existence, scope or nature of these alleged services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 85: The City objects to Request For Admission No. 85 because a response to Request for Admission No. 85 requires knowledge of the services allegedly provided to the residents of the City by the Orange County Fair Housing Council, and the City has no knowledge of the existence, scope or nature of these alleged services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 86: The City objects to Request For Admission No. 86 because a response to Request for Admission No. 86 requires knowledge of the services allegedly provided to the residents of the City by the Orange County Fair Housing Council, and the City has no knowledge of the existence, scope or nature of these alleged services. -12- 5 1 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Obi 141 01*1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 87: The City objects to Request For Admission No. 87 because a response to Request for Admission No. 87 requires knowledge of the services allegedly provided to the residents of the City by the Orange County Fair Housing Council, and the City has no knowledge of the existence, scope or nature of these alleged services. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 88: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 89:� The City denies that the allowable densities of development of all undeveloped sites in the City, excluding Newport Center, and the Beeco Property, are four dwelling units per acre. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90: The City denies that Newport Center contains the only site in the City which is presently permitted to be developed at residential densities in excess of 12 dwelling units per acre. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 91: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 92: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93A: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93B: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 94: The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 1 under the current Land Use Element is 40. -13- 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 95: 2 Admitted. 3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST / FOR ADMISSION NO. 96: /// The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to _4 5 be built on Site No. 1 immediately prior to the adoption of 6 General Plan Amendment No. 78-2 was 426 dwelling units. 7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 97:1�' 8 The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to g be built on Site No. 2 under the current Land Use Element is 24 10 dwelling units which are transferred as credit to Site No. 26. 11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 98:t/ 12 Admitted. / 99: 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. v 14 The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to 15 be built on Site No. 2 immediately prior to the adoption of 16 General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 84 dwelling units. 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 100: 18 The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to 19 be built on Site No. 3 under the current Land Use Element is 212 20 dwelling units. 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 101: 22 Admitted. 23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 102:, 24 The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to 25 be built on Site No. 3 immediately prior to the adoption of 26 General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 704 dwelling units. 27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 103: 28 Admitted. -14- 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 104: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 105 i The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 4 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 338 dwelling units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 106-/,✓ The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 5 under the current Land Use Element is 151 dwelling units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 107: c-� The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 5 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 325 dwelling units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 108: The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 5 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 320 dwelling units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 109: V The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 6 under the current Land Use Element is 108 dwelling units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 110:L,-/�- The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 6 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 198 dwelling units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 111: v^ The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to 12VE .l 2 3 _4 5 6 7 8' 9, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 be built on Site No. 8 under the current Land Use Element is 76 dwelling units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 112: Admitted. RESPONSE TO ISSION NO/113: The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 8 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 290 dwelling units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 114: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 115: Z� Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 116:41� The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 9 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 147 dwelling units. (� j /'VIWA RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 117:� The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 12 under the current Land Use Element is 406 dwelling units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 118: The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 12 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 900 dwelling units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 119: v Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION N0. 120: Admitted. -16- II? 1 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 121:4 Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 122: The City denies that on July 19, 1979, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach disapproved the development of 450 dwelling units on Site No. 13. RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NOS. 123,,124, 125 and 126: Requests Nos. 123, 124, 125 and 126 are denied on information and belief because these Requests were not served upon the City. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 127: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 128:4./ Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 129: ✓ The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 16 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 145 dwelling units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 131: V The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 26 under the current Land Use Element is 505 dwelling units, of which 121 dwelling units are credited from Site No. 1 and 24 dwelling units are credited from Site No. 2. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 132: The City denies that the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 26 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 339 dwelling units. -17- C ) C-) 1 2 3 -4 5 6. 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 151 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 133: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 134: l� Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 135: Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 136: 4, Admitted. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 137:.�/ The City objects to Request for Admission No. 137 on the ground that it seeks a legal conclusion, and thus constitutes an impermssible attempt to benefit from the work product of the City's attorneys. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 138: C/ Admitted. G/ RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 139: Admitted. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: The City objects to, and is unable to respond to, Inter- rogatory No. 1 because Interrogatory No. 1 is incomplete and unintelligible. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: No. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Not applicable. -18- 1 2 3 -4 :y G9 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: No. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Not applicable. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that the information sought by Interrogatory No. 6 is wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter of this dispute. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Objections; see response to Interrogatory No,. 6. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the ground that the promotion of housing opportunities for all persons is a legal requirement with which the City is presumed as a matter of law to have complied, and because Interrogatory No. 8 seeks to require the City to disprove a negative, which is a logical impossi- bility. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the ground that Interrogatory No. 9 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators and administrators in their enactment of legislation, which thought processes are legally irrelevant to this dispute under California and federal law. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the ground that Interrogatory No. 10 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators and administrators in their enactment of legislation, which thought processes are legally -19- 1 2 3 _4 5 6 7 8 9 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 t 25 26 27 28 irrelevant to this dispute under California and federal law. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Objection; see response to Interrogatory No. 10. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the ground that Interrogatory No. 12 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators and administrators in their enactment of legislation, which thought processes are legally irrelevant to this dispute under California and federal law. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Objection; see response to Interrogatory No. 12'. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory No. 12. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Yes. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: (a) Letter from City Manager Robert Wynn to Orange County Housing Authority Executive Director Art Luna, dated June 18, 1981. (b) Letter from City Manager Robert Wynn to Orange County Housing Authority Executive Director Art Luna, dated September 3, 1982. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 17 on the ground that Interrogatory No. 17 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators in their enactment of legislation, which thought processes are legally irrelevant to this dispute under California and federal law. -20- 111X RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 18 on the ground that 3 Interrogatory No. 18 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental 4 thought processes of City legislators in their enactment of 5 legislation, which thought processes are legally irrelevant to 6 this dispute under California and federal law. 70 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 19 on the ground that 9 Interrogatory No. 19 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental 10 thought processes of City legislators in their enactment of 11 legislation, which thought processes are legally irrelevant to 12 this dispute under California and federal law. 3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 14 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 20 on the ground that 15 Interrogatory No. 20 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental 16 thought processes of City legislators, which thought processes 17 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under California and 18 federal law. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the ground that 21 Interrogatory No. 21 impermissibly seeks to'discover the mental 22 thought processes of City legislators, which thought processes 23 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under California and 24 federal law. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 1�`� 6 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 22 on the ground that 27 Interrogatory No. 22 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental 28 thought processes of City legislators, which thought processes -21- 1' 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 are legally irrelevant to this dispute under California and federal law. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 23 on the ground that Interrogatory No. 23 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators, which thought processes are legally irrelevant to this dispute under California and federal law. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 24 on the ground that Interrogatory No. 24 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators in violation of federal and state law, and because the subject matter of Interrogatory No. 24 is legally irrelevant and immaterial to this action. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the ground that Interrogatory No. 25 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators in violation of federal and state law, and because the subject matters of Interrogatory No. 25 are legally irrelevant and immaterial to this action. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 26 on the ground that Interrogatory No. 26 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators in violation of federal and state law, and because the subject matter of Interrogatory No. 26 is legally irrelevant and immaterial to this action. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 27 on the ground that -22- C 1 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Interrogatory No. 27 impermissibly seeks to discover the mental thought processes of City legislators in violation of federal and state law, and because the subject matter of Interrogatory No. 27 is legally irrelevant and immaterial to this action. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28: The term "committed" on pages 124 and 125 of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan refers to any large, vacant parcel which is designated as "open space" in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan; or for other parcels the term "committed" means that all approvals necessary for the issuance of building permits have been issued for the parcels. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29: 1. Eastbluff Remnant (a) Use: Recreational and Environmental Open Space (b) Documents: Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan; Land Use Element of Newport Beach General Plan 2. Ford Aero (a) Use: Residential (b) Documents: Final Subdivision Approvals Nos. 11377, 10391, 10986, 10987, 11042, 11043, 11044, 11045, 11046, 11047, 11048, 11449, 11450, 11451, 11604, 11605, and 11785. 3. Cal Trans East (a) Use: Recreational and Environmental Open Space (b) Documents: Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan; Land Use Element of Newport Beach General Plan 4. Cal Trans West (a) Use: Recreational and Environmental Open Space -23- 1 2 3 -4 5iI 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) Documents: Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan; Land Use Element of Newport Beach General Plan 5. Deane Property (a) Use: Commercial/Office (b) Documents: Resubdivision No. 728 6. EmKay (a) Use: Commercial/Office (b) Documents: Subdivision Approval No. 7770, including Resubdivision Nos. 415, 486 and 585 7. Ford Aero (a) Use: Office/Industrial (b) Documents: Subdivision Approvals Nos. 11377, 10391, 10983, 10987, 11042, 11043, 11044, 11045, 11046, 11047, 11048, 11049, 11450, 11451, 11604, 11605, and 11785 8. Koll Center Courthouse (a) Use: Commercial/Office and' Governmental/Institutional (b) Documents: Subdivision Approvals 7953, incl. Resubdivisions Nos. 567, 683 and 731 9. Mouth of Big Canyon (a) Use: Recreational and Environmental Open Space (b) .Documents: Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan; Land Use Element of Newport Beach General Plan 10. Newport Center Corporate Plaza (a) Use: Commercial/Office (b) Documents: Subdivision Approval No. 6015, including Resubdivision No. 269 —24— 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12', 13'' 14'' 15 16 17 18' 191 20 21, 22. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30: (a) Yes (b) (i) Undeveloped Parcels Report, May, 1978 (ii) Undeveloped Parcels Report, September 1980. October 29, 1982. -25- RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG MICHAEL MILLER , By Ie torndys for Defendantty of Newport Beach, City uncil of the City of wport Beach and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach ` VERIFICATION C) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I have read the foregoing__ RESPONSE OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO PLAIN JIFFS' EE9EwFtn F=IF`4T mjj At ,ggTrNN AM RFCYNJI) RFT QF TITIMRR-CATORTFR and know its contents. N CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH ❑ f am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. ® I am ❑ an Officer ❑ a partner ❑ athg Senior Planner f the Planning Department —of the City of Newport Beach, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I have read the foregoing document and know its contents. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. ❑ I am one of the attorneys for a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I have read the foregoing document and know its contents. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true. Executed on October 29. l9_R� at Costa Mesa. California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the f going is true and correct. 1. Signature ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF DOCUM Craig Bluell_ (other than summons and complaint) Received copy of document described a Signature PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the county of Qrange , State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa. California 92626. On Oct. 29, t91-2, 1 served the foregoing document described as RESPONSE OF CITY OF NEWPORT REAM To PT,ATn1TIFF6' REMW REQUEST FOR ADKESSIONS AND SE= SET OF INTERROGATORIES on_ the Parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at: rnsta Mesa, Califg=ja addressed as follows: JOIN E. X DERbUIT, ESQ. CRYSTAL C. SINS, ESQ. JONATHAN IEHRER—GRAIWER ROBERT K. BREAK, ESQ. Legal Aid Society of 3535 West Sixth Street WILLIAM W. WYNDER, ESQ. Orange County Los Angeles, CA 90020 Latham & Watkins 2700 N. Main St., llth F1. 660 Newport Center Dr., #1400 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RICHARD W. PETHERBRIDGE 1722 N. Broadway Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana, CA 92706 ® (BY MAIL) 1 caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at Costa Mesa, , California. 0 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I -caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. Executed on OCtriber 99 19.82. at o to Mesa, California. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (Federal) I declare that 1 am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Signature Barbara Caradies / I C. SIMS ,CRYSTAL LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 2 2700 North Main Street, 11th Floor Santa Ana, California 92701 3 Telephone: ( 714 ) 835-8806L 4 RONALD L. ROUDA LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES 5 1544 West 8th Street Los Angeles, California 90017 6 Telephone: (213) 381-2131; 385-9691 •7 TOBY J..ROTHSCHILD LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LONG BEACH 8 205 East Broadway Long Beach, California 90802 9 Telephone: (213) 434-7421 10 GREGORY VEACH LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO CASE NO. 32-95-85 11 429 Third Avenue Chula Vista, California 90210 12 Telephone: (714) 722-1935 13 JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER RICHARD A. ROTHSCHILD 14 WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, INC. 3535 West Sixth Street 15 Los Angeles, California 90020 Telephone: (213) 487-7211 16 Attorneys fog Plaintiffs/Petitioners 17 OLIVE DAVIS, ALFREDO ORTIZ, MARIA ORTIZ, SHARION GARRISON, DOROTHY 18 MCALEAVEY, ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION 19 RICHARD W. PETHERBRIDGE 20 1722 North Broadway Santa Ana, California 92706 21 Telephone: (714) 835-0935 22 Attorney for Plaintiffs/Petitioners FRANK H. BARNES, MARION S. BARNES, 23 JOSEPH P. BOYLE, and ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL 24 25 26 21 28 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARON GARRISON;- DOROTHY M. MCALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; ' JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, a non-profit corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, 17 V. 18 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY 19 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 20 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE 21 COMPANY, a corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 22 Defendants/Respondents, 23 2411 CASE NO. 32-95-85 PLAINTIFFS' THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES 2511 Plaintiffs/Petitioners request that municipal 2611 defendants answer the following interrogatories pursuant to 27 the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030 28 within thirty (30) days after service of this document. -2- 0 1' 2 3' 4 6 6 A. Instructions: 1. Reference to Exhibits 1 through*59 is to the exhibits *listed in Revised List of Exhibits in support of Motion for Peremptory Writ of Mandate filed by Petitioners and dated July 12, 1982. 7 g 2. In responding to these interrogatories, you 9 are required to furnish all information that is available to you, 10 including information in the possession of your attorneys, or 11 other persons directly or indirectly employed by or connected 12 with you or your attorneys, and anyone else acting in your behalf 13 or otherwise subject to your control. 14 15 3. in responding to these interrogatories, you 16 must make a diligent search of your records and of other papers 17 and materials in your possession or available to'you or your 18 representatives. If 'you cannot obtain the records or information 19 to answer these interrogatories, you should explain in your 20 answer the circumstances and what has been and is being done to 21 obtain the information. 22 23 4. If any document is withheld under claim of 24 privilege* .so as to aid the court and the parties hereto to 25 determine the validity of the claim of privilege, furnish a list. 26 signed by the persons supervising your response identifying each ?7 document for which the privilege is claimed, together with the. 28 following information with respect to each such document: -3- 1 (a) The identity of the person who signed it 2 or over whose name it was sent.or issued, including his or her 3 last known business and home address and phone numbers; A ll 5 (b) The business and'home addresses and phone 6 numbers of the person to whom it was directed; 7 , 8 (c) The nature and substance of the document 9 with sufficient particularity to enable the Court and parties . 10 hereto to identity the document; 11 12 (d) The date of the document; 13 14 (e) The identity of the person who has 15 custody of, or control over, the document and each copy thereof; 16 17 (f) The basis on which any privilege is 18 claimed; 19 20 (g) Whether any non -privileged matter is 21 included in the document; and 22 23 (h) The number of the interrogatory or 24 request for admission to which such document corresponds. 25 26 D. Definitions: ' 27 28 1. The term "genuine" as used here in connection -4- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 11 . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Z Z 21 2! 2 2 2 with a document means to state, without limitation; (a) That the writing is genuine as that term Procedure § 2033 and authentic as that is used in Code of Civil term is used in California Evidence Code § 1400; and (b), That the writing, in the case of copy, is a true and correct copy of the 'original. 2. The term -"person" as used herein includes any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, receiver, joint venture, estate, trust, association, and all other forms of entities, in the parties to this suit and their officers, agents, employees and representatives. 3. The term "document" as used herein means any writing and any, other tangible thing in your -custody, possession whether printed, recorded, reproduced .or control or known to you, not by any process, or written or produced by hand, including but limited to letters, reports, agreements, communications, includ- ing intra-department communications, correspondence, telegrams, maps, memoranda, summaries or records of personal conversations, diarics, minutes or records of meetings, conferences, expressions or statements of policy, lists of persons attending meetings or ' statements of policy, lists of persons attending meetings or i ies of interviews, reports, conferences, reports, and/or summar t and/or summaries of investigations, opinions or reports or. con- s sultants, brochures, pamphlets, drafts of: any documents, revisions of drafts of any documents, invoices, receipts and original or preliminary notes. As to each document, any comment or notation appearing on same but not a part of the original text' is to be considered a separate document. 4. The word "identify" when used herein in connec- tion with a person means•to state: (a) The person's full name; (b) The person's last known business and home addresses; (c) The person's last known business and home telephone numbers. S. TY he•word "identity" when used herein in con- nection with a document means to state: (a) The date on the document; (b) The name and address of each person who prepared the document; (c) The identity of the person to whom the document was directed; (d) The name, address, and telephone number -G- III of the present custodian of* the document 311 (e) An identifying description of the docu- 4I1 ment; and 6 6 •(f) If you will do so without requiring a 7 motion to produce, attach to your responses to these interroga- 8 tories a true 'and correct copy of each said writing. 9 10 6. "Low and moderate income families" shall have 11 the meaning specified in Health and Safety Code Section 50093. 12 13 7:. "Affordable" refers to housing costs which do 14 not exceed 25% of a family's gross income as specified in Health 15 and Safety Code Section 50053. 16 17 8. "The City" means and includes the City of 18 Newport Beach, its City Council and Planning Commission, as well 19 as each and every officer, agent, employee or representative of 20 the City, City Council and Planning Commission. 21 22 9. tCity's Housinct Element" means and includes the 23 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach, 24 adopted by the City on September 28, 1981, by City Resolution 25 No. 11051. 26 27 10. "Each" means each and every. 28 -7- 1 11. "HCD" means and includes the State of 2 California Department of Housing and Community Development, and 3 each officer, agent, employee, or representative of HCD. 4 5 12. "You" shall include your agents, 6 representatives and attorneys. 7 8 INTERROGATORES 9 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 11 Did the City of Newport Beach submit an 12 application to the Department of Housing and Urban 13 Development for entitlement funds under the community 14 development block grant program (42 USC Section 5301 et. seq.) 15 for the following years: 16 a. 1978; 17 b. 1979; 18 C. 1980; 19 d. 1981. 20 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 22 For each of the years for which the City of 23 Newport Beach claims to have submitted an application to the 24 Department of Housing and Community Development in answer 25 to Interrogatory No. 1, identify any documents which embody 26 such an application. 27 28 -8- 0 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 2 For each of the years for which the City of S Newport Beach did not file an application to the Department 4 of Housing and Urban Development, in response to 5 Interrogatory No. 1, please state the following: 6 1. Whether the City Council of the City of 7 Newport Beach voted not to participate in the Community 8 Development Block Grant Program for each such year. 9 2. For those years in which the City Council 10 of the City of Newport Beach did not vote not to participate, 11 did the City Council take any other action indicating its 12 decision not to -participate in the Community Development 13 Block Grant Program. 14 3. Identify the month, day and year in 15 which the City Council voted not to participate in the 16 Community Development Block Grant Program during each of 17 the years in which a vote was taken. 3,8 4. Identify any documents which embodies 19 the desire or the decision of the City Council not to partici- 20 pate in the Community Block Grant Program during any of the 21 subject years. 22 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 24 W#h reference to your responses to the 25 Request for Admissions served upon you on September 91 1982 26 and to which you responded on October 29, 1982, if any of 27 your responses to the Request for Admissions Nos. 1 through 28 139, excluding Nos. 123 to 126, have been anything other than -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 an unqualified admission, please state with respect to each such request for -admission the following: 1. Each fact or item of information and belief upon which you based your failure or refusal to so admit; 2. Identify, as the term is used in Definition No. 5 above, each document containing facts or information which supports your answer to sub -part (1) of this interrogatory; and, 3. Identify, as that term is used in Definition No. 4 above, all persons possessing knowledge of facts relevant to your answer to sub -part (1) of this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: To the extent that your answer to Interrogatory No. 4 does not contain the following information, please state the maximum number of dwelling units which the City of Newport Beach contends are allowable under the current Land Use Element with respect to the following undeveloped parcel site numbers referred to in Plaintiffs'/Petitioners' Exhibit 66, attached to Plaintiffs' Renewed Request for. Admissions and Second Set of Interrogatories Propounded to Municipal Defendants and served upon you on September 91 1982: 1. Site No. 1; 2. Site No. 2; 3. Site No. 3; 4. Site No. 5; -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. Site No. 6; 6. Site No. 8; 7. Site No. 12; 8. Site No. 14; and, 9. Site No. 26. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: To the extent that -your answer to Interrogatory No. 4 does not contain the following information, please state the maximum number of dwelling units which the City of Newport Beach contends were allowable immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 79-1 with respect to the following undeveloped parcel site numbers referred to in Exhibit 66: 1. Site No. 5; 2. Site No. 6; 3. Site No. 12; 4. Site No. 14; 5. Site No. 16; and, 6. Site No. 26. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: To the extent that your answer to Interrogatory No. 4 does not contain the following information, please state the maximum number of dwelling units which the City of Newport Beach contends were allowable immediately prior tc the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 78-2 with respect to the following undeveloped parcel site numbers referred to in Exhibit 66: -11- 0 .10 1 1. Site No. 1; 2. Site No. 2; ,Z 3 3. Site No. 3; 4 4. Site No. 4; . 5 5. Site No. 5; 6 6. Site No. 8; 7 7. Site No. 9; and, 8 8.• Site No. 14•.- 9 to DATED: November 24, 1982 11 12 13 M-XXTHAN 14 orney 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12- for P tioners 1 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 V U 0 (VL'RIFICATION — 446.2015.5 C. C. P.) STATL 01: CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Ium fit the above entitled action or proceeding; I have read the foregoing wledge, except as to Those matters which are thereon and know' the contents thereof.' and I cert((y that the some is true of my own kno stated upon aW information or belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that th'e foregoing Is true and correct. at— ----- Executed on ! atei Signature California PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013a, 2015.5 C. C. P.) COUNTY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, , LOS ANGELES resident of the county aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years a ! am a nd not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is: Los Angeles, CA 90020 3535 SVest Sixth Street, PLAINTIFFS' November 24 , , 19 82 , I served the within as OF interested parties ty placing a true cop}' thereof enclosed Ina sealed envelc Los Angeles, California' See attached sheet. I declare, under pennh,, of perjurt•. that the foregoing November 2411982tt E.ke0ded on -----_ �dmel . . with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the unite" ���••� •••- M. II. 1?liun 1 r 2 'S 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ;RUTAN & TUCKER ,LEONARD IIAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG Attorneys at Law 611 Anton Boulevard Costa Mesa, CA 92626 MICHAEL MILLER City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300*Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 ROBERT K. BREAK WILLIAM M. WYNDER LATHAM & WATKINS 660 Newport Beach Center Drive, suite 1400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 0 A s� w 1 2 3 4 r1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 1 • RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODEP14AN JOEL D. KUPERBERG Attorneys at Law 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 641-5100 MICHAEL MILLER City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640-2201 Attorneys for Defendants City of Newport Beach, City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE >11 __ OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ) ORTIZ; SHARION GARRISON; DOROTHY M. ) McALEAVY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION ) S. BARNES; JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE ) COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, ) a non-profit corporation; ORANGE ) COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a non- ) profit corporation, ) Plaintiffs/Petitioners, ) VS. ) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; CITY COUNCIL ) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLAN- ) NING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW- ) PORT BEACH; THE IRVINE COMPANY, a ) corporation; DOES 1 through 100, ) Inclusive, ) Defendants/Respondents, ) and ) DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY ) DEVELOPMENT, ) Real'Party in Interest. ) NO. 32 95 85 RESPONSE OF CITY OF NEWP BEACH TO PLAINTIFFS' THI SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants City of Newport Beach, City Council of the City of Newport Beach and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the City") respond to Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 7, inclusive, of Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories propounded upon the City, as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The City makes the following responses subject to all perti- nent objections regarding admissibility and relevancy that may be interposed at trial. Initially, it should be noted that the City has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not completed its discovery in this action, and has not completed its preparation for trial. The following responses therefore are given without prejudice to the City's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts. Some requests and interrogatories seek to ascertain informa- tion which may or may not exist in City files. In the course of preparing its responses to these requests and interrogatories, the staff employees of the City most knowledgeable concerning the subject matter of the requests and interrogatories have been questioned regarding the existence of the information requested in the City documents. Where the existence and location of such documents are known or are readily available, those documents have been identified. However, the City has not conducted an exhaustive search of all of its own files for purposes of un- covering such documents which may contain information falling withi. the scope of the requests and interrogatories. Such a search could take literally years to accomplish. Notwithstanding the objections interposed by the City to specific requests and interrogatories, -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the City has already made its files available to Plaintiff for examination, inspection and copying. In this regard, and not by way of limitation of any of the foregoing, the City would point out that in the course of preparing its defense in this action, it has analyzed its own files, prepared compilations, abstracts and summaries therefrom, and has prepared documentary material for the purpose of aiding its attorneys in preparation for trial. The City claims the attorney -client and work product privileges with respect to these documents. The City interprets the term "genuine" in the Requests for Admissions to mean that the subject document is a true and cor- rect copy of the document in the files of the City, and the City utilizes this definition of "genuine" in its responses to the Requests for Admissions herein. Many of the interrogatories go far beyond any appropriate subject matter of this action, and tend to oppress, burden, annoy and harass the City. Most of the objections interposed herein are common to many of the requests and interrogatories. Therefore, in order to avoid the extreme burden of being forced to repeat identical objections numerous times, the City objects generally to the "Instructions" and "Definitions" and to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories as follows: 1. The interrogatories are irrelevant to the subject matter lof this action and are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 2. The interrogatories request information regarding matters lof little or no practical value to Plaintiff, and less burdensome means of discovery could produce the desired information. -3- • 1 21 3 4 5 6 7 s 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 OVA IUS Me 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. The interrogatories require disclosure of irrelevant as well as relevant matters, and thus are overly broad. 4. The interrogatories are burdensome, oppressive, harassing, and/or annoying to the City, such that requiring answers results in injustice to the City. 5. Answering the interrogatories places a burden and expense on the answering party that should equitably be borne by the propounder. 6. Much of the information sought by the interrogatories is equally available to Plaintiffs, such that the interrogatories essentially require the City to prepare Plaintiffs' case for them. 7. The interrogatories and their "Definitions" and "Instructions" are impermissibly "boilerplate" and "shotgun" in nature. 8. The interrogatories and their "Definitions" and "Instruc- tions" are vague, uncertain and ambiguous. 9. The interrogatories impermissibly seek to probe into the motives of the legislators who enacted the legislation which is the subject of these interrogatories. 10. The information requested by the interrogatories is protected by the attorney work -product privilege. -4- E MA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 a) No b) No c) No d) No RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO._2 Not applicable. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3 1. In 1978, the City completed its Community Development Block Grant project, consisting of the construction of the Senior Citizen Oasis Center. The City Council determined that additional funds were not needed for the project, and accordingly voted it . .for no fourth year application. ." 2. No 3. -January 9, 1978. 4. Minutes of the City Council meeting of January 9, 1978. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 1. Request No. 13 The City admits to the genuineness of Exhibit 13, except as to the markings and non -typed writings in the margins of pages 229 to 232 of Volume 33 of the Minutes of the Newport Beach City Council. 2. Request No. 15 The City files indicate that the City submitted an application to H.U.D. for CDBG funds on or about April 25, 1977, not on or about June 24, 1977. 3. Request No. 54 In September of 1982, the City submitted an application -5- 0 E 19 1 2 3 4 5 9 101i 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for CDBG funds to H.U.D., and the City's CDBG application was formally approved by H.U.D. on October 12, 1982. 4. Request No. 55 The City has located the letter referred to in Request No. 55 and admits Request No. 55. 5. Request No. 56 See response to Interrogatory No. 3. 6. Request No. 60 The copy of the writing designated Exhibit "44" which the City has in its files indicates that it was addressed to the Planning Director, and not to the "Planning Commissioner." 7. Request No. 64 While the City denies the accuracy or genuineness of Exhibit 54, the City has not yet undertaken a full review of, or verification of the adequacy or context of, the transcript contained in Exhibit 54. B. Request No. 66 While the City denies the accuracy or genuineness of Exhibit 56, the City has not yet undertaken a full review of, or verification of the adequacy or context of, the transcript conta in Exhibit 56. 9. Request No. 89 f 1. Undeveloped sites at'. allowable densities in excess of 4 units per acre exist throughout the City. 2. No records in City files indicate all undeveloped parcels within the City boundaries. 3. Craig Bluell, Senior City Planner. I/// go 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21' 22 23' 24 25 26 27 28 10. Request No. 90!/ 1. Numerous sites in the City are presently permitted to be developed at residential densities in excess.of 12 units 1per acre. 2. No records in City files indicate every undeveloped parcel within the City boundaries. 3. Craig Bluell, Senior City Planner. 11. Request No. 94 1. The number '40 with respect to Site No. 1 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on that site, based upon buildable acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding maximum density. 2. Land use element. - 3. Craig Bluell./ 12. Request No. 96 !/ 1. The number 426 with respect to Site No. 1 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based upon acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding maximum density. 2. Land use element. 3. Craig Bluell. 13. Request No. 97 1. The number 24 with respect to Site No. 2 is merely a• City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on that site, based upon buildable acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a -7- 7 1 W 1 2 3 4 A'. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 binding maximum density. 14. Request No. 99 4/ 1. The number 84 with respect to Site No. 2 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based upon acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding maximum density. 2. Land use element. 3. Craig Bluell. 15. Request No. 100 !// 1. The number 212 with respect to Site No. 3 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based upon buildable acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding maximum density. 2. Land use element. 3. Craig Bluell. 16. Request No. 102 1. The number 704 with respect to Site No. 3 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based upon acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding maxi- mum density. 2. Land use element. 3. Craig Bluell / 17. Request No. 105 / 1. The number 338 with respect to Site No. 4 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the -8- 1 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based upon acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding maximum density. 2. Land use element. 3. Craig Bluell. 18. Request No. 106 1. The number 151 with respect to Site No. 5 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on that site, based upon buildable acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a .binding maximum density. 2. Land use element. 3. Craig Bluell. 19. -Request No. 107 6�� 1. The number 325 with respect to Site No. 5 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based upon acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding maximum density. a a 2. Land use element. 3. Craig Bluell. 20. Request No. 108 1. The number 320 with respect to Site No. 5 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based upon acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding maximum density. 2. Land use element. -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. Craig Bluell. 21. Request No. 109 1. The number 108 with respect to Site No. 6 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based upon buildable acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding maximum density. 2. Land use element. 3. Craig Bluell. 22. Request No. 110 1. The number 198.with respect to Site No. 6 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based upon acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding maximum density. 2. Land use element. 3. Craig Bluell. 23. Request No. 111 1. The number 76 with respect to Site No. 8 is merely a City Staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the number of dwellings which might be placed on that site, based upon buildable acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding maximum density. 2. Land use element. 3�. Craig Bluell. 24. Request No. 113 1. The number 290 7ith respect to Site No. 8 is merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the -10- 0 1 number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based 2 upon acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding 3 maximum density. 4 2. Land use element. 5 3. Crai6 2r Reque. 116 7 1. The number 47 with respect to Site No. 9 is merely 8 a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of the 9 number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based 10 upon acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute a binding 11 maximum density. 12 2. Land use element. 13 3. Craig Bluell.. / 14 26. Request No. 117 �/ 15 1. The number 406 with respect to Site No. 12 is 16 merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of 17 the number of dwellings which might be placed on that site, based 18 upon buildable acreage, and thus does not necessarily constitute 19 a binding maximum density. 20 2. Land use element. 21 3. Craig Bluell. 22 27. ]equest o. 118 23 L 1. The number -9-n- with resPctto Site No. 12 is 24 merely a City staff estimate, for internal planning purposes, of 25 the number of dwellings which might be placed on the site, based 26 pon acreage, and thus does not'neces'sarily constitute a binding 27 aximum density. 28 2. Land use element. -11- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11', 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 3. Craig Bluell. J 28. Request No. 122 v/ 1. The Minutes of the July 10, 1979 City Council meeting indicate that the applicant withdrew its application with respect to Site No. 13 prior to any ultimate determination being made by the City Council regarding Site No. 13. 2. Minutes of July 10, 1979 City Council Meeting. ' 3. Not applicable. 29. Request No. 129 1. The primary designation for Site No. 16 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was recrea- tional and environmental open space. t/ ok/h 2. Land use element. Laai� any 3. Craig Bluell cV+ 30. Request No. 131(� 1. The City's estimate, for internal planning purposes only, of the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 26 under the current land use element is 704. 2. Land use element. 3. Craig Bluell 31. Request No.. 132 1/J 1. The number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 26 immediately prior to the adoption of G.P.A. 79-1 was 538. � 33% iZPinn-ain.'nc, RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5 (JL Under the City's current land use element, maximum numbers of units are not determined with respect to specific sites; generally, the land use element establishes development based upon units -12- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 per buildable acre. The number of allowable units which can be built on a specific site is not determined by the City until the site planning or tract map stage, when the amount of buildable acreage on a specific site has been calculated. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6 aSite No. 5: 325 units. a d-S �100 2. Site No. 6: City determinations are based on units per buildable acre; see Response to Interrogatory No. 5. 3. Site No. 12: City determinations are based on units per buildable acre; see Response to Interrogatory No. 5. 4. Site No. 14: City determinations are based on units per buildable acre; see Response to Interrogatory No. 5. 5. Site No. 16: The primary land use designation was recreational and environmental open space, with residen- tial as an alternative. 6. Site No. 26: 538 units. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 1. Site No. 1: Immediately prior to the adoption of G.P.A. 78-2, maximum numbers of units were not determined with respect to specific sites; rather, the land use element established density based upon units per buildable acre. V/4 2. Site No. 2: Immediately prior to the adoption of G.P.A. 78-2, maximum numbers of units were not determined with respect to specific sites; rather, the land use elements established density based upon units per buildable acre. io/0* 3. Site No. 3: Immediately prior to the adoption of C.P.A. 78-2, maximum numbers of units were not determined with respect to specific sites; rather, the land use element established -13- �/ A I a I 1 density based upon units per buildable acre. 2 4. Site No. 4: Immediately prior to the adoption of G.P.A. 3 78-2, maximum numbers of units were not determined with respect to 4 specific sites; rather, the land use element established density 5 based upon units per buildable acre. ��� A 6 5. Site No. 5: Immediately prior to the adoption of G.P.A. 7 78-2, maximum numbers of units were not determined with respect to 8 specific sites; rather, the land use element established density 9 based upon units per buildable acre. �/14 10 6. Site No. 8: Immediately prior to the adoption of G.P.A. 11 78-2, maximum numbers of units were not determined with respect to 12 specific sites; rather, the land use element established density 13 based upon units per buildable acre. •6 ()/,+ 14 7. Site No. 9: Immediately prior to the adoption of G.P.A. 15 78-2, maximum numbers of units were not determined with respect to 16 specific sites; rather, the land use element established density 17 based upon units per buildable acre. 18 8, Site No. 14: Immediately prior to the adoption of G.P.A. 19 78-2, maximum numbers of units were not determined with respect to 20 specific sites; rather, the land use element established density 21 based upon units per buildable acre. 22 DATED; December 23, 1982. 23 RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL 24 JEFFREY M. ODEP14M 25 JOEL D. KUPERBERG 26 27 BY i-A ) A /1' e1 u erb rg 28 ttorneys for De fen ants City of. ewport Beach, City Council of the City.of Newport Beach, Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach -14- • VERIFICATION • STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I have read the foregoing Response of City of Newport Beach to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories and know its contents. ® CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH ❑ I am a party to this action. T& matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. © I am ❑ an Officer ❑ a partner Lathe Senior Planner of The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I have read the foregoing document and know its contents. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. ❑ I am one of the attorneys for a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason, I have read the foregoing document and know its contents. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true. Executed on DeCetnber 23 I9 82 at Newport Beach —California.. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that ty9regoing is true and ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF (other than summons and comph Received copy of document described as on19—. Signature PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the county of nrnnge State of California. . 1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, California 92626. On Dec. 23 i9 82 I served the foregoing document described a• ReSPORSe of City of Newport Beach to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories On the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at: Costa Mesa California addressed as follows: CRYSTAL C. SIMS, ESQ. JOHN E. MCDER =, ESQ. RICHARD W. PETHERBRII Legal Aid Society of JONATHAN LEIII2ER—GRAIWER 1722 N. Broadway Orange County 3535 West Sixth Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 2700 N. Main St., llth F1r. Los Angeles, CA 90020 Santa Ana, CA 92601 ® (BY MAIL) 1 caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail Osta Mesa ,California. ❑ (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I -caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. Executed on_De( 21 19M at CbSi a MPve � California. ® (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. ❑ (Federal) I declare that 1 am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Signature Lee S. Ciavarello A. W. RUTAN 11000.1972) JAM E9 B. TUCNER. SR. (10 D8-1950) MILFORD W. DAHL• MARCIA A. FORSYTH H. RODOER HOWELL- WILLIAM M. MARTICOREN GARVIN F. SHALLENDEROER' LAWRENCE J. DREYFUS$ JAMES R. MOORE' ANNE NELSON LANPHAR ROBERT L RISLEY' PATRICIA L. STEARNS H L. IMIHE) McCORMICK' RENA C. STONE WILLIAM R. BIEL' WILLIAM J. CAPLAN RICHARD A. CURNUTT' GARY M. LAPE LEONARD A. HAMPEL' RANDALL S. WAIER JOHN B. HURLBUT. JR.- MICHAEL T. HORNAK MICHAEL W. IMMELL' JANICE L. CELOTTI MILFORD W. DAHL. JR.- PHILIP D. KOHN THEODORE 1. WALLACE. JR.' JOEL 0. KUPERBERO RICHARD R SINS' ELIZABETH A. NEALE MARSHALL M. PEARLMAN' SCOTT R. HOYT RODENT C, BRAUN' DEBORAH H ALLCY ROGER A. ORABLE' MARY D. MCILLECE COWARD 0. SYBESMA. JR.- KATHRYN L. T09IN THOMAS 5. SALINGER' PHILIP C. MAYNARD BARRY R. LAUBSCHER' NEILA R. BERNSTEIN DAVID C. LARSEN' DONNA SNOW WOLF CLIFFORD E. FRIEDEN' OCBRAJ. DUNN ARTHUR O. KIDMAN- EVRIDIKI(ONK DALLAS MICHAEL D. RUSIN- STEVEN A NICHOLS MARC WINTHROP' DAVID M. GREY IRA O. RIVIN- HARVEY M. MBORE JEFFREY M. OBERMAN' MAURICE S/NCHEE RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD- BRUCE HALLETT C. S. WOLCOTT. 111' WILLIAM L ELIOPOULOS ROSERT L. PIXE' ERIC R. NEWMAN ROBERT S. BOWER' RANDALL M. BAbDUSH LAWRCNCE 0. BEPTINO' A PPJ.b.CKA. COMW. RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS AMERICAN CITY BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 A SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER 611 ANTON BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92626 July 21, 1982 Mr. Craig Bluell Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Davis vs. City of Newport Beach Dear Craig: TELEPHONE (7I4) 641-5100 1213) 625-7586 TELECOPIER (714) 546-9035 TWX 910 S96.1883 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA HAND DELIVERED IN REPLY PLCASE REFER TO Attached hereto is a list of information which is needed in order to prepare the City's defense of the writ motion brought by plaintiffs in the above entitled action with respect to the housing element. Please collect and/or determine the following information, and have it ready for me by August 6, 1982. While I realize that this does not provide you with much time, I will need the remaining time to utilize this information and incorporate it in the declaration which I am drafting for your signature. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this endeavor. Very truly yours, JDK:bc Enclosure cc: Leonard A. Hampel, Esq. (w/eric10 RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A. W. PUTAN II000-I0721 A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS JAM ESS.TUCHER.SR IIBOB-IPOOI MILPORD W DAHL' MARCIA A. FORSYTH AIMERICAN CITY BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 H. RODGER HOWELL' WILLIAM M. MARTICOPCNA OARVIN F. SHALLENSEROCR' LAWRENCE J. DREYFUSS JAMES R. MD ORE' ANNC NELSON LANPHAR RDBCRT L. RISLEY' PATRICIA L. STEARNS H. L. IMIREI MCCORMICH' RCNA C. STONE WILLIAM R BIEL' WILLIAM J CAPLAN RICHARD A. CURNUTT' GARY M. LAPE LEONARD A. HAMPEL' RANDALL S. WMER JOHN B. HURLBUT. JR.- MICHAEL T. MORNAH MICHAEL W. IMMCLL' JANICE L. CELOTTI MILFORD W. DAML, JR.' PHILIP D. KOHN THEODORE 1. WALLACE. JR.' JOEL D. KUPEROERO RICHARD P SIMS' ELIZABETH A. NEALE MARSHALL M. PCARLMAN' SCOTT R. HOYT ROBERT C. BRAUN' DEBORAH H. ALLEY R OOCR A. ORABLE' MARY B. MCILLECE COWARD 0. BYBESMA. JR.- KATHRYN L. TOBIN THOMAS S. SALINOER' PHILIP C. MAYNARD BARRY R. LAUBSCMER' NEILA P. BERNSTCIN DAVID C LARSEN' DONNA SNOW WOLF CLIFFORD C. FRIEDEN' DEBRAJ.DUNN ARTHUR O. ROMAN' EVRIOIKI (VICKII DALLAS MICHAEL O. RUBIN' STEVEN A NICHOLS MARC WINTHROP' DAVID M. GREY IRA O. RW IN' HARVEY M. MOORC JEFFREY M. ODERMAN' MAURICE SNCHEZ RUDOLPH O. SHEPARD' BRUCE HALLE" E. S. WOLCOTT. III' WILLIAM T. ELIOPOULOS ROBERT L. PIKE' ERIC R NEWMAN ROBERT S. BOWER' RANDALL M. BABBUSH LAWRENCE E. SCRTINO' • IIIOIWIPHAL mnroN.TgN SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER 611 ANTON BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 19SO COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 July 21, 1982 Mr. Craig Bluell Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Davis vs. City of Newport Beach Dear Craig: TELEPHONE (7I4) 641-SIOO (213) 625.7586 TELECOPIER I7141 546-9035 TWX BIO S96-I883 CABLC ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA HAND DELIVERED IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Attached hereto is a list of information which is needed in order to prepare the City's defense of the writ motion brought by%plaintiffs in the above entitled action with respect to the housing element. Please collect and/or determine the following information, and have it ready for me by August 6, 1982. While I realize that this does not provide you with much time, I will need the remaining time to utilize this information and incorporate it in the declaration which I am drafting for your signature. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this endeavor. Very truly yours, RUMAN & J D. JDK:bc Enclosure cc: Leonard A. Hampel, Esq. (w/enclo Davis v. Newport Beach INFORMATION RE PHYSICAL USE OF REAL PROPERTY IN N.B. (incl. source data) 1. Total size of City - number of acres. 2. Number of deve-oped acres in City. 3. Number of acres developed as residential in City. 4. Percentage of developed land in City. S. Percentage of land developed residential in City. 6. Number of undeveloped acres in City. 7. Percentage of undeveloped land in City. 8. Number of acres of land in City which is undeveloped but zoned or planned for residential uses. 9. Percentage of land in City which is undeveloped but zoned or planned for residential use in City. 10. Comparison of percentage of developed land in Newport Beach with other cities in Orange County. 11. Comparison of size of Newport Beach (total acreage) with size of other cities in Orange County. 12. Average residential density in City. 13. Comparison of average residential density in N.B. with average residential density in other cities in O.C. 14. Planned or zoned residential densities on all undeveloped land in City zoned or planned for residential use. Davis vs. Newport Beach RENTAL INFORMATION (Incl.Source Data) 1. Number of rental units in City. 2. Percentage of rental units in City to owner -occupied units in City. 3. Comparison of Newport Beach rental percentage with percentage of rental housing in other O.C. cities. 4. Median rent in Newport Beach. 5. Comparison of Newport Beach median rents with median rents in other cities in O.C. Davis v. Newport Beach MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING INFORMATION (Incl. Source Data) 1. Number of multi -family units in City. 2. Percentage of multi -family units in City with detached single dwelling units in City. 3. Comparison of percentage of multi -family units in City in August, 1982 with: (a) September 1981. (b) January 1980 (c) January 1978 4. Comparison of percentages of multi -family units in Newport Beach with other cities in O.C. Davis vs. Newport Beach INFO. RE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IN N.B. (Incl. Source Data) 1. Number of Section 8 units (persons with Section 8 certificates) residing in City: (a) Prior to September 1981. (b) As of August 1982. 2. Comparison of amount of Newport Beach Section 8 certificates with other cities in O.C. 3. All City efforts to increase amount of Section 8 housing in City. (a) Letters, etc. j� Full documentation of Lutheran Church of Master seniors project. (a) Length of time between land use application and City approval. (b) Length of time H.U.D. took in finalizing funding. (c) When project broke ground and completed. (d) Number of residents. (e) Nature of any subsidies to residents 5. Full information and documentation of all City -owned housing which is affordable to low and moderate income persons. (a) Location. (b) Number of units. (c) Rents changed. (d) Number of residents. 6. Nui'4mber of cities in O.C. which don't use CDBG funds. Davis v. Newport Beach INFORMATION RE SUBSTANDARD HOUSING IN CITY (Incl. Source Data) 1. Number of units in N.B. which are substandard. 2. Percentage of substandard as to acceptable units in N.B. 3. Comparison of percentage of substandard housing in N.B. with other cities in O.C. Davis v. Newport Beach INFORMATION RE MOBILE HOMES IN CITY (Incl. Source Data) 1. Number of parks. 2. Acrage per park. 3. Units per acre. 4. Number of permanent residents. 5. Rental per space. 6. Copy of Mobile Home Park Zone Ordinance (certified). 7. Discussion of effect and impact of mobil home park zone. Davis v. Newport Beach INFORMATION RE ADOPTION OF HOUSING ELEMENT (Incl. Source Data) 1. Number of P.C. public hearings on H.E. 2. Dates of P.C. public hearings on H.E. 3. Copies of minutes of P.C. hearings on H.E. (certified). 4. Number of Council hearings on H.E. 5. Dates of Council hearings on H.E. 6. Copies of munites of Council hearings on H.E. (certified). 7. Number of entities which adopted Article 10.6 H.E.s by 9/28/81. 8. Number of entities which did not adopt Article 10.6 H.E. by 9/28/81. Davis v. Newport Beach INFORMATION RE FEES 1. Amount of fees for various approvals in 1981. 2. Amount of increase in these fees in 1982. 3. Copy of discretionary waiver of fees for low and moderate income projects (certified). 4. Comparison of N.B. fees with fees of other cities in O.C. ' i/ A Davis v. Newport Beach MISCELLANEOUS 1. Certified copy of staff report on H.E. G.P.A. (certified). 2. Any information on "Residential Tower" that was to be built in Newport Center expansion. 3. All information on density increases on identified sites. 4. Staff reports on condo conversion ordinance and proposed ordinance (certified). 5. Development Review Procedural Guide (certified). 6. Copy of City mailer on Wolfson decision (certified). 7. Copy of Mello Policy Statement (certified). 8. Copy of Resolution appointing Task Force (certified). 9. Copies of minutes of public meetings between City staff liason and housing industry representatives re Objective 1 (certified). 10. Copies of minutes of study session before Council regarding industry needs, per Objective 1 (certified). 11. Any staff reports on tax exempt financing (DBG, or incentives for rental housing prepared since 1980 (certified). 12. What actions taken re Objective 11 (elderly). t� r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY (714) 640-22 REr,FIt ED MAR8 1983� March 4, 1983 �9 NE9Fp3Tt;S1cH, \ CALIF. , Len Hampel Joel Kuperberg RUTAN & TUCKER 611 Anton Blvd., P.O. Box 1950 Costa Mesa, Ca 92626 Re: Olive Davis v.the City of Newport Beach Notices of Depositions/Craig Bluell, Bob Lenard Dear Len and Joel: Enclosed please find copies of the Notices of Deposition recently served upon this office. The Proof of Service reflects that your office did not receive a copies of the Notice of Deposition. By copy of this letter I am advising Mr. Bluell and Mr. Lenard that their depositions are scheduled on March 9th and March llth, respectively, at 9:30 a.m., in our offices, their appearances to be contingent upon your decision not to oppose the setting. Sincerely, AROB RT H. BURNHAM City Attorney RHB/bf cc: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director, Craig Bluell, Senior Planner--'� Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator P.S. Bob and Craig please review specifically the provisions of the Notice of Deposition that describe the documents that you are required to produce. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CRYSTAL C. SIMS LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 2700 North Main Street, llth Floor Santa Ana, California 92701 Telephone: (714) 835-8806 RONALD L. ROUDA LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES 1544 West 8th Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-2131; 385-9691 TOBY J. ROTHSCHILD LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LONG BEACH 205 East Broadway Long Beach, California 90802 Telephone: (213) 434-7421 GREGORY VEACH LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO 216 South Tremont Oceanside, California 90254 Telephone: (714) 722-1935 JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER RICHARD A.ROTHSCHILD WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, INC. 3535 West Sixth Street Los Angeles, California 90020 Telephone: (213) 487-7211 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners OLIVE DAVIS, ALFREDO ORTIZ, MARIA ORTIZ, SHARON GARRISON, DOROTHY McALEAVY, ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION RICHARD W. PETHERBRIDGE 1722 North Broadway Santa Ana, California 92706 Telephone: (714) 835-0935 Attorney for Plaintiffs/Petitioners FRANK H. BARNES, MARION S. BARNES, JOSEPH P. BOYLE and ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL 1. CASE NO. 32-95-85 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Fi3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARON GARRISON; DOROTHY M. McALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, a non-profit corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, V. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE COMPANY, a corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants/Respondents, CASE NO. 32-95-85 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF CRAIG BLUELL 2. 1 TO: DEFENDANTS HEREIN AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on March ll,•1983 at 9:30 a.m., 3 Plaintiffs/Petitioners will take the deposition upon oral 4 testimony of CRAIG BLUELL, individually and as a Senior Planner 5 of the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 6 Section 2019, before a notary public. The Deposition will be 7 conducted at the offices of the City of Newport Beach at an g appropriate location to be designated by the City, or if such 9 a location is not convenient then at the offices of the Legal 10 Aid Society of Orange County, 2700 North Main Street, llth 11 Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701, and will be conducted from 12 day to day until completed. 13 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Code of 14 Civil Procedure Section 2019(a)(5), the deponent is requested 15 to produce at the aforementioned deposition the following 16 documents listed as Exhibit A, which are in the possession, 17 custody, or under the control of the deponent, his agents, 18 representatives, employees, partners, and/or attorneys. As to 19 Numbers 1 - 13 only, this excludes the documents which are 20 physically located in City files open to public inspection 21 under the California Public Records Act, except documents in 22 files which may be specifically allocated as deponent's personal 23 files. Copies of original documents may be produced. 24 DATED: February , 1983 25 26 27 28 II JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER Attorney for Plaintiffs/Petitioners 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 EXHIBIT "A" I Definitions A. Terms "documents" or "writings" as used herein include any writing and any other tangible thing in defendant's custody, possession or control, whether printed, recorded, or reproduced by any process, or written or produced by hand, including, but not limited to, letters, reports, agreements, communications including intra-departmental communications, correspondence, telegrams, maps, memoranda, summaries or records of personal conversations, diaries, minutes or records of conferences, expressions or statements of policies, lists of persons attending meetings or conferences, reports and/or summaries of interviews, reports and/or summaries of investiga- tions, opinions or reports of consultants, brochures, pamphlets, drafts of any documents, revisions of drafts of any documents, invoices, receipts, and any original or preliminary notes. As to each document, any comment or notation appearing on same but not a part of the original text is to be considered a separate document. B. "Low and moderate income families" shall have the meaning specified in Health and Safety Code Section 50093. C. "Affordable" refers to housing costs which do not exceed 25% of a family's gross income as specified in Health and Safety Code Section 50053. 4. r 1 D. "The City" means and includes the City of 2 Newport Beach, its City Council and Planning Commission, as 3 11 well as each and every officer, agent, employee or representative 4 of the City, City Council and Planning Commission. 5 E. "City's Housing Element" means and includes the 6 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport 7 Beach, adopted by the City on September 28, 1981 by City 8 1 Resolution No. 11051, as currently amended. 9 F. "Person" means and includes an individual, 10 partnership, corporation, trust, unincorporated association, 11 municipality, state or local government agency, joint venture, 12 or other legal entity. 13 G. "Each" means each and every. 14 H. "HCD" means and includes the State of California 15 Department of Housing and Community Development, and each 16 officer, agent, employee, or representative of HCD. 17 I. "You" shall include your agents, representatives 18 and attorneys. 19 20 21 II TI Reauest for Production 22 23 24 1. Each document which constitutes, embodies, 25 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 26 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope of 27 your employment between you and any person, including the City, 28 relating to the availability of low or moderate incomes housing 5. 3. in the City of Newport Beach. 2 2. Each document which constitutes, embodies, 3 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 4 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope of 5 your employment between you and any person, including the City, 6 relating to the availability of low or moderate income housing 7 in the County of Orange. 8 3". Each document which constitutes, embodies, 9 mentions, describes, is a basis for'or in any way relates to 10 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope of 11 your employment between you and any person, including the City, 12 relating to housing or land use planning in the City of 13 Newport Beach. 14 4. Each document which constitutes, embodies, 15 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 16 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope of 17 your employment between'you and any person, including the City, 18 relating to housing or land use planning in the County of Orange. 19 5. Each document which constitutes, embodies, 20 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 21 any writing or'oral*communication occuring within the scope of 22 your employment between you and any person, including the City, 23 relating to the Subdivision Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance of 24 the City of Newport Beach, or any amendment to the Subdivision 25 Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance. 26 6. Each document which constitutes, embodies, 27 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 23 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope of 6. I your employment with the City between you and any person, 2 including the City, relating to the General Plan of the City 3 of Newport Beach, or any amendment thereto, including, but not 4 limited to, GPA 78-2, GPA 79-1, GPA 80-3, GPA 81-1, GPA 81-1(H), 5 and GPA 82-1(H) and proposed GPA 81-2 and GPA 82-1. 6 7. Each document which constitutes, embodies, 7 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 8 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope of 9 your employment between you and any person, including the City, 10relating to any tentative tract map or proposed subdivision 11 considered or acted upon by the City on or after January 1, 1975. 12 8. Each document which constitutes, embodies, 3.3 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 14 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope of 15 your employment between you and any person, including the 16 City, relating to any of the following projects considered or 17 approved by the City: 18 a. Aeronutronic Ford, Ordinance No. 1807, 19 Resubdivision No. 629, Tentative Map of Tract 10391. 20 b. BEECO, General Plan Amendment 81-1. 21 c. McClain, located off of Jamboree Boulevard 22 immediately east of Pacific Coast Highway. 23 d. ,Baywood Expandion, Site No. 9 in City's 24 Undeveloped Parcels, September 1980. 25 e. Newport Center, Site No. 26 in City's 26 Undeveloped Parcels, September 1980. 27 28 7. 1 9. Each document which constitutes, embodies, 2 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 3 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope of 4 your employment between you and the State of California Depart- s ment of Housing and Community Development, or any officer, 6 employee, agent or representative of that Department. 7 10. Each document which constitutes, embodies, 8 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 9 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope of 10 your employment between you and any person, including the City, 11 relating to any programs to assist in the development of 12 II housing affordable to low and moderate income families, including, 13 but not limited to: the Federal Community Development Block 14 Grant Program, any financing program, any programs to reduce 15 cost of residential developments in the City, proposals for 16 Article 34 elections, implementation of Government Code Section 17 11 65915, and density bonus programs. 18 11. Each document which constitutes, embodies, 19 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 20 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope of 21 your employment between you and any person, including the City, 22 relating to any land use controls or regulations which directly 23 or indirectly limit the development of housing in the City, 24 including, but not limited to, the City's Traffic Phasing 25 Ordinance. 26 12. Each document which constitutes, embodies, 27 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 28 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope of EF 1 your employment between you and any person, including the City, 2 relating to the Orange County Fair Housing Council, the 3 Orange County Community Housing Corporation, any of the 4 individual plaintiffs to this action, or to this lawsuit, 5 except for documents for which you claim,a privilege, in which 6 case you should identify such document by the date of its 7 occurrence, the person producing it, the person receiving it, 8 and the subject of the document. 9 13. Each document which'constitutes, embodies, 10 mentions, describes, is a basis for or in any way relates to 11 any writing or oral communication occuring within the scope 12 of your employment between you and any person, including the 13 City, relating to the demographic composition of the City or 14 the County of orange with respect to the racial composition of 15 the population, or the income characteristics of the population. 16 14. Your personal claendars or appointment books 17 which show meetings you attended and other activities 18 performed by you as an official, employee and/or agent of the 19 City. 20 15. The index to each file you.maintain regarding 21 11 City business. 22 16. The documents identified as items 14 to 65 and 23 67 to 73 on the attached Request for Production, Inspection and 24 Reproduction of Documents incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 25 26 27 M 9. :J 1 To the extent that you are designated by the City as 2 an expert witness in this case, you are also requested to 3 produce the following documents: 4 17. Your most recent resume and/or academic vita, 5 describing your professional experience and employment. 6 18. Each published writing authored, co-authored or 7 prepared by you, and/or published under your name, since the 8 date you graduated college, which relates to local land use and 9 zoning regulations. 10 19. Each writing which constitutes, embodies, 11 mentions or in any way relates to any written report prepared 12 by you, containing your observations, opinions or conclusions 13 and dealing with the subject of your proposed testimony in 14 this case, each draft thereof and all notes pertaining to such 15 writing or report. 16 20. Each writing which constitutes, embodies, 17 mentions or in any way relates to your proposed testimony, 18 any opinion or conclusion formed by you with respect to the 19 subject matter of your proposed testimony, or your preparations 20 to testify as a witness in the trial of the above -entitled action, 21 each draft thereof and all notes pertaining thereto. 22 21. Each writing which you consulted or upon which 23 you rely with respect to your proposed testimony, the subject 24 matter of your proposed testimony, or the preparation of your 25 expert testimony and opinion in this case, each draft thereof 26 and all notes pertaining thereto. 27 28 10. I DATED: February 24, 1983 2 3 4 JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER Attorney for 5 Plaintiffs/Petitioners 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (VERIFICATION — 446. 2015.5 C. C. P,) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF I an iu the above entitled action or proceeding; 1 have read the and know the contents thereof, and I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein viated upon at}• information or belief, and, as to those matters I believe it to be true. I declare. under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. , California Executed on l ate] at (place] Signature PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013a, 2015.5 C. C. P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS A?NGELES I am a resident of the county aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is: 3535 West Sixth Street LOs Angeles California 90020 On February 24 , f9 83 , I served the within NOTICE OF DPPQSI PI TJ OF I( F on the interet sed narur�s in said action, by placing a true copy uhreof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at — addressed as follows: ROBERT BURNHAM Actin, City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 I declare. under penaly of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on d California r ' '., ` • - J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0j, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG Attorneys at Law 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 641-5100 ROBERT H. BURNHAM City Attorney, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2201 Attorneys for Defendants City of Newport Beach, City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OLIVE DAVID, ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARION GARRISON; DOROTHY M. McALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, a non-profit corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, VS. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE COMPANY, a corporation; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants/Respondents, and DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, Real Property in Interest. NO. 32 95 85 DECLARATION OF CRAIG T. BLUELL IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINA INJUNCTION Date: Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: 17 � 1 1 2 3 4 51 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 191 201 211 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, CRAIG T. BLUELL, declare and state: I am, and since January 1979 have been, employed by the City lof Newport Beach as a Senior Planner in the Newport Beach Planning Department. From December 1972 until December 1979, I served as an Associate Planner in the Newport Beach Planning Department. As a Senior Planner, one of my duties has been the drafting, monitor- ing of public input on, and implementation of the City's Housing Element, which was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council as G.P.A. 81-1(H) on September 28, 1981, and whose Housing Program Section was amended by the adoption of G.P.A. 82-1(H) by the Newport Beach City Council on November 22, 1982. I am also consulted by other members of the Newport Beach Planning Department with regard to housing issues relating to general plan amendments, subdivision approvals, zone changes and other land use entitlements. If called as a witness in this matter, I would testify competently and of my own personal knowledge as to the following: 1. The Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission conducted some fifteen public meetings, public hearings and study sessions prior to adopting the City's Housing Elemen.P.A. 81- l(H) on September 28, 1981. A listing of these meetings and hearings is as follows: DESCRIPTION a) Planning Meeting b) Planning Commission Study Session c) City Council Study Session d) Public meeting e) Planning Commission public hearing f) City Council public hearing DATE LEGAL NOTICE SERVED 3/16/81 Yes 3/19/81 6No 3/23/81 4/15/81 Yes 4/23/81 Yes 5/11/81 Yes -2- T i 1 2 3 4! 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DESCRIPTION DATE LEGAL NOTICE SERVED g) Planning Commission public hearing 5/07/81 Yes h) Planning Commission public hearing 6/04/81 Yes i) Planning Commission public hearing 6/18/81 Yes j) Planning Commission public hearing 7/09/81 Yes k) Planning Commission public hearing 7/23/81 Yes 1) Planning Commission public hearing 8/06/81 Yes m) Planning Commission public hearing 9/20/81 Yes n) Planning Commission public hearing 9/10/81 Yes o) City Council public hearing 9/28/81 CD 2. The City records with respect to notices mailed to interested persons and entities regarding the public hearings and meetings on draft G.P.A. 81-1(H) show that the attorneys for the Plaintiffs herein received notices of the drafting of, deliberation upon, and adoption of G.P.A. 81-1(H) from March 4 1982 onward. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are certified copies of the City's proof of publication, notice of public hearing, and mailing list, dated March 2, 1981 and March 4, 1981, which reflect that the following persons and entities received notice of the March 16, 1981 public hearing on draft G.P.A. 81-1(H): tea) Department of Housing and Community Development; b) Crystal Sims (Legal Aid Society of Orange Counth); c) Aviva K. Bobb and Robert M. Meyers (Legal Aid 1 Foundation of Los Angeles); `d) Toby J. Rothschild, Marvin E. Krakow, and David B. Harrison (Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach); e) Michael R. Valentine (Legal Aid Society of San Diego); f) John E. McDermott, Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer and -3- 1 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 3 24 W�4, 25 26I27 �71 Richard A. Rothschild (Western Center on Law and Poverty); g) Katherine R. Wolff (Orange County Fair Housing Council); ... h) Richard W. Petherbridge These names listed in Exhibit "A" were made part of the City's master mailing list regarding the Draft Housing Element, and each of the persons and entities listed in Exhibit "A" received notice of each of the public hearings, meetings and study sessions con- ducted on Draft C.P.A. 81-1(H). 3. On March 16, 1981, the first public meeting on the Draft Housing Element was conducted. A certified copy of the public attendance list for that meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." The names on that list include Katherine Wolff, who I am informed served at one time as the attorney for the Orange County Fair Housing Council. I was in attendance at the March 16, 1981 public meeting on the Draft Housing Element; to the best of my recollection, Ms. Wolff made no public comments at that meeting. 4. On April 15, 1981, a second public meeting was held on the Draft Housing Element. A certified copy of the public attendance list for that meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." This list indicates that Mary Miller, of the Orange County Fair Housing Council, appeared at this meeting. I attended the public meeting held on April 15, 1981, and to the best of my recollection, Ms. Miller's public comments were limited to objections to the issue of proposed amendments to the City's existing Condominium Conversion Ordinance. It should be pointed out that the Newport Beach City Council voted not to adopt these proposed amendments when they come up for deliberation on i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 171 Eel 191 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 W1 August 9, 1982. 5. I attended all 15 of the public hearings, public meetings and study sessions concerning Draft G.P.A. 81-1(H). I am informed that the City's representatives, as well as the Department of Housing and Community Development, provided copies of the Draft Housing Element to Plaintiffs' attorneys during the summer of 1981. Although the attorneys for Plaintiffs received copies of the Draft Housing Element, and although each of the attorneys representing Plaintiffs received formal written notice of each of the fifteen , hearings and study sessions on Draft G.P.A. 81-1(H), it is my recollection that, with the exception of Ms. Miller's limited comments at the April 15, 1981 public meeting, none of the attorneys or entities listed in Exhibit "A" ever appeared and requested an opportunity to address either the City Council or the Planning Commission regarding the Draft Housing Element at any of these public hearings and meetings. 6. In the summer of 1982, the Newport Beach City Council acted pursuant to Objective 13 of G.P.A. 81-1(H) to conduct a review of the Housing Element, and determined to initiate pro- ceedings to amend the Housing Program Section of the Housing Element to expand the scope of the City's housing activities. That amendment, which was codified as G.P.A. 82-1(H), was adopted on November 22, 1982. Prior to its adoption, Draft G.P.A. 82-1(H) was the subject of a Planning Commission public hearing on August 19, 1982, and a City Council public hearing on November 22, 1982. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a certified copy of the Notice of Public Hearing and mailing list with respect to -5- r ! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 /1 11I (' 12 131 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ml the November 22, 1982 City Council public hearing on Draft G.P.A. 82-1(H). The mailing list reflects that formal notices of the public hearing on Draft G.P.A. 82-1(H) were mailed to the following attorneys representing Plaintiffs in this action: a) Toby J. Rothschild b) Katherine K. Wolff, O.C. Fair Housing Council c) Crystal C. Sims, Legal Aid Society d) Michael R. Valentine, Legal Aid Society of San Diego e) Richard W. Petherbridge f) John E. McDermott, Western Center on Law and Poverty. is my understanding that these same persons received formal notice of the August 19, 1983 Planning Commission public hearing Draft G.P.A. 82-1(H). 8. I attended the August 19, 1983 Planning Commission public hearing on Draft G.P.A. 82-1(H); to the best of my recollection, no one requested the opportunity to speak at that public hearing in opposition to Draft G.P.A. 82-1(H). I likewise attended the November 22, 1982 public hearing conducted by the City Council on Draft G.P.A. 82-1(H), and to the best of my recollection, no one requested the opportunity to speak at that public hearing in opposition to the Draft amendments to the Housing Element. Attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is a certified copy of the minutes of the City Council deliberations on Draft G.P.A. 82-1(H), which reflect that no persons spoke at the public hearing prior to the City Council's adoption of G.P.A. 82-1(H) as amendments to the Housing Program Section of the Housing Element. 9. G.P.A. 81-2, which amended the Land Use, Residential Growth and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Due 201 211 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 with regard to a number of parcels, including the Cal Trans West and Big Canyon -Area 16 parcels, was initiated by the Newport Beach City Council on July 14, 1981. In connection with the adoption of G.P.A. 81-2, the City reviewed a three volume environ- mental impact report, and conducted public hearings before the City Council and Planning Commission. The City Council adopted Gon May 9, 198.3, by the approval of Resolution NoVeminuutes Attached hereto as Exhibit "F" are certified copies of of May 9, 1983 and , 1983, City Council meetings on G.P.A. 81-2. These minutes reflect that no repre- sentatives of the Plaintiffs herein spoke in opposition to the adoption of G.P.A. 81-2 during the scheduled public hearing on that general plan amendment. 10. G.P.A. 81-2 changed the land use designation on the Cal Trans West parcel (10.1 buildable acres) from open space to multiple family residential, with a resulting increase of 152 units of housing (from 0 to 152) on that site, based upon a potential residential density of 15.0 units per buildable acre. Pursuant to Resolution No. 83-43, 20% of the total housing units on the Cal Trans West parcel must be affordable to low and moderate income persons as defined in the City'-s Housing Element, and an additional 100 of the total housing units developed on that site must be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 11. G.P.A. 81-2 also amended the Land Use designation of the Big Canyon -Area 16 parcel (10.9 buildable acres) from open space to medium density residential, with a resulting increase of 87 dwelling units (from 0 to 87) on that site; of these 87 -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 units, at least 10% must be constructed on -site or off -site as units affordable to low and moderate income families. 12. G.P.A. 81-3 was initiated by the City on February 22, 1982. The City Council adopted G.P.A. 81-3, whose only effect is to permit the existing Marriott Hotel to add an additional 234 rooms and 574 parking spaces, on February 14, 1983. Attached hereto as Exhibit "G" is a certified copy of the minutes of the February 14, 1983 City Council meeting, which reflects that no persons representing the Plaintiffs herein requested the opportun to speak in opposition to G.P.A. 81-3 during the scheduled public hearing on that general plan amendment. 13. Tentative Tract Map No. 11906 was filed with the City by Morgan Development Company on January 28, 1983; the purpose of the application is to subdivide 1.65 acres (1.03 buildable acres) for the development of seventeen condominium units. The Planning Commission granted conditional approval on Tentative Tract Map No. 11906, after the applicant agreed, pursuant to Objective 6 of the Newport Beach Housing Element, to provide two of the seventeen proposed units as affordable to low and moderate income families. Tentative Tract Map 11906, which establishes the density of the project at 16.5 units per acre, was formally approved by the City Council on June 27, 1983. A certified copy of the minutes of the City Council meeting of June 23, 1983 is attached hereto as Exhibit "H"; these minutes reflect that no persons representing the Plaintiffs herein requested the opportunity to address the City Council in opposition to Tentative Tract Map No. 11906 during the scheduled public hearing on that subdivision application. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. Tentative Tract Map No. 11935 was filed with the City by the Douglas Allred Development Company on April 12, 1983; the. purpose of the application is to subdivide 3.67 acres of land (3.31 buildable acres) into 50 condominium units. The Planning Commission granted conditional approval on Tentative Tract Map No. 11935 on May 5, 1983, after the applicant agreed, pursuant to Objective 6 of the Newport Beach Housing Element, to provide 5 of the 50 proposed units as affordable to low and moderate income families. Tentative Tract Map 11935, which establishes the density of the project at 15.1 units per acre, was formally approved by the City Council on June 13, 1983. A certified copy of the minutes of the City Council meeting of June 13, 1983 are attached hereto as Exhibit "I"; these minutes reflect that no person representing the Plaintiffs herein requested the opportunity to address the City Council in opposition to Tentative Tract Map No. 11935 during the scheduled public hearing on that subdivision application. 15. I am informed that the Plaintiffs herein seek to enjoin The Irvine Company from grading operations on the Baywood Expansion site. On February 11, 1980, the City Council approved Planning Commission Amendment No. 536 and Resubdivision No. 637 to permit the development of 68 apartment units on the Baywood Expansion site. Attached hereto as Exhibit "J" is a certified copy of the minutes of the City Council meeting of February 11, 1980; these minutes reflect that no person representing the Plaintiffs herein requested the opportunity to speak in opposition to these land use entitlements during the scheduled public hearing which preceded the City Council actions of February 11, c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161 17 18 19 20 211 22 23 24 25 26 271 MI 1980. Inasmuch as The Irvine Company sought land use entitlements to develop rental housing, The Irvine Company was not required under the City's Subdivision Code to obtain any parcel map, tentative tract or final tract approvals. Consequently, The Irvine Company has had the right to obtain a grading permit and commence grading of the Baywood Expansion site a all February 11, 1980. 16. I am further informed that the Plaintiffs herein seek to enjoin the City from grading and making any improvements to the "Oasis Park" site, owned by the City, which is located in the vicinity of Jasmine and Fifth Avenues, because the Plaintiffs apparently believe that this site should be used for housing purposes. It should be noted that this property has been designated in the City's General Plan for park purposes since 197 , and will form an integral link in the City's park system. The City acquired this site in in conjunction with the acquisition of property for the Oasis Senior Citizens Center. When completed, th asks ark will provide passive recreational and park facilities to the senior citizens who attend the Oasis Senior Citizens Center; The City believes that both the Oasis Senior Citizens Center and the adjoining Oasks Park are necessary for the senior citizens, who comprise 14.3% of the City's population (Housing Element, page 21). Funding to acquire these sites came from a CDBG grant provided to the City by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in ; in approving the City's 19.... CDBG application, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development specifically authorized the City to utilize -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the CDBG funds to acquire the Oasis Park site to provide park facilities for the elderly persons who visit t4d`OasktNSenior Citizens Center. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on at a California. Craig T. Bluell -11- RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A.W.RUTANIIB8O.19721 A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS JAMES B. TUCKER. SR. II BBB-IG BOI MILFORD W DAHL• PATRICIA L. STEARNS CENTRAL BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 H. RODGER MOWELL' RENA C. STONE GARVIN F. SHALLENBEROER• WILLIAM J. CAPLAN SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER JAMES R. MOORE• GARY M. LAPE ROBERT L RISLEY' MICHAEL T HORNAK 611 ANTON BOULEVARD M. L. IMIKEI MCCORMICK• JANICE L. CELOTTI WILLIAM R BIEL' PHILIP D. KOHN POST OFFICE BOX 1950 RICHARD A. CURNUTT• JOEL D. KUPERBERO LEONARD A. HAMPEL• ELIZABETH A. NEALE COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 JOHN B HURLBUT. JR.• SCOTT R. HOYT MICHAEL W. IMMCLL• DEBORAH H. ALLEY MILFORD W. DAHL. JR.• MART B. MCILLECE THEODORE 1. WALLACE. JR.- KATHRYN L. TOBIN RICHARD P. SIMS• PHILIP C. MAYNARD MAROHALM. PEAIN R. July 26, 1983 ROBERT CL BRAUNRLMAN• CVRIDIKI VICKUNCILA DALLAS ROOCR A. ORABLE• STEVEN A. NICHOLS COWARD D. SYBESMA. JR.• HARVEY M. MOORE THOMAS S. SALINOER• MAURICE 5ANCHCZ MARRY R. LAUBSCHER• BRUCE HALLETT DAVID C. LARSEN• WILLIAM T. ELIOPOULOS CLIFFORD C. FRIEOEN• ERIC R. NEWMAN ARTHUR G. KIDMAN' RANDALL M. BABBUSH MICHAEL D. RUSIN' CRAIG LABADIE IRA G. RIVIN• DENNIS S. ROY JEFFRCY M. OBERMAN• JEFFREY S. ROVNER C. S. WOLCOTT. BP MATTHEW L. STEIMEL ROBERT L. PIKE' TIMOTHY S. MCCANN ROBERT S. BOWER' THOMAS J. CRANE LAWRENCE C. BERTINO• SCOTT D ROOERS MARCIA A. FORSYTH DAVID H. HOCHNER WILLIAM M. MARTICORENA MARK FRAZIER BRUCE D. WALLACE KARIN T. KROGIUS ROGER H. SCHNAPP HEATHER A. MAHOOD LAWRENCE J. DREYFUSS GABRIELLE WIRTH ANNE NE450H LANPHAR Mr. Craig Bluell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Dear Craig: TELEPHONE (714) 641-SIOO (213) 625-7586 TELECOPIER (714) 546-9035 TWX 910 596-1883 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Enclosed please find a request for production served upon us by your friend, Jonathan. As you may recall, we advised him to make any request for documents formally through us, rather than going down to City Hall and foraging through the City's files on his own. Please assemble the requested materials, make one copy of them, and transmit them to our office by Friday, August 5, 1983. This office will thereupon transmit the documents to the attorneys for the Plaintiff, Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jeff Oderman, as I will be on vacation until August 16, 1983. Very truly yours, RUTAN & ,TUCKER / ( Joel D. Kuperberg JDK:bc Enclosures ccs: Jeffrey M. Oderman; Leonard A. Hampel (w/encl) oltlo 5 western center ®n Low and Poverty, Inco of the 3535 W. Sixth Street is Los Angeles, CA 90020-2898 • (213) 487-7241 July 21, 1983 JOEL D. KUPERBERG, ESQ. Rutan & Tucker 611 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Dear Joel: Alan Rader Executive Director Mary S. Burdick Senior Counsel Philip H Henderson Administrator Melinda R Bird Marilyn Kali Jonathan Lehrer-Gronver Angela R. Pickett Richard A. Rothschild Dan Slormer Counsel The enclosed Request for Production of Documents deals with a number of recently produced documents, as well as a number of documents referred to during depositions we have taken in this action or referred to in other documents which were previously produced. Although I enumerated California Pat Temple, procedures enable our William J. Flanagan Director of Tralning could have requested production of the documents in a letter to City staff under the Public Records Act, as had been suggested by I decided to request them under the discovery in order to provide a formal record and to recourse to those procedures, if necessary. ncerely, ONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER //Attorney at Law JLG:mlh Enc. cc: Crystal Sims Gina Lobaco Public Advocale Michelle Epstein Uloranon Northern California Office • 4900 "K" St. • Suite 200 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • (946) 442-0753 Rudolfo C Aios. Director . Kothenne E M9155 • Do, d 00c11eco • Peter F Schillo .d� s ©I= Pa PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 4 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 5 6 I� MARTHA K. HARPER , declare under penalty 7 of perjury as follows: 8 I am a resident of the County of Los Angeles; I am over 9 the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled 10 action; my business address is 3535 West Sixth Street, 11 Los Angeles, California, 90020. 12 On July 21, 1983 , I served the within 13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, INSPECTION AND REPRODUCTION OF 14 DOCUMENTS (CCP § 2031) 15 on the interested parties in said action by placing a true copy 26 thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully 17 prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, 18 addressed as follows: 19 JOEL D. KUPERBERG ROBERT BURNHAM LEONARD HAMPEL Acting City Attorney 20 JEFFERY M. ODERMAN City of Newport Beach RUTAN & TUCKER 3300 Newport Blvd. 21 611 Anton Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 22 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 23 true and correct. 24 1983, at Executed on July 21 , 25 Los Angeles, California. 26 27 28 RTH K. HARPER 1 CRYSTAL C. SIMS LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 2' 2700 North Main Street, llth Floor Santa Ana, California 92701 3 Telephone: (714) 835-8806 4 RONALD L. ROUDA LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES 5 1544 West 8th Street Los Angeles, California 90017 6 Telephone: (213) 381-2131; 385-9691 7 TOBY J. ROTHSCHILD LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LONG BEACH 8 205 East Broadway Long Beach, California 90802 9 Telephone: (213) 434-7421 10 GREGORY VEACH LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO 11 216 South Tremont Oceanside, California 90254 12 Telephone: (714) 722-1935 13 JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER RICHARD A.ROTHSCHILD 14 WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, INC. 3535 West Sixth Street 15 Los Angeles, California 90020 Telephone: (213) 487-7211 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners 17 OLIVE DAVIS, ALFREDO ORTIZ, MARIA ORTIZ, SHARON GARRISON, DOROTHY 18 MCALEAVY, ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION 19 RICHARD W. PETHERBRIDGE 20 1722 North Broadway Santa Ana, California 92706 21 Telephone: (714) 835-0935 22 Attorney for Plaintiffs/Petitioners FRANK H. BARNES, MARION S. BARNES, 23 JOSEPH P. BOYLE and ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL 24 25 26 27 28 1. CASE NO. 32-95-85 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 F1 '10 11 12 13 '14 '15 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARON GARRISON; DOROTHY M. M6ALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, a non-profit corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, 17 V. :18 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY '19 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE -20 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE "21 COMPANY, a corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 22 Defendants/Respondents, 23 24 CASE NO. 32-95-85 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, INSPECTION AND REPRODUC- TION OF DOCUMENTS (CCP 9 2031) 2511 TO DEFENDANTS, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 2611 NEWPORT BEACH, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, 2711 AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 28 YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED, pursuant to Code of Civil - 2- 1 (Procedure Section 2031, (1) to identify, where requested, -documents 2 which are in the City's possession, custody or control, which fall 3 within categories specified below and (2) to produce and permit the 4 inspection and copying of the documents identified and of the 5 documents enumerated below. You are requested to produce the 6 aforesaid documents on August 23, 1983, at 9:30 a.m., at the Legal 7 Aid Society of Orange County located at 2700 North Main Street, 8 llth Floor, Santa Ana, California. As specified under Code of 9 Civil Procedure Section 2031, you are required to serve a written 10 response to this Request for Production, Inspection and Reproduc- 11 tion of Documents, within 20 days after its service upon you. 12 The term "City" shall refer to the City of Newport Beach 13 and to any of'its agencies, unless otherwise specified. 14 The documents requestedtobe produced are the following: 15- 1. "Documents concerning the approval by the City 16 Council of -the"Sea Island Residential Development, including 17' documents referring to proposed densities of development and the 18 final'approveddensity of development. The City Council appears 19 have taken action on the Sea Island Residential Development on 20 January 8, 1979. Documents to be identified and produced include, 21 but are not limited, to the following: 22 (a) Minutes of City Council meetings. 23 (b) Minutes of Planning Commission meetings. 24 (c) Resolutions adopted. 25 (d) Conditions of approval. 26 (e) Staff reports. 27 The staff report from the California Coastal Commis- 28 sion regarding the City's local coastal plan. This report appears 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 to have been dated November 3, 1981. 3. Any resolutions or ordinances amending or updating Resolutions 82-90 and 82-97 of the City. 4. Ordinance No. 1733 (Atherton Initiative). 5. Resolution 10069 of the City of Newport Beach. 6. Documents related to General Plan Amendment 81-3, including staff reports, minutes of City Council and Planning Commission meetings, and resolutions and ordinances adopting the amendment. 7. Documents relating to communications with the City by private citizens in regard to the Community Development Block Grant program during the years 1975 to 1978. This category of documents includes, but is not limited to, correspondence received from citizens opposing the City's participation in the Community Develop ment Block Grant program. 8. The report from the Community Development Department Iregarding the recommendation of the Planning Commission of June 16, 1977 concerning a moratorium on the development phasing pro- gram. This report is referred to in the City Council minutes of June 27, 1977, volume 31., p. 167. 9. The report from the City Manager concerning alterna- Itive funding on the Fifth and Marguerite Avenue property referred Ito in the City Council minutes of July 11, 1977, volume 31, p. 178. 10. Documents related to General Plan Amendment 77-2, including but not limited to, the following: (a) A staff report on General Plan Amendment 77-2-E referred to in City Council minutes of July 25, 1977. (b) The staff report on General Plan Amendment 77-2 -4- 1 dated August 2, 1977 for the City Council meeting of August 81 2 1977, Agenda Item D-2. 3 (c) Letters and documents presented to the City on 4 General Plan Amendment 77-2 and referred to in the City Council 5 minutes of August 8, 1977, volume 31, p. 200, particularly the 6 letter from Peter Kraemer from The Irvine Company. 7 (d) The report from the City Attorney on General 8 Plan Amendment 77-2 referred to in the City Council minutes of 9 September 12, 1977'. 10 (e) Resolution 9192 of the City. 11 11. Planned community district regulations for all 12 planned community districts except Beeco-Banning, Harbor Hills and 13 Ford Aeroneutronics. 14 12. The staff report referred to during the consideration 15 of General Plan Amendment 81-3 at volume 37, p. 52 of the City 16 Council minutes regarding the intent of Resolution No. 9009 and 17 General Plan Amendments 79-1 and 80-3. 18 13. Resolution No. 83-35 regarding mortgage revenue 19 bonds adopted April 11, 1983 and the report by the City Manager, 20 Agenda Item F(2)(d). 21 14. Conditions of approval of Tentative Tract 10019 22 (North Ford). 23 15. The latest Vacancy Rate -Survey conducted in connec- 24 tion with the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, subsequent to the 25 survey dated April 1981. 26 16. Pages 16 and 17 of the staff report on General Plan 27 Amendment 81-2 prepared for the Planning Commission meeting of 28 June 4, 1981, Agenda Item No. 6. . -5- 17. Page 2 of the staff report prepared for the City 2 Council meeting of February 9, 1981, Agenda Item D-2. 3 18. Pages 2, 4 and 6 from the staff report prepared for 4 the :Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 1981, Agenda Item 5 No. 1. 6 19. City Council minutes in October, November and 7 December of 1979 regarding General Plan Amendment 79-1. 8 20. Planning Commission minutes subsequent to October 41 9 1979, regarding General Plan Amendment 79-1. 10 21. City Council minutes of January 12, 1979. 11 22. City Council minutes of December 20, 1978. 12 23. Ordinance No. 83-22 adopted on June 13, 1983. 13 24. Resolution No. 83-53 and the report from the City 14 Manager regarding Agenda Item F(2) at the City Council meeting of 15 June 13, 1983. 16 25. The report from the Finance Director regarding 17 increases of various City fees referred to in the City Council 18 minutes of June 13,.1983, volume 37, p. 191. 19 26. The Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach 20 General Plan containingamendmentssubsequent to General Plan 21 Amendment 80-1. AM&1iLJjket,; &.Cu.' [l/J 5W-Z 22 27. The Residential Growth Element of the City of Newport 23 Beach General Plan amended subsequent'to December 20, 1978. 24 DATED: July 21, 1983. 26 ),r.� �17 f. to c C �r.� •:-c L. IWER 27 Attorney forR laintiffs 28 3 Procedure Section 2031, (1) to identify, where requested, documents 2 which are in the City's possession, custody or control, which fall 3 within categories specified below and (2) to produce and permit the 4 inspection and copying of the documents identified and of the 5 documents enumerated below. You are requested to produce the 6 aforesaid documents on August 23, 1983, at 9:30 a.m., at,the Legal 7 Aid Society of Orange County located at 2700 North Main Street, 8 llth Floor, Santa Ana, California. As specified under Code of 9 Civil Procedure Section 2031, you are required to serve a written 10 response to this Request for Production, Inspection and Reproduc- 11 tion of Documents, within 20 days after its service upon you. 12 The term "City" shall refer to the City of Newport Beach 13 and to any of its agencies, unless otherwise specified. 14 �"� The documents requested to be produced are the following: 15' "..1. "Documents concerning the approval by the City 3.6 Council of 'the -Sea Island Residential Development, including 17' documents referring to proposed densities of development and the 18 final'approved'density of development. The City Council appears tc 3.9 have taken action on the Sea Island Residential Development on 20 January 8, 1979. Documents to be identified and produced include, 21 but are not limited, to the following: 22 ) Minutes of City Council meetings. 23 Minutes of Planning Commission meetings. 24 Resolutions adopted. 25 Conditions of approval. 26 Staff reports. 27 The staff report from the California Coastal Commis- 28 sion regarding the City's local coastal plan. This report appears ] to have been dated November 3, 1981. 2 Any resolutions or ordinances amending or updating 3 Resolutions 82-90 and 82-97 of the City. 4 Ok Ordinance No. 1733 (Atherton Initiative). 5 `K Resolution 10069 of the City of Newport Beach. �( 6 6. Documents related to General Plan Amendment 81-3, ✓ \ 7 including staff reports, minutes of City Council and Planning 8 Commission meetings, and resolutions and ordinances adopting the 9 amendment. '\ 10 7. Documents relating to communications with the City by 11 private citizens in regard to the Community Development Block Grant 12 Ilprogram during the years 1975 to 1978. This category of documents 3.3 I1includes, but is not limited to, correspondence received from 14 Ilcitizens opposing the City's participation in the Community 15 11ment Block Grant program. 16 X The report from the Community Development Department 17 regarding the recommendation of the Planning Commission of June 18 16, 1977 concerning a moratorium on the development phasing pro- 19 gram. This report is referred to in the City Council minutes of 20 June 27, 1977, volume 31, p. 167. 21 % The report from the City Manager concerning alterna- 22 itive funding on the Fifth and Marguerite Avenue property referred 23 to in the City Council minutes of July 11, 1977, volume 31, p. 178. 24 10. Documents related to General Plan -Amendment 77-2, 25 including but not limited to, the following: 26 x A staff report on General Plan Amendment 77-2-E 27 referred to in City Council minutes of July 25, 1977. X 28 The staff report on General Plan Amendment 77-2 X oL L 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 dated August 2, 1977 for the City Council meeting of August 8 1977, AgendaitemD-2ipCi�11�d��,Qj ,t, ,ab �y,', ON' "t0`^ Letters and documentsresented to he City on General Plan Amendment 77-2 and referred to in the City Council minutes of August 8, 1977, volume 31, P. 200, particularly the letter from Peter Kraemer from The Irvine Company ; I►si� 0. wrrrprw� The report from the City Attornneyey oon n General Plan Amendment 77-2 referred to in the City Council minutes of September 12, 1977. Y& " XResolution 9192 of the City. . Planned community district regulations for all planned community districts except Beeco-Banning, Harbor Hills and Ford Aeroneutronics.'/n �" !�"i XThe staff report refer d to during the c nsideration of General Plan Amendment 81-3 at volume 37, p. 52`of the City Council minutes regarding the intent of Resolution No. 9009 and General P♦lann Amendments 79-1 and 80-3. D[. Resolution No. 83-35 regarding mortgage revenue bonds adopted April 11, 1983 and the report by the City Manager, Agenda Item F(2)(d). Conditions of approval of Tentative Tract 10019 (North Ford). XThe latest Vacancy Rate Survey conducted in connec- tion with the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, subsequent to the survey dated April 1981. tt:�: XPages 16 and 17 of the staff report on General Plan Amendment 81-2 prepared for the Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 1981, Agenda Item No. 6. A. I Page 2 of the staff report prepared for the City 2 Council meeting of February 91'1981, Agenda Item D-2. 3 X. Pages 2, 4 and 6 from the staff report prepared for 4 the Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 1981, Agenda Item 5 No. 1. 6 City Council minutes in October, November and 7 December of 1979 regarding General Plan Amendment 79-1. 8 ?• -So40 Planning Commission minutes subsequent to October 4, 9 1979, regarding General Plan Amendment 79-1. novit hC�G1► G 10 ? �� City Council minutes of January 12, 1979.nQ SU YI't 14 11 City Council minutes of December 20, 1978. 12 Ordinance No. 83-22 adopted on June 13, 1983. 13 Resolution No. 83-53 and the report from the City 14 Manager regarding Agenda Item F(2) at the City Council meeting of 15 June 13, 1983. 16 x The report from the Finance Director regarding 17 increases of various City fees referred to in the City Council minutes of June 13,.1983, volume 37, p. 191. The Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan containingamendmentssubsequent to General Plan Amendment �80(-1. f�ll� Fi d i .c, v -1" o�c ! _ ° :. ? The Residential Growth Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan amended subsequent'to December 20, nn1978. DATED: July 21, 1983. 27 Attorney for' -Plaintiffs 28 u , � 1 I 11t6 have been dated November 3, 1981. 2 X Any resolutions or ordinances amending or updating 3 Resolutions 82-90 and 82-97 of the City. 4 1�44 Ordinance No. 1733 (Atherton Initiative). Resolution 10069 of the City of Newport Beach 6 6. Documents related to General Plan Amendment 81-3�, / 7 including staff reports, minutes of City Council and Planning 8 Commission meetings, and resolutions and ordinances adopting the 9 amendment. 10 7. Documents relating to communications with the City by 11 private citizens in regard to the Community Development Block Grant 12 program during the years 1975 to 1978. This category of documents 13 includes, but is not limited to, correspondence received from 14 citizens opposing the City's participation in the Community Develop 15 ment Block Grant program. 16 8. The report from the Community Development Department 17 regarding the recommendation of the Planning Commission of June 18 16, 1977 concerning a moratorium on the development phasing pro- 19 gram. This report is referred to in the City Council minutes of 20 June 27, 1977, volume 31, p. 167. 21 The report from the City Manager concerning alterna- 22 tive funding on the Fifth and Marguerite Avenue property referred 23 to in the City Council minutes of July 11, 1977, volume 31, p. 178. 24 10. Documents related to General Plan Amendment 77-2, 25 including but not limited to, the following: 26 _,(x A staff report on General Plan Amendment 77-2-E 27 referred to in City Council minutes of July 25, 1977. 28 (K The staff report on General Plan Amendment 77-2 1 2 3 4 5 61 7 9 10 11 12 13 ........... . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 dated August 2, 1977 for the City Council meeting of August 8, 1977, Agenda Item D-2. Letters and documents presented to the City on General Plan Amendment 77-2 and referred to in the City Council minutes of August 8, 1977, volume 31, p. 200, particularly the letter from Pe Kraemer from The Irvine Company. R*+ 4 I 1'CA 5 14 The report from the City Attorney on General Plan Amendment-2'referred to in the City Council minutes of September 12, 1977. he Resolution 9192 aQ0t qp Pp files 11'. Planned community district regulations for all planned community districts except Beeco-Banning, Harbor Hills Ford Aeroneutronics. ��(( 12. The staff report referred to during the considera of General Plan Amendment 81-3 at volume 37, p. 52 of the City Council minutes regarding the intent of Resolution No. 9009 and General Plan Amendments 79-1 and 80-3. Resolution No. 83-35 regarding mortgage revenue bonds adopted April 11, 1983 and the report by the City Manager, Agenda Item F(2)(d). XConditions of approval of Tentative Tract 10019 (North Ford). } 3, The latest Vacancy Rate Survey conducted in connec- tion with the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, subsequent to the survey dated April 1981. a4.,1 dozS X Z- wa " v ` 16. Pages 16 and 17 of the staff report on General Plan Amendment 81-2 prepared for the Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 1981, Agenda Item No. 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 0 18 ' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 2 of the staff report prepared for the City Council meeting of February 9, 1981, Agenda Item D-2. Pages 2, 4 and 6 from the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 1981, Agenda Item No. 1. City Council minutes in October, November and Decembers/ oof�f����1979 regarding General Plan Amendment 79-1. � ,�Q.J Planning Commission minutes .�ubsequent, to Octojor 4, 1979, regarding General Plan Amendment 79-1. n " g #+fw City Council minutes of January 12, 1979.#1V m444M City Council minutes of December 20, 1978. Ordinance No. 83-22 adopted on June 13, 1983. Resolution No. 83-53 and the report from the City Manager regarding Agenda Item F(2) at the City Council meeting of June 13, 1983. �� 06WIAI f o jeS NThe report from the Finance Director regarding increases of various City fees referred to in the City Council minutes of June 13,.1983, volume 37, p. 191. ij6 The Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan containing amendments subsequent to General -Plan �aAmendment 80-1. 47'. The Residential Growth Element of the 'of Newport Beach General Plan amended subsequent to December 20, 1978.not DATED: July 21, 1983. Attorney for intiffs . 1 ►I 1 to have been dated November 3, 1981. Any resolutions or ordinances amending or updating 3 Resolutions 82-90 and 82-97 of the City. 4 ordinance No. 1733 (Atherton Initiative). 5 :4 Resolution 10069 of the City of Newport Beach,; � 6 6. Documents related to General Plan Amendment 81�-3, / 7 including staff reports, minutes of City Council and Planning 8 IlCommission meetings, and resolutions and ordinances adopting the 9 11amendment. loll 7. Documents relating to communications with the City by 11 Private citizens in regard to the Community Development Block Gran 12 program during the years 1975 to 1978. This category of documents 13 Ilincludes, but is not limited to, correspondence received from 14 citizens opposing the City's participation in the Community Develop 15 ment Block Grant program. 16 8. The report from the Community Development Department 17 regarding the recommendation of the Planning Commission of June 18 16, 1977 concerning a moratorium on the development phasing pro- 3 .9 gram. This repor is referred to in the City Council minutes of 20 June 27, 1977, olume 31, p. 167. 21 9. The report from the City Manager concerning alterna- 22 tive funding on the Fifth and Marguerite Avenue property referred 23 to in the City Council minutes of July 11, 1977, volume 31, p. 178. 24 10. Documents related to General Plan Amendment 77-2, 25 including but not limited to, the following: 26 '(a) A staff report on General Plan Amendment 77-2-E 27 referred to in City Council minutes of July 25, 1977. 28 1 (b) The staff report on General Plan Amendment 77-2 3 4 5 7 8 10 11 - 12 13 14 'K 15 a 16 17 _ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Page 2 of the staff report prepared for the C' Council meeting of February 9, 1981, Agenda Item D-2. $ Pages .21 4 and 6 from the staff report prepared for the'Plannz. g Commission meeting of February 5, 1981, Agenda Item No. 1. �o be3��1 rand City Council minutes in October, Nove rand D embTo1979 regarding General Plan Amendment 79-1. 20. Planning Commission minutes subsequent to October 4, 1979, regarding General Plan Amendment 79-1. 21 Cit Council minutes of January2, 1979' 2 Council minutes of December 20, 1978. 0 di.nance No. 83-22 adopted on June 13, 1983. 4 solution No. 83-53. and the report from the City Manager regarding A enda It F(2)at the City Council meeting of June 13, 1983. y� 41,1- Wannrhq � (&-S � (ZSJ a report from the Finance Director regrdi increases of various City fees referred to in the City C ncil minutes of June 13,.1983, volume 37, p. 191. �L�n 26. The Land Use Element of the City ofNewportBeach General Plan containing amendments subsequent to General Plan Amendment 80-1. o4----�-•--�.._ 27. The ResidentialGrowthElement of the City of Newport Beach General Plan amended subsequent to December 20, 1978.nD 1A;A7 DATED: July 21, 1983. /Z�6 1el G it� JONATHAN L> IIRER-GRA1W8R Attorney for•Plaintiffs r:: `�4:r.....r I-n:.' ��I •. �^ -."VI•�'��`' _ _ r•^� .•r),'•1: 'f-e '�'i ly i�r iS.'1.-VYi�•y: n.i .11� .. .. .-. - .. ✓..ham.. ��� :•!•r� Ir4):l .li. ti.� J.J. .V.tir ??. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3300 Newport Blvd. 640.2139 RECEIVED .FEE RECEIPT i? JOB ADDRESS:�1 17 WHEN VALIDATED THIS IS A RECEIPT FOR THE AMOUNT OF FEE COLLECTED AS SHOWN IN SPACE BELOW. THE SERIAL NUMBER, DATE AND AMOUNT VALIDATED HEREON HAS ALSO BEEN VALIDATED ON YOUR APPLICATION OR OTHER DOCUMENT AND HAS BECOME A PART OF THE RECORDS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM WHICH THIS -RECEIPT MAY BE IDENTIFIED. ❑ PLAN CHECKING -VALUATION $ ❑ SANITATION DIST. NO. 5 FEE ❑ BUSINESS LICENSE FEE ❑ REINSPECTION FEE B E P S L H ❑ EXCISE TAX FEE ❑ MOBILEHOME PARK PERMIT FEE SPACES _ ❑ TEMPORARY GAS ELEC. ❑ PLANNING DEPT. FEES ❑ PLAN CHECKING - GRAD NG CU. V-oG RECEIVED VALIDATION YDS. CASH' CHK. M.O. 'SO?7 $38 1 01/31/33 9.00 TO SERIAL NO. DATE SYMBOL FEE J A W. PUTAN II 8U0-IPT2 JAMES B. TUCKER. SR. II800%301 MILFORD W. OAHL• RENA C. STONE H. RODGER HDWELL- WILLIAM J. CAPLAN GARVIN P. SHALLENBEROER' GARY M. LAPE JAMES R MOORE• RANDALL S. WAIER ROBERT L. RISLEY• MICHAEL T. HORNAK H. L. (MIKE) MCCORMICK• JANICE L. CELOTTI WILLIAM R. BIEL• PHILIP O. KOHN RICHARD A. CURNUTT• JOEL D. KUPERBERG LEONARD A. HAMPEL• ELIZABCTH A. NEALC JOHN B. HURLBUT. JP,' SCOTT R. HOYT MICHAEL W. IMMCLL• DEBOPAH H. ALLEY MILFORD W. DAHL. JR.- MARY B. MCILLECC THEODORE 1. WALLACE. JR.• KATHRYN L TOBIN RICHARD P. SIMS' PHILIP C. MAYNARD MARSHALL M. PEARLMAN' NEILA R. BERNSTEIN ROBERT C. BRAUN• DONNA SNOW WOLF ROGER A. ORABLE• DEBRA J. OUNN COWARD 0, SYBESMA. JR.• EVRIDIKI IVICKII DALLAS THOMAS S. SALINGER• STEVEN A. NICHOLS BARRY R. LAUBSCNER' DAVID M. GREY DAVID C. LARSEN• HARVEY M. MBORE CLIFFORD E. FRIEDEN' MAURICE SANCHEZ ARTHUR O. KIDMAN' BRUCE HALLETT MICHAEL D. RUSIN• WILLIAM T. ELIOPOULOS MARC WINTHROP' ERIC R. NEWMAN IRA G. RIVIN• RANDALL M. BABBUSH JEFFREY M. QDERMAN• CRAIG LABADIE RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD' DENNIS S. ROY E. S. WOLCOTT. III- JEFFREY S. ROVNER ROBERT L. PIKE' MATTHEW L. STEIMEL ROBERT S. SOWER' TIMOTHY S. MCCANN LAWRENCE E. DENTING. THOMAS J. CRANE MARCIA A. FORSYTH SCOTT D. ROGERS WILLIAM M. MARTICORENA DAVID H. HOCHNER BRUCC D. WALLACE MARK FRAZIER ROGER H. SCHNAPP KARIN T. KROGIUS LAWRENCE J. DREYFUSS HEATHER A. MAHOOD ANNE NELSON LANPHAR GABRIELLE WIRTH PATRICIA L. STEARNS A PROR... I..L WRVOMTOH RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS AMERICAN CITY BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER fill ANTON BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 Mr. Craig Bluell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 February 15, 1983 Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Dear Craig: TELEPHONE (7I4) 641-5100 (213) 625-7586 TELECOPIER (714) 546.903S TW% 910 S96-1803 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO RECEIVED Planning r,epiKrnent FEB 161983P- C1TY OF Nall, PORT SuiCH, CAUR Please find enclosed a copy of a Request for Production of city documents which the Plaintiffs served upon me yesterday. As I indicated to you over the telephone, this document request is set for March 17, 1983. I would appreciate it if you would either obtain the documents or let me know that they do not exist (if that is the case) by March 3,' 1983. While the Plaintiffs have made a formal request for these documents, the requested documents are also very important to Len and me in preparing the City's defense in this matter. Accordingly, it is very important that we locate and copy the requested documents. In this regard, do not at this time worry about Requests No. 1, 2 and 3; I will discuss these documents with you at another date. Thanks again for your cooperation in this regard. Very truly yours, [1 JDK:bc Joel D. Kuperberg Enclosure ( CRYSTAL C. SIMS LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 2 2700 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California 92701 3 Telephone: (714) 835-8806 4 RONALD L. ROUDA LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES 5 1544 West 8th Street Los Angeles, California 90017 6 Telephone: (213) 381-2131; 385-9691 7 TOBY J. ROTHSCIIILD LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LONG BEACH $ 205 East Broadway Long Beach, California 90802 9 Telephone: (213) 434-7421 10 GREGORY VEACH LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF 'SAN DIEGO 11 216 South Tremont Oceanside, California 90254 12 Telephone: (714) 722-1935 13 JONATH?_N LEHRER-GRAIWER RICHARD A. ROTHSCIiILD 14 WESTER: CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, INC. 3535 Plest Sixth Street 90020 15 Los Anceles, ornia Telephone: (213)f487-7211 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners 17 OLIVE DAVIS, ALFR.DO ORTIZrOIAY A ORTIZ, SHARON GARRISON, DOR McALEA.'Y, ORANGE COUNTY COM?IUNITY 18 HOUSING CORPORATION 19 RICHARD W. PETHERBRIDGE 20 1722 North Broadway Santa rna, California 92706 21 Telephone: (714) 835-0935 22 Attorney for Plaintiffs/Petitioners FRANK H. BARNES, MARION S. BARNES, 23 JOSEPI1 p. BOYLE and ORANGE COUNTY FAIR IIOUSING COUNCIL 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 32-95-85 1 2; 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARON GARRISON; DOROTHY M. McALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, a non-profit corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, V. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE COMPANY, a corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants/Respondents, CASE NO. 32-95-85 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, INSPECTION AND REPRODUC- TION OF DOCUMENTS (C.C.P. 52031) TO: DEFENDANTS, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 2 OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, 3 AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 4 5 YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED, pursuant to Code of Civil Pro- cedure Section 2031, to produce the following documents and writ- 7 ings for inspection and copying by attorneys for Plaintiffs/Peti- 8 tioners on March 17, 1983,,at 9:30 a.m., at the Legal Aid Society 9 of Orange County located at 2700 North Main Street, llth Floor, 10 Santa Ana, California. The term "city" shall refer to the City of 11 Newport Beach unless otherwise specified; and the term "tape re- 12 cordings" shall include any audio or visual recordings and any 13 existing transcriptions. 14 X Each writing identified in Defendants' responses to In- 15 terrogatory No. 3(b) of "Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories 16 Propounded Upon Municipal Defendants." 17 X Each writing identified in Defendants' responses to 18 Interrogatory No. 3(b) of "Plaintiffs' Fifth Set of Interroga- 19 tories Propounded Upon Municipal Defendants." 20 X Each writing identified in Defendants' responses to 21 Interrogatory No. 3(b) of "Plaintiffs' Sixth Set of Interro- 22 gatories Propounded Upon Municipal Defendants." 23 4. The tape recordings of the City Council meeting of 24 December 19, 1977. 116 25 5. The tape recordings of the City Council meeting of 26 January 9, 1978. ho 27 6. The tape recordings of the City Council meeting of 28 1 October 24, 1978. h C 3. 1 7. The tape recordings of the City Council meeting of 2 June 11, 1979. d" L 3 8. The tape recordings of the City Council meeting of 4 July 10, 1979. djv.,� 5 9. The tape recordings of the Planning Commission meeting 6 of the City of May 16, 1979. 7 10. The tape recordings of the Planning Commission meeting 8 of the City of May 10, 1979. PAOIV� 9 11. The tape recordings of the City Council meeting of 10 November 27, 1978. YV() 11 12. The tape recordings of the City Council meeting of 12 December 11, 1978. KD 3.3 13. The tape recordings of the City Council meeting of 14 December 20, 1978. h C7 15 14. The tape recordings and minutes of all City Council 16 meetings related to the consideration and adoption of General Plan 17 Amendment 79-1, which was adopted December 10, 1979. C,_ 18 - 15. The tape recordings and the of the City Council• 19 meeting of November `minutes 10, 1975.L1�.. 20 16. The tape recordings and minutes of the Planning Commis- 21 sion meeting of the City of October 16, 1975. YLb 23 24 25 26 27 28 17. Page five (5) of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of the City of August 7, 1975. 18. The minutes of all City Council meetings related to the consideration and adoption of General Plan Amendment q7-3-C adopted December 12, 1977, including but not limited to the fol ing dates: December 12, 1977 and November 28, 1977. 19. The minutes of all Planning Commission meetings of the 4. .T t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City related to the consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 77-3-C, including but not limited to October 20, 1977. 20. Any environmental documentation developed by the City in relation to the "housing Element of Newport Beach General Plan" adopted on February 11, 1974. hoyrLe.01 21. Any environmental documentation developed by the City in relation to the "Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan" adopted September 28, 1981. 9 1 or 22. Any environmental documentation developed by the City in relation to "General Plan Amendment 82-1(H)," Amendments to the "Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan," adopted November 22, 1982. 23. Any environmental documentation developed by the City in relation to the "Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan" adopted May 29, 1973. 24. Any environmental documentation developed by the City in relation to the "Residential Growth Element of the City of New- port Beach General Plan," adopted May 29, 1973. WTY%4.0 25. Any environmental documentation developed by the City in relation to the "General Plan Amendment No. 26" adopted Novem- ber 10, 1979, by "Resolution No 8630." 26. Any environmental documentation developed by the City in relation to "General Plan Amendment No. 77-3-C" adopted Decem- ber 12, 1977 by "Resolution No. 9231." 27. Any environmental documentation developed by the City in relation to "General Plan Amendment No. 78-2" adopted December 20, 1978 by "Resolution No. 9485." 28. Any environmental documentation developed by the City 5. 1 2 3 4 5 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in relation to "General Plan Amendment No. 79-l" adopted December 10, 1979 by "Resolution No. 9689." 29. Any environmental documentation developed by the City in relation to "General Plan Amendment 80-1" adopted March 24, 1980, by "Resolution No. 9746." 30. The letter from the "State Department of Transportation, Legal Division," referred to as Item 4.(b) of vol. 33, page 7, of the minutes of the City Council of January 8, 1979. 31. The report from the "Community Development Department" of the City referred to in vol. 31, page 271, of the minutes of the City Council of October 17, 1977. 32. All documents containing the numerical designation, in- dicating the maximum number of dwelling units permitted on each large, undeveloped site, as required by "General Plan Amendment No. 26" adopted November 10, 1975, as "Resolution 8630." 33. Any amendments or up -dates to the documents referred to in the request for production of documents No. 32, above. 34. Any documents which were a basis for the amendment set forth in Item (4) of Resolution No. 8630 adopted November 10, 1975I 35. The "Land Use Plan Map" as adopted by the City Council on May 29, 1973, and all amendments, up -dates and amended "Land Use Plan Mans." 36. Any "Land Use Plan Maps" in existence from January 1, 1970 to May 28, 1973. 37. Any documents produced or dated as of January 1, 1970 to November 10, 1975, which show or identify the maximum dwelling units permitted to be built on any undeveloped sites in the City. 6-. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 38. Any documents showing or identifying the permitted density of development of the zoning designations for property in the City of Newport Beach from January 1, 1970 to May 28, 1973. 39. Any documents comparing land use or development controls between two or more governmental jurisdictions (cities and the County of Orange) in Orange County. A document entitled "Comparison of General Plan Residential Densities" is an attachment to the staff report from the "Department of Community Development" to the City Council dated November 5, 1975 for the City Council meeting of November 10, 1975, regarding General Plan Amendment No. 26. The terms "land use" and "development controls" include, but are not limited to, the following: (a). Densities of development. (b). Minimum floor area requirements on residential property. (c) . (d) . (e). (f) . by a structure. Building set -back requirements. Rear and side yard minimum requirements. Parking requirements. Percentage of a lot which may be occupie (g). Other requirements imposed on residen- tial lots pursuant to zoning authority which contribute signifi- cantly to the economic feasibility of producing housing at the lowest possible cost. 40. Any correspondence received from the Irvine Company in any way related to the "Land Use Element of the City of Newport 7. 46. City Council Policy N-4, as currently in effect, and if 2 not adopted, the latest version of such policy. City Council Pol- 3 icy N-4 is referred to in vol. 36, page 243 of the City Council 4 minutes of July 26, 1982. 5 47. The reports from the Planning Department regarding 6 City Council Policy Q-1 referred!in vol. 36, page 331 of the 7 City Council minutes of November 22, 1982. 8 48. City Council Policy 2-1 as presented to the City Coun- 9 cil on November 22, 1982 and as adopted after amendments at that 10 City Council meeting. See City Council minutes, vol. 36, pages 11 331 thru 333. 12 49 The reports from the Planning Department and from the 13 City Attorney presented regarding Item D.l. at the City Council 14 meeting of August 9, 1982, referred to at vol. 36, page 245 of the 15 minutes of that date. 16 50. The report from the City Attorney's office regarding 17 GPA 81-1 and referred to under Item D.1. of the City Council 18 minutes of February 8, 1982 at vol. 36, page 35. 19 51. ordinance No. 82-30, adopted by the City Council on 20 December 13, 1982. 21 52. The report and supplemental report from the Planning De 22 partment presented to the City Council regarding the proposed Gen- 23 eral Plan Amendment No. 82-2 referred to at vol. 36, page 344 of 24 the City Council minutes of December 13, 1982. 25 53. The "Council Policy Manual" of the City. The document 26 is referred to at page 91 of the City's Housing Element. 27 54. Any document which constitutes, mentions, is a basis 28 for, or in any way relates to any study conducted by the City 9. 1 21' 31 4 5 6, 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16; 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 regarding the length of time required for processing General Plan Amendments,: zone changes, or subdivision or building permit appli- cations. 55. The report presented by Councilperson Williams at the City Council meeting of July 10, 1979, and identified by Thomas F. Morrissey at his deposition of November 16, 1982, on page 72 of the deposition transcript. 56. Any written recommendations by the City's Local Coastal Plan Advisory Committee produced or dated as of January 1, 1980. 57. The following documents related to the Aeronutronic For Project and attached to the staff report from the Department of Community Development to the Planning Commission dated August 2, 1979 for the Planning Commission meeting of Auaust 9, 1979 and're- ferred to at pages 33 and 34 of that report, attached hereto for the City's convenience as Exhibit A. (a). The letter from the Daon Southwest dated July 26, 1979. (b). The letter from Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation dated July 26, 1979. (c). The letter report from Dr. Frederick Sawyer dated August, 1979. (d). The letter report from Newport Economics Group dated August 1, 1979. (e). The letter report from Newport Economics Group dated August 3, 1979. (f). The letter from Daon Southwest dated August 3, 1979. (g). The staff report dated May 10, 1979 10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 served upon City on January 24, 1983, in this action. 67. Any documents showing the current ownership of any of the undeveloped parcels contained in the "Undeveloped Parcels, September 1980" attached as Exhibit 66 to Plaintiffs' Renewed Request for Admissions and Second Set of Interrogatories Propound- ed Upon Municipal Defendants. 68. Any documents regarding "the exchange of land between 0 the City and The Irvine Company referred to in the letter from The Irvine Company to the Planning Commission dated April 17, 1981 and attached as Exhibit F to the Declaration of Craig Bluell dated January 7, 1983. 69. The three -page statement or writing read by Councilperson Ray Williams at the close of the public hearing on the Aeronutronic Ford Project at the City Council meeting of July 10, 1979. 70 Any environmental documentation developed by the City in relation to Newport Beach City Council Policy P-1 included as Exhibit T to "Exhibits to Declaration of Craig T. Bluell" submitted to the Court on or about January 7, 1983. A D L4A/wln�`r� 71. Any tentative tract proposals or applications sub- mitted to the City regarding the property which was the subject of General Plan Amendment 81-1 (BEECO property). 72. The City's final application for community development block grant funds submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1982, including all 1 13. 1 drafts of such application. 2 73. The current Development Review Proceedural 3 Guide referred to on page 109 of the city's Housing Element, 4 including all drafts. 5 6 Dated: February 11, 1983 7 8 9 10 11 12"1' i paltintiffs/Petitioners ATHAN LEHRER-GRAI[IE13 orney for 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 20, 1983 TO: Craig Bluell, Senior Planner FROM: Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Deposition During my deposition I was asked why the City applied for CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation program when 176 census data indicated that there were very few units of this type within our community. I responded that I thought we had updated this with the 1980 Census or some additional information during the preparation of the application. I seem to recall you and I discussing these numbers when we were preparing our application and referring to something other than that 1976 census data. In addition, I thought we were able to make some kind of correlation between low and moderate income residents and defficient housing in order to come up with some estimate for how much benefit could be gained from the program. Please see if you can find any documentation supporting this. My next deposition will be on the 29th of April so I need the information prior to that time. BL:nma IN: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY (714) 640-2201 March 16, 1983 Mr. Mike Blitch Executive Assistant Office of the Chief of Police City of Newport Beach PO Box 7000 Jamboree Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Discovery Request Dear Mike: For reasons which I cannot explain, the plaintiffs in the housing lawsuit, have requested a copy of a letter, written in 1968 or 1969, by a person named Frank Barnes, and addressed to the Chief of Police. The letter apparently concerns an incident involving a Newport Beach police officer but, I can give you no more specific information. I would assume that this correspondence has long since been destroyed, but I would ask you to look for the item and advise me of the results of your investigation. Ver truly/ ruly ours, Robert E. Burnham ��— City Attorney REB/pr cc. Craig Bluell n 0tv Nall 1 8300 Newport Boulemd, Newport Beach, Califori la 92663 ' + I RUTAN & 'TUCKER �6 ATTORNEYS AT LAW A. W RUTAN IIe Oo•IOfel A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS JAM[60.TUCKCR. B ILI Pit0-10501 . T MILFORD W. DAHV H. RODOCR NOWELL• { JAMCO O. TUCKCR• RUDOLPH C. SHCPARD• g. S. WOLCOTT.=- JSOSCRT L. PIKE' AMERICAN CITY•BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER • UMVIN R CHALLCNOCROCR•,ALAN BURTON NEWMAN ` 4AMCS R. MOORC+ •P LAWRCNCE L. 6ERTIN0• 611 ANTON BOULEVARD {� .ROOCRT L. RISLEY• ROBERT S. BOWER IMINCI MCCORMICK• MARCIA A. FORSYTH POST OFFICE BOX 19SO )' ML. ULIAM R. SICL• WILLIAM M. MJ IgT100RENA ' RICHARD A. CURNUTT• LAWRENCC J. CREYFUSS COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 LRONARD A. MAMPEL• ANNE NELSON LANPHAR 1• J{RN O. HURLBUT, JR.• PATRICIA L. STEARNS F At W. IMMCLL- RENA C. STONE MIKORO W. DAHL. JR.• WILLIAM J. CAPLAN iMNIIOOORC I. WALLACE. JR.• GARY M. LAPCRIONAM R MARSH O R BI MS• NARSHALL SIMS- RANDALL S. MICHACL S H AICR p March 29, 19 2 Y PEALMAN• d L• d• ROOC IT C. BRAUN• ORMA DIANC DOUGLAS ODELL 0 ,�'♦ _'ROUR A. ORAOLE• •`+COWARD PHILIP O. KOHN O. CYBCSMA. JR.• JOEL O. KUPERBERO n dL THOMAS S. SALINOCR• ELIZABETH A. NEALE f. BARRY R. LAUBSCHER' SCOTT R. HOYT •� d DAVID C. LARSCN• MARY S. MCILLECE •CUO"'ORO C. FRICDCN• KATHRYN L. TOBIN 'WtfHUR 0. KIDMAN• PHILIF C. MAYNARD 410AACL D. RUSIN• NCI LA R. SCRNSTEIN . MARC WINTHROP' DONNA SNOW WOLF 1° IIRA D. RIVIN• OCORAJ.00NN +JCPPRCY M. OOCRMAN• EVRIOIKI WICKII DALLAS 'IA fbTU\ION4 COIIWMtgN Mr. Craig Bluell IIIIIIIIIS I Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA. 92663-3884, TELEPHONE (714) 641-SI00 (213) 625-7586 TELECOPIER (714) 54G-9035 TWX 010 S9C•1363 CABLE AODRC55 RUTAN TUC IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Re: Davis, et al. v.'City of Newport Beach, et al. Dear Craig: Enclosed herewith please find a letter together with certain materials from The Irvine Company. This letter stems in part from a meeting I, had with them to discuss trial preparation and potential witnesses in the above - entitled matter. Please give me your comments at your convenience. LAH:fcl Enos: Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER i I Leonard A. el NAR3 11982O' a of NDVPCTf8EACHI G, 4 F THE IRVINE C WPAW 610 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714)84ac3om 7 2 0 - 2 5 6 5 March 26, 1982 Leonard A. Hampel, Esq. Rutan & Tucker Suite 1400 611 Anton Boulevard Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: Olive Davis, et al. vs. the City of Newport Beach, et al. Dear Len: You have asked for my opinion on actions which the City of Newport Beach could undertake to facilitate the production of affordable housing. The following suggestions are not meant to be exhaustive and, if adopted, are not guaranteed to provide lower cost housing, but, in my opinion, such actions should help reduce the cost. I have enclosed a copy of a pamphlet and other material which explains a bond financing program known as "loans -to -lenders." Briefly stated, the loans -to -lenders program provides construc- tion and permanent financing to developers of low income rental housing projects as that term is defined in section 167(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. A charter city, such as Newport Beach, can issue bonds for a public purpose such as providing housing for low income persons. Lenders with a portfolio of mortgages with less than market rate yields can pledge the income stream from such mortgages to secure payment of a debt. If a lender pledges a sufficient amount of income to support a city's bond issue, the city incurs no risk in issuing bonds for low income housing production. The proceeds from the sale of such bonds is returned to the pledging lender who disburses the funds to borrowing developers of low income housing, who in turn pay the lenders loan fees and interest which is less than market. The result is that the lender puts its underwater mortgages to work, the city receives a supply of low income housing and developers are able to construct housing. The City of Irvine has adopted a resolution approving the loans - to -lenders program in concept. The Irvine Company proposes to construct several loans -to -lenders projects in the City of Irvine and is presently working with the City, underwriters, and lending institutions to finalize the details of this pro- gram. In my opinion, the City of Newport Beach could assist the production of affordable housing by adopting a similar program. r Leonard A. Hampel, Esq. March 26, 1982 Page Two As an additional method of encouraging the production of afford- able housing, the City of Newport Beach could apply to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") to receive federal funds under HUD's Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") Program. Since the City has a population in excess of 50,000 people, it would be an entitlement city, contracting directly with HUD for funding. The Reagan Admin- istration has suggested that New Federalism will return to local government the authority now exercised by the federal government and the Administration has promised to fund eligible expenses with Block Grants. One such eligible expenditure under the CDBG Program is the reduction in cost of a building site for the production of low income housing. Upon applica- tion by a developer, the CDBG recipient purchases an interest in a parcel of real property and restricts the use of such prop- erty to low income housing. The city makes the site available to a developer of low income housing at a price which is less than fair market value. The result is that the original owner of the real property receives fair market value for its land, the city increases its stock of low income housing, and the developer of the low income housing receives a site at a price which enables him to build the low income housing. The President's Commission on Housing suggested that cities such as Newport Beach could assist the production of afforda- ble housing by waiving or reducing normal development site exactions such as park fees or dedications and parking ratios and by increasing allowable densities for certain sites. The Irvine Company owns several parcels of land in Newport Beach which could be developed into affordable housing if develop- ment exactions were eliminated or decreased and densities were increased. We are prepared to work with the City to pursue any opportunities which may exist for the development of such parcels. Please advise me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Michael A. Ba ha Staff Attorney Legal Department MAB:wd APARTMENT LOANS PROGRAM 4 Prepared by: FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA 707 Wilshire Boulevard W'12-1 Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 614-5350 And NEkAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 717 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2180 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 572-8500 MA 4 , 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. 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 maturity of the bond issue), but such terms are open to negotiation between the lender and the developer. 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. a 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 of the is no requirement that the full faith and credit 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 neod for multi -family housing units in its market area. 4 Financing Team A successful tax-exempt financing parties: investment banker, bond trustee, and bond counsel. It is team members. Investment Bankers team includes the following issuer, lenders, developers, crucial to have experienced 4 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 counsel and structuring Miller (Washington, D.C.) will act as underwriter's prepare the offering documents and assist in the 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. 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. 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. -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 28 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 cachf low 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 4 required to be less than the yield on the Bonds. Each Single Family Mortgage Loan is required, among other things, to (x) be FBA 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 currenpayments, (vi) have a fixed rate of interest and provide for level monthly payments 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 4 nevelooment? 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 under certain specified conditions. At the Closing of the Bond issue the Issuer and the Lenders will execute the Lender -4- 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 (i) 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 3/8th of 1% 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 m -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 repurcnase a Familv Mortqaqe 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 4 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 Family Mortgage Loans and which has the authority to make loans for multifamily housing in the jurisdiction of the Issuer may participate in the Program. I -6- 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 are 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. 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. 0 Week 0 ii/12/81 SAMPLE TIME SCHEDULE - Preliminary Meeting (Underwriters, Issuer, Bond and Underwriters Counsel). Week 1 - Inducement resolution of Issuer naming underwriters, and getting basic terms of financing. --Underwriters advertise Lencers' 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 signea. Week 8. - PreClosing. - Closing. FINANCING PARTICIPANTS Public Payment Bonds for I _, 1 Underwriters Net Bond'Proceeds Bonds (Less Discount) Issuer Net Bond Proceeds I Lender's Note nder's \ tion of Proceeds 1 Lender 3 1 Multfam. e , Loan Developer's Pcda Note Developer 3A Developer 3B M RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 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 , (the "City") is authorized to issue and sell its on s, notes, interim 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 "Lenders") have requested the City to -issue an se 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 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; NOW, 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 principal amount of not to exceed for the purpose of making loans to lenders or purchasing 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: 2. Authorization shall be for the purpose of inducing the dLenders escribedoundertake Developers toeProgram undertakeand theto induce the foregoing 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. s. The Lenders may include the 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 1981, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers City Clerk 2 ayor I Confidential PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM $4,200,000 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO San Diego, California Loan to Lender Revenue Bonds, Series A (San Diego Federal Savings and Loan Association -Orchard II Project) This Memorandum is submitted solely in connection with the private placement of the securities described herein and is for the use of institutional investors who are qualified to make their own investment decisions based on independent analysis. This Memorandum supercedes the Private Placement Memorandum of the Agency dated December, 1980 and the Preliminary Private Placement Memorandum dated, February 11, 1981. Information contained herein relating to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego (the "Agency"), the San Diego Federal Savings and Loan Association (the "Lender"), and Orchard II (the "Project") is based upon discussions with, and data provided by each of them. They each have reviewed the information related to them and believe it to be accurate and reliable as of the date hereof. However, no representation is made or implication created that there have been no changes in the affairs of any one or all of such parties subsequent to the date hereof. Neither Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. nor the Agency make any representation as to the accuracy or completeness of information relating to the Agency, the Lender or the Project. Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. June 1, 1981 77 PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM $4,200,000 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO Loan to Lender Revenue Bonds, Series A (San Diego Federal Savings and Loan Association -Orchard II Project) PROPOSED TERMS Amount $41200,000 Rate: 10% Price: Par (plus accrued interest, if any) Maturity: June 16, 2011 Proposed Issuer: Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego (the "Agency"). Rating: "A" Standard & Poor's Corporation. Use of Proceeds: Bond proceeds will be used to make a general obligation loan to San Diego Federal Savings and Loan Association (the "Lender") for the purpose of providing the construction and permanent financing (the "Mortgage Loan") of Orchard II, a 288 unit senior citizens rental apartment project to be located in the City of San Diego (the "Project"). Security: The Bonds are secured by and payable solely from Revenues including Loan Repayments and other moneys received with respect to the Loan and from the Funds (and investment income thereon) held by Union Bank, Los Angeles, California, (the "Trustee") pursuant to the Indenture. Repayment: Interest is payable on December 16, 1981 and semiannually thereafter on June 16 and December 16 in each year. Subject to payment by mandatory redemption, principal on the Bonds will be payable on June 16, 2011. their maturity at par by Installments on each of the principal amounts set forth Redemption Provisions. Redemption: The Bonds are subject to mandatory redemption at par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption (1) on December 16, 1984 from amounts on deposit in the Redemption Fund representing mandatory prepayment by the Lender of any portion of the Loan which is not used to fund the Mortgage Loan by June 1, 1984; and (11) at any time from amounts on deposit in the Redemption Fund resulting from a default and acceleration of the Loan. The Bonds are also subject to redemption on or after June 16, 1991 from moneys on deposit in the Redemption Fund representing an optional prepayment of the Loan by the Lender, in whole or in part, on any interest payment date at the redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount), plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption, applicable during the periods listed below: Period Price June 16, 1991- June 15, 1992 103% June 16, 1992 - June 15, 1993 102 1/2 June 16, 1993 - June 15, 1994 102 June 16,1994 - June 15, 1995 101 1/2 June 16, 1995 - June 1591996 ' 101 June 16, 1996 - June 15, 1997 1001/2 June 16, 1997 - thereafter 100 The Bonds are also subject to mandatory redemption prior payment of Sinking Fund dates and in the respective herein. See THE BONDS - Delivery: It is expected that the Bonds will be available in definitive form for delivery in San Diego, California on or about June 16, 1981. AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE OF THE BONDS The Bonds are to be issued by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego (the "Agency") pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 8 of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (the "Law"), and pursuant to an Indenture, dated as of June 159 1981, between the Agency and the Trustee (the "Indenture"). The Bonds are being issued to provide funds for the Agency to make a loan (the "Loan") to San Diego Federal Savings and Loan Association for the purpose of providing the construction and permanent financing of a 288 unit senior citizens rental apartment development to be known as Orchard II, located in the City of San Diego (the "Project"). The summaries of or references to the Law, the Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Note and other agreements referred to herein, and the description of the Bonds, which are included in this Private Placement Memorandum, do not purport to be comprehensive or definitive, and such summaries, references and descriptions are qualified in their entireties by reference to each such document, statute or instrument. All capitalized terms used in this Private Placement Memorandum which are defined in the Indenture shall have the meanings set forth therein. See "SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INDENTURE.' Copies of the Loan Agreement and the Indenture are available for inspection at the offices of the Trustee and the Agency. THE LAW Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 33750) of Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State, as amended, authorizes redevelopment agencies to provide construction and permanent financing for (1) new residential construction and rehabilitation within a redevelopment project area and (11) new residential construction and rehabilitation anywhere in the City if the dwelling units are committed, for the period during which the mortgage loan is outstanding, for occupancy by persons or families who are eligible for financial assistance specifically provided by a governmental agency for the benefit of occupants of such residences. The Law was amended in the 1980 session of the California Legislature by SB418 to provide authorization to redevelopment agencies to issue obligations and use the proceeds to make loans to qualified mortgage lenders on the condition that such mortgage lenders would in turn utilize an equal amount of money to make mortgage loans to qualified mortgagors on qualified properties. The constitutionality of the Law under the State Constitution has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal of the State in Redevelo ment A enc of the City of San Pablo V. Shepard, 75 Cal. App. 3d 453, 142 Cal. Rptr. 212 1977 , with respect to the particular' questions raised in that case. The Supreme Court of California, the highest court of the State, denied a petition for hearing. THE AGENCY The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego was organized on May 6, 1958, pursuant to the laws of the State of California, and has continuously operated as a community redevelopment agency since that date. The present Board of Directors of the Agency, which membership also constitutes the City Council of the City of San Diego, California is composed a Chairman and eight other Members. The following persons constitute the duly qualified and acting members and officers of the Agency: Name Pete Wilson* Leon Williams** William Cleator** Mike Gotch** Lucy Killea*** William Mitchell** Fred Schnaubelt** Susan Golding*** Richard Murphy** Ray Blair**** Office Chairman and Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Executive Director Term Ends December, 1984 December, 1983 December, 1983 December, 1983 December, 1983 December, 1981 December, 1981 December, 1981 December, 1981 Appointed Position *Mayor of the City of San Diego, California **Councilman of the city•of San Diego, California ***Councilwoman of the City of San Diego, California ****City Manager of the City of San Diego, California 4 THE BONDS General Description The Bonds will be dated and bear interest from June 16, 1981, payable on December 16 and June 16 of each year, commencing December 16, 1981, at the rate of 10% per annum. The Bonds will be issued as coupon Bonds in the denomination of $5,000 or as registered Bonds without coupons in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. - Coupon Bonds and fully registered Bonds are interchangeable as provided in the Indenture. The Trustee may make a charge sufficient to reimburse it for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect thereto. In certain cases, as provided in the Indenture, the Trustee may charge a fee sufficient to pay the cost of preparing each new Bond issued upon such exchange or transfer. Redemption Provisions Mandatory Redemption. The Bonds are subject to mandatory redemption at par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption (i) on December 169 1984 from amounts on deposit in the Redemption Fund representing mandatory prepayment by the Lender of any portion of the Loan which is not used to fund the Mortgage Loan by June 1, 1984; and (11) at any time from amounts on deposit in the Redemption Fund representing mandatory prepayment of any portion of the Loan by the Lender in the event of a default and acceleration of the Mortgage Loan. The Bonds are also subject to mandatory redemption on or after June 16, 1991 from moneys on deposit in the Redemption Fund repsenting an optional prepayment of the Loan by the Lender, in whole or in part, on any interest payment date at the redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount), plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption, applicable during the periods listed below: Period Price June 16, 1991 - June 15, 1992 103% June 16, 1992 - June 15, 1993 102 1/2 June 16, 1993 - June 15, 1994 102 June 16, 1994 - June 15, 1995 101 1/2 June 16, 1995 - June,15, 1996 101 June 16, 1996 - June 15, 1997 100 1/2 June 162 1997 - thereafter 100 Sinking Fund Redemption. The Bonds maturing June 16, 2011 are subject to mandatory redemption prior to their maturity by payment of Sinking Fund Installments on each of the dates and in the respective principal amounts set forth below, as follows: Sinking Fund Sinking Fund June 16 Installments June 16 Installments 1985 $ 30,000 1999 $130,000 1986 40,000 2000 145,000 1987 ' 40,000 2001 160,000 1988 50,000 2002 175,000 1989 50,000 2003 190,000 1990 55,000 2004 2152000 1991 60,000 2005 230,000 1992 70,000 2006 2602000 1993 75,000 2007 280,000 1994 801000 2008 310,000 1995 90,000 2009 345,000 1996 100,000 2010 375,000 1997 110,000 2011 4152000 1998 120,000 Notice of Redemption. Notice of the call for any redemption, identifying the redemption date, the place or places for redemption and the Bonds (or portions thereof in the case of registered Bonds issued in a principal amount in'excess of $5,000) to be redeemed, shall be given by the Trustee by publication at least once prior to the redemption date in a Financial Newspaper or Journal (defined in the Indenture) and by mailing a copy of the redemption notice to the respective registered owners of Bonds designated for redemption at their addresses shown on the Bond registration books of the Trustee, in each case not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days prior to the redemption date. Failure to mail notice to the registered owner of any Bond designated for redemption or any defect in any notice so mailed shall not affect the sufficiency of the proceedings for the redemption of any of the Bonds. Selection of Bonds to be Redeemed. In the event the Bonds are to be redeemed in part, the bonds shall be selected by lot and redeemed on a reasonably proportionate basis from among all the outstanding Sinking Fund Installments of the Bonds maturing in 2011, such basis to be determined and effectuated as nearly as practicable by the Trustee pursuant to the Indenture. Bonds shall be redeemed only in multiples of $5,000 and Bonds of denominations in excess of $5,000 will be treated as representing that number of Bonds of $5,000 denominations as is obtained. Additional Bonds No additional Bonds may be issued under the Indenture. 0 APPLICATION OF BOND PROCEEDS The Indenture provides that the proceeds of the Bonds will be applied to the Program Fund in the total principal amount of $4,200,000. The Lender has agreed to pay all costs incurred by the Agency in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS The following table sets forth the amounts required to pay scheduled debt service on the Bonds for the period during which the Bonds are scheduled to be outstanding. Total Debt June 16 Principal Interest Service 1982 420,000.00 420,000.00 1983 4202000.00 420,000.00 1984 420,000.00 420,000.00 1985 30,000.00 420,000.00 450,000.00 1986 402000.00 417,000.00 457,000.00 1987 40,000.00 413,000.00 453,000.00 1988 502000.00 4092000.00 459,000.00 1989 50,000.00 404,000.00 454,000.00 1990 55,000.00 399,000.00 4542000.00 1991 60,000.00 3932500.00 453,500.00 1992 70,000.00 3872500.00 457,500.00 1993 75,000.00 3809500.00 4552500.00 1994 80,000.00 373,000.00 4532000.00 1995 90,000.00 365,000.00 455,000.00 1996 100,000.00 356,000.00 456,000.00 1997 110,000.00 346,000.00 4562000.00 1998 120,000.00 3359000.00 455,000.00 1999 130,000.00 323,000.00 453,000.00 2000 145,000.00 310,000.00 455,000.00 2001 1602000.00 2952500.00 4559500.00 2002 175,000.00 279,500.00 454,500.00 2003 1909000.00 262,000.00 452,000.00 2004 2159000.00 2432000.00 458,000.00 2005 2302000.00 2219500.00 4512500.00 2006 260,000.00 198,500.00 4589500.00 2007 280,000.00 172,500.00 452,500.00 2008 310,000.00 144,500.00 4540500.00 2009 345,000.00 1139500.00 458,500.00 2010 375,000.00 79,000.00 454,000.00 2011 415,000.00 41,500.00 456,500.00 4 SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS General The Bonds are special obligations of the Agency payable solely from the Revenues, hereinafter defined, and other assets pledged therefor. Except to the extent of the Revenues and other assets pledged therefor, the Bonds are not a debt or liability of the Agency and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City of San Diego, the State of California nor any political subdivision thereof is pledged to payment of the Bonds. Payment of.the principal of or redemption price and interest on all such Bonds and coupons is secured by a pledge of Revenues, which consist of all payments received by the Agency under the Loan Agreement and income derived from the investment of amounts in Funds held by the Trustee. Such payment is also secured by a pledge and assignment of the rights and interest of the Agency in and to the Loan Agreement, and a pledge of all Funds established pursuant to the Indenture (including the investments thereof, if any). The foregoing pledge and assignment is subject to the terms and provisions of the Indenture permitting the application of such amounts to certain purposes, including the investment of such amounts pending their application to the redemption or payment of the Bonds. In making investments of amounts held under the Indenture the Agency has covenanted to acquire only Investment Securities as defined in the Indenture. (See "Summary of Certain Provisions of the Indenture"). No Investment Security may be purchased at a cost in excess of the par value thereof. Revenues Amounts received by the Trustee from the Lender in respect of the Loan Agreement constitute Revenues. The Loan Agreement obligates the Lender to make payments thereunder in an amount sufficient to pay the principal, redemption price and interest due on the Bonds. The obligation to make the payments under the Loan Agreement is an absolute, unconditional general obligation of the Lender. The Loan Agreement also provides for mandatory and optional prepayments of the Loan, all of which constitute Revenues. See "LOAN TO LENDER PROGRAM -Summary of Certain Provisions of the Loan Agreement". The proceeds of the Bonds will be deposited into the Program Fund to be used to make the Loan. Loan Repayments by the Lender will constitute the primary source of payment for the Bonds. The Loan will be a general obligation of the Lender. See "LOAN TO LENDER PROGRAM -Summary of Certain Provisions of the Loan Agreement" for a description of the Loan. 0 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS The maturities for the Bonds have been established on the basis of the scheduled payments of the Loan as if no default or early or late recoveries on the Loan would• occur. The interest rate on the Loan has been established at a rate so that payments of principal of and interest on the Loan plus moneys on deposit in the various Funds (as well as income derived from investment thereof) will generate sufficient revenues to pay on a timely basis the principal of and interest on the Bonds, as well as the Program Expenses, on the basis of the following assumptions: (a) A'Loan in the aggregate principal amount of $4,200,000 will be made by the Agency on or prior to June 16, 1981 and will bear interest at a rate of 10.125% per annum. (b) The Loan will be amortized over a period of 27 years with maturities at such times and rates of interest as are required to make payment of principal and interest on the Bonds on a timely basis. (c) All future expenses with respect to the Bonds and administering and servicing the Loan are fixed and will be paid in full on a timely basis from Revenues received by the Trustee on the Mortgage Loan as a result of the differential in the interest rate on the Loan and the interest cost of the Bonds. In light of these assumptions, it is anticipated that the payments of the Loan will generate moneys in excess of the moneys required to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds and the expenses incurred in connection with the Bonds and the Loan. Any excess will be deposited to the credit of the Surplus Fund. Any amounts remaining in any Fund and any Revenue derived from the Loan after payment in full of the Bonds, the Program Expenses and all other amounts required to be paid under the Indenture or the Loan Agreement shall be disbursed to the Agency. LOAN TO LENDER PROGRAM General Under the Loan to Lender Program, the Trustee, on behalf of the Agency, will make a general obligation loan to San Diego Federal Savings and Loan Association, San Diego, California, from the proceeds of the Bonds. Under the terms of the Loan Agreement, the Lender will utilize an amount equal to the principal amount of the Loan to make a mortgage loan in accordance with the Loan Agreement. The Mortgage Loan will provide construction and permanent financing for the Project. The Mortgage Loan shall bear an interest rate of 10.125% per annum and shall be for a term of 30 years. The Lender is prohibited from charging fees, premiums or bonuses, commonly referred to as "points," in connection with the Mortgage Loan, except that reasonable charges and expenses, consisting primarily of closing costs and fees may be charged to the mortgagor to the extent actually incurred by the Lender and to the extent permitted by the Loan Agreement. The Lender San Diego Federal Savings and Loan Association is the Lender under the Loan Agreement. Founded in 1885, San Diego Federal, as of December 31, 1980, had total assets of $2,456,272,337.00 and now operates a statewide network chain of 74 offices. Appendix A contains a copy of the Lender's semiannual Statement of Condition as of December 31, 1980. The Project Known as Orchard II, the Project is a 288 unit senior citizens apartment development to be constructed and situated on 5.5 acres located at 4040 Hancock Street at the corner of Sports Arena Boulevard and Hancock Street in the City of San Diego. It will be constructed, owned and operated by Orchard II Associates, a California general partner -ship (the "Sponsor"). The Project will consist of twenty-two two-story on -grade garden apartment buildings. In addition there will be two free-standing combination laundry and storage buildings. The units will be of frame and stucco construction with composition shingle roofs. The 192 one bedroom apartments are 465 square feet and the 96 studio apartments are 365 square feet in size. Construction of the Project is approximately fifty percent complete. A rental marketing program will commence June 20, 1981 and first occupancy is expected on August 1, 1981. The Project is an addition and adjacent to an existing project, known as Orchard I, consisting of 275 apartment units for senior citizens. Orchard II will share the recreational facilities of Orchard I which are comprised of a community center with a lounge, library, television room, mail center, lobby rooms and auditorium and 30 community gardening plots. Summary of Certain Provisions of the Loan Agreement Amount and Term of Loan. The Loan Agreement sets forth the principal amount of the Loan at 4,200,000. The Loan is to be made against receipt by the Agency of a promissory note (the "Note") of the Lender in a principal amount equal to the amount of the Loan and payable in annual installments due on June 1 in each of the years and in the amounts set forth in a principal payment schedule beginning June 1, 1985, with interest 10 payable on December 1 and June i in each year at the rate stipulated in the Loan Agreement. Security . The Loan is a general obligation of the Lender made against receipt of the Note, in a principal amount equal to the amount of the Loan and payable at the time and in the amounts set forth in the Loan Agreement. Prepayment. The Lender may not prepay the Loan prior to June 1, 1991, except from that portion of the Loan not applied to fund the construction or permanent financing of the Project by June 1, 1984. In the event the Lender shall fail to apply any of the proceeds of the Loan in compliance with the terms of the Loan Agreement, the Lender shall prepay the Loan in an amount equal to 101% of such unapplied Loan proceeds plus accrued interest, plus the amount of interest which would have accrued from the date of such prepayment to the next interest payment date on the Loan and an amount equal to the expense incurred by the Trustee in redeeming an equal amount of Bonds. The Lender may prepay the Loan, at its option in whole or in part, upon not less than 45 nor more than 60 days before an interest payment date at any time on or after June 1 1991. The Lender shall at the time of such prepayment pay to the Trustee the principal amount prepaid, together with interest accrued thereon to the date of prepayment, the expense incurred by the Trustee in redeeming an equal amount of Bonds and a premium in an amount that will equal the following prices: Period Price June 1, 1991 - May 30, 1992 103% June 1, 1992 - May 30, 1993 102 1/2 June 1, 1993 - May 30, 1994 102 June 12 1994 - May 30, 1995 101 1/2 June 19 1995 - May 30, 1996 101 June 1, 1996 - May 30, 1997 100 1/2 June 1, 1997 - thereafter 100 Closing. The closing of the Loan shall take place simultaneously with the delivery of the Bonds. Loan Proceeds. The Loan proceeds shall become a part of the general assets of the Lender which it may use in making loans and investments and otherwise conducting its general business. Conditions of Lending. The obligation of the Agency to make the Loan is subject to the following conditions: s 11 (a) The Agency's Bond Counsel must be satisfied with all legal matters incident to the Loan; (b) The Agency must have received a favorable written opinion, satisfactory to it, of counsel for the Lender confirming certain representations of the Lender in the Loan Agreement; (c) The Agency must have received certified copies of documents evidencing all necessary corporate action taken by the Lender in connection with the Loan; (d) No Event of Default under the Loan Agreement shall have occurred; and (e) The Agency shall have sold and delivered the Bonds within 60 days from the date of execution of the Loan Agreement. Examination of Records. The Lender covenants that it will permit the Agency or the Trustee to examine its books and records with respect to the Loan at any and all reasonable times. Events of Default. Events of Default specified in the Loan Agreement (some of which require the lapse of time or giving of notice or both before becoming Events of Default) include, among others, failure to pay the principal of the Loan or any installment thereof when due whether at maturity, by acceleration, or otherwise, or interest or any premium thereof, failure to pay any penalty or other charges under the Loan Agreement or the Note, default in performance of any provision of the Loan Agreement, the bankruptcy of the Lender or the taking of control or possession of the Lender or any of its assets by a Federal or State supervisory agency. If an Event of Default shall occur, the Agency may, effective upon mailing of written notice to the Lender, declare to be forthwith due and payable the principal and all interest then accrued on the Loan together with a penalty in an amount equal to the sum of (1) the interest which would have accrued on the Loan, if such were not accelerated, from the date of such acceleration to the interest payment date of the Loan next succeeding the first day when the Agency can next redeem the Bonds issued to finance the Loan after first complying with the appropriate procedures for calling such Bonds for redemption, plus (ii) an amount equal to the expenses incurred by the Agency in redeeming such Bonds. Representations and Warranties. The Lender represents and warrants that, among other things it is a corporation duly organized and validly existing as a Lender as that term is defined in the Loan Agreement, that the Loan Agreement, and the Note will be, upon execution and delivery, valid and binding obligations of the Lender and not in violation of law, that the statements made in connection with the Loan were true and correct as of the date made and are true and correct as of the date of the Loan Agreement, and that the making and performance of the Loan Agreement and the Note do not require the consent or approval of any governmental instrumentality or, if such is required, it has been obtained. 12 SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INDENTURE The following is a summary of certain provisions of the Indenture which are not described elsewhere in this Private Placement Memorandum. These summaries do not purport to be comprehensive and reference should be made to the Indenture for a full and complete statement of its provisions. "Costs of Issuance" means all items of expense directly or indirectly payable by or reimbursable to the Agency and related to the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. "Fiscal Year" means the period beginning on January 1 of each year and ending on the next succeeding December 31. "Independent Certified Public Accountant" means any certified public accountant or firm of such accountants having a favorable reputation of skill and experience in performing the duties to be imposed upon it, selected by the Lender, and who, or each of whom (1) is in fact independent and not under domination of the Agency or the Lender; (2) does not have any substantial interest, direct or indirect, with the Agency or the Lender; and (3) is not connected with the Agency or the Lender as an officer or employee of either, but who may be regularly retained to make annual or other audits of the books of, or reports of, the Agency or the Lender. "Investment Securities" means any of the following which at the time are legal investments under the laws of the State of California for moneys held under the Indenture and then proposed to be invested therein: (1) direct obligations of the United States of America (including obligations issued or held in book -entry form on the books of the Department of the Treasury of the United States of America) or obligations the timely payment of the principal of and interest on which are fully guaranteed by the United States of America' (2) obligations, debentures, notes or other evidence of indebtedness issued or fully guaranteed by any of the following: Banks for Cooperatives, Federal Intermediate Credit Banks, Federal Home Loan Bank System, Export -Import Bank of the United States, Federal Financing Bank, Federal Land Banks, Federal Farm Credits, Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National Mortgage Association, Farmer's Home Administration, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Federal Housing Administration; (3) interest bearing demand or time deposits (including certifi- cates of deposit) in banks and savings and loan associations (including the Trustee), secured at all times, in the manner and to the extent provided by law, by collateral security described in clauses (1) or (2) of this definition and of a market value of no less than the amount of moneys so invested; and (4) interest -bearing demand or time deposits (including certificates of deposit) in banks and savings and loan associations (including the Trustee) each having a combined capital and surplus of at least fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) and the unsecured debt obligations of which are rated "A" or better by Standard & Poor's. "Law" means Chapter 8 of the Community Redevelopment Law, constituting Chapter 8 of Part 1 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code, as now in effect and as it may from time to time hereafter be amended or supplemented. 13 "Lender" means San'Diego Federal Savings and Loan Association, a federal savings and loan association duly organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, or any association, corporation or other entity which is the surviving, resulting or transferee entity in any merger, consolidation or transfer of assets of the Lender. "Outstanding", when used as of any particular time with reference to Bonds, means (subject to certain provisions of the Indenture) all Bonds theretofore authenticated and delivered by the Trustee under the Indenture except (1) Bonds theretofore cancelled by the Trustee or surrendered to the Trustee for cancellation; (2) Bonds with respect to which all liability of the Agency shall have been discharged in accordance with the Indenture; and r (3) Bonds for the transfer or exchange of or in lieu of or in substitution for which other Bonds shall have been authenticated and delivered by the Trustee pursuant to the Indenture. "Revenues" means all amounts received by the Agency or the Trustee from or with respect to the Loan Agreement, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, principal and interest payments thereunder (including both timely and delinquent payments with late charges), prepayments and prepayment charges and all interest and other profit derived from the investment of moneys in any fund established pursuant to the Indenture. "Trustee" means Union Bank, Los Angeles, California Aoolication of Proceeds of Bonds and the Loan Fund The proceeds of the sale of the Bonds shall be deposited in trust with the Trustee in the Program Fund established under the Indenture and dispersed to the Lender. Flow of Funds in the Revenue Fund In addition to the Program Fund, the Indenture creates the following Funds: (1) the Revenue Fund, (2) the Interest Fund, (3) the Principal Fund, (4) the Redemption Fund and (5) the Surplus Fund. On each June 15 and December 15, the Trustee shall transfer from the Revenue Fund to the following funds the following amounts in the following priority, the requirements of each such fund (including the make up of any deficiencies in any such fund resulting from lack of Revenues sufficient to make any such earlier required transfer) to be satisfied before any transfer is made to any fund subsequent in priority: First: To the Interest Fund, the amount, if any, needed to increase the amount in the Interest Fund to the aggregate amount of interest becoming due and payable on the next Interest Payment Date on all Bonds then Outstanding; and Second: To the Principal Fund, the amount, if any, needed to increase the amount in the Principal Fund to the aggregate amount of principal becoming due and payable on the Outstanding Bonds on the next, Interest Payment Date. 1.4 Third: To pay any Trustee or paying agent fees then due and payable: and Fourth: To the Surplus Fund, the balance remaining in the Revenue Fund. Application of Interest Fund All amounts in the Interest Fund shall for the purpose of paying interest on the (including accrued interest on any Bonds pursuant to the Indenture). be used and withdrawn by the Trustee solely Bonds as it shall become due and payable purchased or redeemed prior to maturity Application of Principal Fund All amounts in the Principal Fund shall be used and withdrawn by the Trustee solely for the purposes of paying the principal of the Bonds when due and payable, as provided for in the Indenture. Application of Redemption Fund All amounts deposited in the Redemption Fund shall be used and withdrawn by the Trustee solely for the purpose of redeeming Bonds at the earliest practicable date as provided in the Indenture. Application of Surplus Fund All amounts in the Surplus Fund may be used and withdrawn by the Trustee solely for the purpose of making up any deficiencies in the Principal Fund or the Interest Fund and distribution to the Agency upon the payment of all Bonds. Investment of Moneys in Funds All moneys in any of the funds established pursuant to the Indenture shall be invested by the Trustee only in Investment Securities. All investments shall be acquired at cost (exclusive of accrued interest), not in excess of the par value thereof and subject to limitations in the Indenture and to such additional limitations consistent therewith as may be established by request of the Lender. Moneys in all funds and accounts established under the Indenture shall be invested in Investment Securities maturing not later than the date on which it is estimated that such moneys shall be required. All interest and other profit derived from such investments shall be deposited when received in the Revenue Fund. For the purpose of determining the amount in any fund, Investment Securities credited to such fund shall be valued at their cost (exclusive of accrued interest after the first payment of interest following acquisition) or par value, whichever is less. Particular Covenants Against Encumbrances. The Agency shall not create, or permit the creation of any pledge, lien, charge or other encumbrance upon the Revenues or other assets pledged or assigned under the Indenture while any of the Bonds are Outstanding, except the pledge 15 and assignment created by the Indenture. Subject to this limitation, the Agency expressly reserves the right to enter into one or more other indentures for any of its corporate purposes, including other programs under the Law, and reserves the right to issue other obligations for such purposes. Payment of Taxes and Claims. The Agency shall, from time to time, duly pay and discharge, or cause to be paid and discharged, any property taxes, assessments or other governmental charges that may be lawfully imposed upon the Revenues or other assets or which might impair the security of the Bonds. Accounting Records and Financial Statements. The Trustee shall at all times keep, or cause to be kept, proper books of record and account in which complete and accurate entries shall be made of all transactions relating to the proceeds of Bonds, the Revenues, the Loan Agreement and all funds established pursuant to the Indenture. Such books of record and account shall be available for inspection by the Agency, the Lender and by any Bondholder, or his agent or representative duly authorized in writing, at reasonable hours and under reasonable circumstances. Tax Covenants (a) The Agency shall not use or permit the use of any proceeds of Bonds or any other funds of the Agency, directly or indirectly, to acquire any securities or obligations, and shall not use or permit the use of any amounts received by the Agency or Trustee with respect to the Loan Agreement in any manner, and shall not take or permit to be taken any other action or actions, which would cause any Bond to be an "arbitrage bond" within the meaning of Section 103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code") and the regulations promulgated thereunder The Agency shall require that any person (or any "related person" as defined in Section 103(b)(6)(C) of the Code) from whom it may acquire the Loan Agreement or from whom the Lender may acquire a Mortgage Loan under the Program shall not, pursuant to an arrangement, formal or informal, purchase Bonds in an amount related to the amount of the Loan to be made to the Lender under the Loan Agreement or the amount of such Mortgage Loan to be acquired from such person. (b) The Agency shall not use or permit the use of any proceeds of Bonds or any other funds of the Agency, directly or indirectly, in any manner, and shall not take or permit to be taken any other action or actions, which would result in any of the Bonds being treated as an obligation not described in Section 103(a) of the Code by reason of classification of such Bond as an "industrial development bond" within the meaning of Section 103(b) of the Code except for any Bond for any period during which such Bond is held by any person who, within the meaning of Section 103 (b)(9) of the Code is a "substantial user" or a related person." (c) The Agency shall at all times do and perform all acts and things permitted by law and the Indenture which are necessary or desirable in order to assure that interest paid on the Bonds (or on any of them) shall be exempt from Federal income taxes, except as a result of any Bond being held by a person who, within the meaning of Section 103(b)(9) of the Code, is a "substantial user" or a "related person." 16 Events of Defaults and Remedies The following events are defined as Events of Default: (a) Default in the due and punctual payment of the principal or Redemption Price of any Bond when and as the same shall become due and payable, whether at maturity as therein expressed, by proceeding for redemption, by declaration or otherwise; (b) Default in the due and punctual payment of any installment of interest on any Bond when and as such interest installment shall become due and payble; (c) Default by the Agency in the observance of any of the covenants, agreements or conditions in the Indenture or the Bonds, if such default shall have continued for a period of sixty (60) days after written notice thereof, specifying such default and requiring the same to be remedied, shall have been given to the Agency and the Lender by the Trustee, or to the Agency, or to the Agency, the Lender and the Trustee by the Holders of not less than twenty-five per cent (25%) in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds at the time Outstanding; or (d) The filing by the Agency of a petition in Bankruptcy or for its reorganiza- tion under any law relating to bankruptcy, or admission in writing by the Agency of its insolvency, or consent in writing by the Agency to the appointment of a trustee or receiver, or assumption by any court of competent jurisdiction, under the provisions of any law relating to bankruptcy or any similar law relating to creditor's rights, of custody of the Agency or any substantial part of its property. If an Event of Default shall occur, the Trustee or the Holders of not less than a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds may declare all Bonds to be due and payable immediately, subject to the condition that if, at any time after such declaration and before any judgment or decree for the payment of the moneys due shall have been obtained or entered, the Agency shall deposit with the Trustee a sum sufficient to pay all the principal of and interest on the Bonds which is overdue, with interest on such overdue principal at the rate borne by the respective Bonds, and the reasonable charges and expenses of the Trustee, and any and all other defaults known to the Trustee shall have been made good or cured to the satisfaction of the Trustee or provision deemed by the Trustee to be adequate shall have been made therefor, then the Holders of not less than a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding may rescind and annul such declaration and its consequences and waive such default; but no such rescission and annulment shall extend to or shall affect any subsequent default, or shall impair or exhaust any right or power consequent thereon. If an Event of Default shall occur, all Revenues and any other funds then held or thereafter received by the Trustee shall be applied by the Trustee as follows and in the following order: (a) To the payment of any expenses necessary in the opinion of the Trustee to protect the interests of the Holders of the Bonds and the coupons appertaining 17 thereto and payment of reasonable charges and expenses of the Trustee (including reasonable fees and disbursements of its counsel); and (B) To the payment of the principal or redemption price of and interest then due on the Bonds as follows: (1) Unless the principal of all of the Bonds shall have become or have been declared due and payable, -- First: To the payment to the persons entitled thereto of all " installments of interest then due in the order of the maturity of such installments, and if the amount available shall not be suffi- cient to pay in full any installment or installments maturing on the same date then to the payment thereof ratably, according to the amounts due thereon, to the persons entitled thereto, without any discrimination or preference; and Second: To the prepayment to the persons entitled thereto of the unpaid principal or redemption price of any Bonds which shall have become due, whether at maturity or by call for redemption, in the order of their due dates, with interest on the overdue principal at the rate borne by the respective Bonds, and, if the amount available shall not be sufficient to pay in full all the Bonds due on any date, together with such interest, then to the payment thereof ratably, according to the amounts of principal or redemption price due on such date to the persons entitled thereto, without any discrimination or preference. (2) if the principal of all of the Bonds shall have become or have been declared due and payable, to the payment of the principal and interest then due and unpaid upon the Bonds, with interest on the overdue principal at the rate borne by the respec- tive Bonds, and, if the amount available shall not be sufficient.to pay in full the whole amount so due and unpaid, then to the payment thereof ratably, without preference or priority of princi- pal over interest, or of any Bond over any other Bond, according to the amounts due respectively for principal and interest, to the persons entitled thereto without any discrimination or preference. The Trustee is irrevocably appointed as trustee and true and lawful attorney -in -fact of the holders of the Bonds and coupons appertaining thereto for the purpose of exercising and prosecuting on their behalf such rights and remedies as may be available to such Holders under the provisions of the Bonds, the Indenture, the Loan Agreement as well as under the Law and applicable provisions of any other law. No holder of any Bond or coupon appertaining thereto shall have the right or remedy under the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Law or any other applicable law with respect to such Bond or coupon, unless (A) such Holder shall have given to the Trustee written notice of the occurrence of an Event of Default; (B) the Holders of not less than 25% in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding shall have made written is request upon the Trustee to exercise the powers hereinabove granted or to institute such suit, action or proceeding in its own name; (C) such Holder or said Holders shall have tendered to the Trustee reasonable indemnity against the costs, expenses and liabilities to be incurred in compliance with such request; and (D) the Trustee shall have refused or omitted to comply with such request for a period of sixty days after such written request shall have been received by, and said tender of indemnity shall have been made to, the Trustee. Amendment The Indenture and the rights and obligations of the Agency and of the holders of Bonds and coupons issued thereunder and of the Trustee may be modified or amended at any time with the written consent of the Lender (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) and the holders of a majority of the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds at the time Outstanding; provided that if such modification or amendment by its terms shall not take effect so long as any Bonds of any particular maturity remain Outstanding, the consent of the holders of such Bonds shall not be required. No such modification or amendment shall, (1) extend the fixed maturity of any Bond, or reduce the amount of principal thereof, or extend the time of payment or reduce the amount of principal thereof, or reduce the rate of interest or extend the time of payment of interest, or reduce any premium payable upon redemption, without the consent of the holder of each Bond so effected, or (2) reduce the aforesaid percentage of Bonds the consent of the holders of which is required to effect any such modification or amendment without the consent of the holders of all Bonds then Outstanding. Defeasance If the Agency shall pay and discharge or cause to be paid and discharged the entire indebtedness on all Bonds Outstanding in any one more of the following ways, and if the Agency shall also pay or cause to be paid other sums payable under the Indenture, then the Indenture and the pledge of the Revenues and other assets and all covenants, agreements and obligations of the Agency under the Indenture shall cease, terminate, become void and be completely discharged: (1) By paying or causing to be paid the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on, the Outstanding Bonds as and when the same become due and payable; (2) By depositing with the Trustee, in trust, at or before maturity, money or Investment Securities described in clause (1) of the definition thereof the principal of and interest on which when due will provide money sufficient to pay when due the principal of, premium, if any, and interest to maturity or to the redemption date, as the case may be, with respect to all Outstanding Bonds, or (3) By delivering to the Trustee, for cancellation by it, all outstanding Bonds, together with all unpaid coupons belonging thereto. The Trustee Union Bank, Los Angeles, California is the Trustee. The Trustee is not liable in connection with the performance of its duties under the Indenture except for its own negligence or default. The Trustee may become the owner of any of the Bonds or of any 19 of the coupons appurtenant thereto with the same rights it would have if it were not the Trustee. The Agency may remove the Trustee at any time unless an Event of Default shall have occurred and then be continuing, and shall remove the Trustee if at any time requested to do so by the holders of not less than a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding or for certain other causes set forth in the Indenture. The Trustee also may resign at any time. Upon removal or resignation of the Trustee, the Agency shall promptly appoint a successor Trustee. Any Trustee must be a trust company or bank having the powers of a trust company doing business and have an office in San Diego, California, having combined capital and surplus of at least $50,000,000, and subject to supervision or examination by federal or state authority. APPROVAL OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS The issuance of the Bonds is subject to the unqualified approving opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, California. The services of Bond Counsel are limited to reviewing and rendering assistance in the preparation of the legal proceedings authorizing the Bonds and the issuance of an approving legal opinion relating to the validity of the Bonds and to the exemption of interest on the Bonds from State and federal income taxation. (See "Tax Exemption.") TAX EXEMPTION In the opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, California, Bond Counsel, under existing laws, regulations, administrative interpretations and court decisions, interest on the Bonds is exempt from present federal income taxes and from present State of California personal income taxes, except that no opinion is expressed as to the exemption from federal income taxes of interest on any Bond for any period during which such Bond is held by a person who, within the meaning of Section 103(b) (9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 19549 as amended is a "substantial user" of the facilities financed from the proceeds of the Bonds or is a "related person." LITIGATION At the time of the delivery of and payment for the Bonds, the Agency shall deliver, or cause•to be delivered, a certificate stating that there is no litigation of any nature pending or, to its knowledge, threatened restraining or enjoining the issuance, sale, execution or delivery of the Bonds, or the purchasing of the Mortgage Loans from the proceeds of the Bonds, or in any way contesting or affecting the validity of the Bonds or any authority with respect to their issuance or the pledge or application of any moneys or security provided for the payment of the Bonds or the existence or powers of the Agency which would materially adversely affect the validity of the Bonds, Loan to Lender Program, the Law, the Indenture, or the Loan Agreement. RATING Standard and Poor's Corporation have given the Series A Bonds a Private Placement Rating as of February 9, 1981 of "A". Such rating reflects only the view of such 20 orgainzation, and an explanation of the significance of such rating may be obtained from the rating agency furnishing the same. There is no assurance that a particular rating will obtain for any given period of time or that it will not be lowered or withdrawn entirely if, in the judgement of the agency originally establishing the rating, circumstances so warrant. Neither the Agency nor the Placement Agent have undertaken any responsibility to bring to the attention of the holders of the Series A Bonds any proposed revision or withdrawal. Any downward revision or withdrawal of the rating, could have an adverse effect on the marketability or the market price of the Series A Bonds. LEGALITY FOR INVESTMENT The Law provides that the Bonds shall be legal investments in the State of California for all trust funds, insurance companies, savings and loan associations, investment companies and banks, both savings and commercial, and shall be legal investments for executors, administrators, trustees and all other fiduciaries. The Law also provides that the Bonds shall be legal investments for State school funds and for any funds which may be invested in county, municipal or school district bonds, and the Bonds shall be deemed to be securities which may properly and legally be deposited with, and received by, any State or municipal officer or by any agency or political subdivision of the State for any purpose for which the deposit of bonds or obligations of the State is now, or may hereafter be, authorized by law, including deposits to secure public funds. 21 A. W. RUTAN 1188O.197W A JAM EB B. TUCKER. SR. 11 O88-108.I MILFORD W. OAML1 RUDOLPH C.SHEPARD- H RODOER HOWELY E. B. WOLCOTLDI' JAMES B. TUCKER' ROBERT L. PIKE. GARVIN R SHALLENBEROCR` ALAN BURTON NEWMAN JAMES R. MOO RC, I 1 LAWRENCE E. SERTINO` ROBERT L. RISLEY• ( ROBERT S. BOWCR H. L. IMIKCI MOCORMICKT MARCIA A. FORSYTH WILLIAM R. BIEL• WILLIAM M. MARTICORENA RICHARD A. CURNUTT. LAWRENCE J. DREYFUS$ LEONARD A. HAMPEL' ANNE NELSON LANPHAR JOHN 8. HURLBUT. JR.- PATRICIA L. STEARNS MICHAEL W. IMMCLL' RCNA O. STONE MILFORD W. DAHL, JR,' WILLIAM J. CAPLAN THEODORE I. WALLACE. JR.- GARY M. LAPE RICHARD R SIMS' RANDALL S. WMER MARSHALL M. PEARLMAN' MICHAEL L NORNAk ROBERT C. BRAUN' OIANE DOUGLAS ODELL ROGER A. ORABLE' PHILIP 0, KOHN COWARD O. BYBEBMA, JR.- JOEL D. KUPERBCRG THOMAS S. SALINOER' ELIEABETH A. NEALE BARRY R. LAUBECHER' SCOTT R. HOYT DAVID C. LARSEN- MARY B, MCILLECE CLIFFORD C. FRIEOEN' KATHRYN L. TOBIN ARTHUR O. KIOMAN' PHILIP C. MAYNARD MICHAEL D. RUSIN' NEILA R. 9ERNSTCIN MARC WINTHROP' DONNA SNOW WOLF IRA O. RIVIN' OEDRAJ.OUNN JCFFRCY M. ODCRMAN' EVRIOIKI IVICHII DALLAS -A FIIOrmrorvAL GG PORA,.. RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW AMERICAN CITY BANK TOWER, SUITE 1460 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER fill ANTON BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 19SO COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 Mr. Bob Lenard City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport,Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. September 2, 1982 TELEPHONE (714) 641.5100 (213) 625-7566 TELECOPIER (714) 546.9035 U0— h / R'cr.'SpY/�c Opt atp isi B``I•Ii` 1_ [fli fa Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Dear Bob: I am in receipt of a copy of your memorandum to,Jim Hewicker dated August 301 1982, including the attachment. The materials contained therein are excellent and will surely be used in evidence at trial. You should most certainly be prepared to testify on these items and prepare the appropriate chart to illustrate your testimony. One point which is especially important is your reference to the State Department of Fish and Game and the -State Coastal Commission's voiced concern for in -tensity of use'ort the Bayview Landing,.Castaways, Newporter North, Westbay,'Eastbluff Remnant and the Mouth of Big Canyon sites. Please collect any and all evidence of this concern either in the form of memoranda, letters,,staff.reports, etc. There may also be an EIR prepared by the Coastal Commission illustrating this concern. Please see what you can develop. , Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER 77 Leonard A. am*el -aj TWX 910 806-1883 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO LAH:loh cc: Jim Hewicker 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CRYSTAL C. SIMS LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 2700 North Main Street, llth Floor Santa Ana, California 92701 Telephone: , (714) 835-8806 rffCcIAEL WINE LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES 318 South Lincoln Boulevard Venice, California 90291 Telephone: (213) 392-4177; 870-4692 TOBY J. R77HSa!ILD MARVai E. IGAKCW LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LONG BEACH 4790 East Pacific Coast Highway Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (213) 434-7421 GREGJRY NEACH LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO 429 Third Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 Telephone: (714) 427-0491 JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAITHER RICHARD A. ROTHSCHILD WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, INC. 3535 West Sixth Street Los Angeles, California 90020 Telephone: (213) 487-7211 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners OLIVE DAVIS, ALFREDO ORTIZ, MARIA CASE NO. 32-95-85 ORTIZ, SHARION GARRISON, DOROTHY McALEAVEY, ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION KATHERINE R. WOLFF ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL 1525 East 17th Street Santa Ana, California Telephone: (714) 835-8718 Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL RICHARD W. PETHERBRIDGE 1722 North Broadway Santa Ana, California 92706 -1- C I Telephone: (714) 835-0935 2 Attorney .for Plaintiffs/Petitioners FRANK H. BARNES, MARION S. BARNES, 3 and JOSEPH P. BOYLE 4 0 0 1911 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA g FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 10 11 OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ*, } MARIA ORTIZ; SHARION GARRISON; ) 12 DOROTHY M. McALEAVEY; FRANK. ) H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; ) 13 JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY ) COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, ) 14 a non-profit corporation; ORANGE ) COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a ) 15 non-profit corporation,. ) 16 Plaintiffs/Petitioners, ) 17 -vs- } 18 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; CITY ) COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT ) 19 BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF ) THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE ) 20 IRVINE COMPANY, a corporation; ) DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive,. ) 21 ) Defendants/Respondents, ) 22 ) and ) 23 ) 24 DEPART14ENT OF HOUSING 707D COMMUNITY ) DEVELOPMENT, ) 25 Real Party In Interest. ) 26 t 2711 28 CASE NO. 32-95-85 741SRD A hMED OJMP=%TT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ENJOIN EXCLUSIONARY LAND USE PRACTICES AND THIRD AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE -2- e i 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 1. Plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek to make housing 4 opportunities available to low and moderate income people wishing 5 to live in the City -of Newport Beach. A -critical shortage of 6 housing for low and moderate income persons in Southern 7 California has created a need for each city in the region to 8 provide for its fair share of low -and moderate income housing. 9 However, not only has the City of Newport Beach failed to 10 address this need, but it has adopted and implemented land use 11 regulations and plans 'that exclude from its borders virtually all 12 low and moderate income people, including many who work in 13 Newport Beach. Among such exclusionary land use policies, the 14 City has severely and unreasonably restricted the density and the 15 total amount of housing which may be devefF­Ped in the City and 16 limited remaining residential development to large lot single- 17 family housing which low and moderate or middle -income persons 18 cannot afford. Among the groups of persons excluded by the 19 City's exclusionary land use policies are individual plaintiffs, 20 who are low-income people living in substandard or costly 21 housing outside of Newport Beach and who would like to live in , 22 the City, but are unable to afford 'housing there. 23 2. The City of Newport Beach's exclusionary practices 24 violate state planning and land use statutes, exceed its police 25 powers, deny plaintiffs equal protection of the law in violation 26 of state and federal constitutions, constitute racial and 27 economic discrimination in the provision of housing in violation of state and federal constitutional and statutory law, deprive -3- 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 plaintiffs of their liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the state and federal constitutions, and abridge plaintiffs' constitutional right to travel. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief eliminating the exclusionary practices of the City of Newport Beach and mandatory relief compelling it to affirmatively and comprehen- sively plan and provide for its fair share of regional housing needs for low and moderate income persons. Additionally, plaintiffs seek to enjoin and set aside the City of Newport Beach's approval of subdivision plans pending its compliance with its general plan duties. Expressly excluded from the .claims and relief herein is the real property in Newport Beach bounded by Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Ford Road and Bison Avenue, known as the "Ford Aeronutronic Project" and approvals and actions by the City of Newport Beach with respect thereto, including, without limitation, Resubdivision No. 629 and Tentative Tract Map No. 10399 the approval and recordation of Final Tract Maps thereon and the adoption of Ordinance No. 1807. PARTIES 3. Plaintiffs/Petitioners: a. Plaintiff OLIVE DAVIS is a low-income citizen of the State of California and a resident of the City of Santa Ana. She lives there in a mobilehome which costs her sub- stantially more than 25% of her income. She would like to live in Newport Beach if she could afford suitable housing there. -4- J 1 b. Plaintiffs ALFREDO ORTIZ and MARIA ORTIZ, a 2 Hispanic husband and wife, are low-income citizens of the Stake 3 of California and residents of the City of Santa Ana. They live 4 there with their seven children in inadequate housing which 5 costs them substantially more than 25% of their income. They 6 would like to live in Newport Beach if they could afford suitable 7 housing there. 8 c. Plaintiff SHARION GARRISON, a Black woman, is 9 a low-income citizen of the State of California and a resident 10 of the City of Cypress in Orange County, where she lives with '11 her two children in housing which costs her substantially more 12 than 25% of her income. She would like to reside in Newport 13 Beach if there were affordable housing there. She has paid a 14 tax to the City of Newport within one year prior to commencement 15 of this action. 16 d. Plaintiff DOROTHY M. McALEAVEY is a low-income 17 citizen of the State of California and a resident of the City of 18 Long Beach in Los Angeles County. She and her family reside in 19 the Carmelitos Housing Project, a crime -ridden, environmentally 20 unsound public housing project operated by the Housing Authority 21 of the County of Los Angeles. The unit in which she lives has 22 been condemned as substandard by.the City of Long Beach. She 23 would like to live in Newport Beach if she could afford suitable 24 housing there. 25 e. Plaintiff ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL 26 is a duly constituted non-profit membership corporation organized 27 and existing under the laws of the State of California. The 28 Orange County Fair Housing Council exists for the purposes of -5- 1 encouraging the provision of adequate housing for all persons 2 in Orange County, and for preventing and discouraging racial 3 and economic discrimination in the availability of such housing 4 facilities. The Orange County Fair Housing Council includes 5 among its members residents, property owners and taxpayers in 6 the City of Newport Beach and in many of the surrounding cities 7 and unincorporated areas. -Numerous residents of Orange County 8 desiring to live within the City, whose earnings are insufficient 9 to obtain housing in the City, have sought assistance from 10 the Orange County Fair Housing Council. 11 12 f. Plaintiffs FRANK H. BARNES and MARION S. BARNES, .13 a Black husband and wife, are citizens of the State of California 14 and owners of real property located in the City of Newport Beach. 15 g. Plaintiff JOSPEH P. BOYLE is a citizen of the 16 State of California and a resident and owner of real property 17 located in the City of Newport Beach. 18 h. ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, 19 plaintiff as to the first cause of action and petitioner as to the 20 second, cause of action, is a duly constituted non-profit 21 corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State • 22 of California to provide housing and related services to low 23 and moderate income persons on a non-profit basis. 24 4. The above individual and organizational plaintiffs/ 25 petitioners are beneficially interested in the enforcement of the 26 City's public duties that have been violated in the manner alleged 27 below. Specifically, the City of Newport Beach's exclusionary 28lland use practices and its failure to affirmatively and -6- 3 1 comprehensively plan and provide for its fair share of the hous- 2 ing needs of all segments of the region, particularly the needs of 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2E low and moderate income persons, has contributed to the current housing crises existing in the City's metropolitan area both in terms of limiting the amount of housing and increasing its price. Plaintiffs/petitioners are adversely affected by this failure in that they have been and continue to be unable to find or make available decent, safe and affordable housing in the metropolitan area in which they live, which area includes the City of Newport Beach. If the City of Newport Beach complied with its public duties alleged below, plaintiffs'/petitioners' opportunity to find or make available decent, safe and affordable housing both within the City of Newport Beach and the surrounding region would be enhanced and such housing actually would be available in the City of Newport Beach. 5. Defendants/Respondents/ Real Parties in Interest: a. Defendant CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ("CITY") is a (municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The City regulates land use and development within its borders by, inter alia, implementing a Zoning Ordinance, a Subdivision Ordinance, Planned Community Development Plans and Development Standards and a General Plan. b. Defendant CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ("CITY COUNCIL") is the legally constituted elective body of the City of Newport Beach. Pursuant to the Subdivision Code of the City of Newport Beach defendant CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH is charged with the duty of approving, condi- tionally approving, or disapproving tentative and final maps of -7- 6 7 8 9 10 11 121 131 n a 14 it 15 16 4 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 proposed subdivisions. c. • Defendant PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ("PLANNING COMMISSION") is a legally constituted appointed body of the City of Newport Beach- Pursuant to the Subdivision Code of the City of Newport Beach, defendant PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH is designated as the Advisory Agency of the City of Newport Beach and in such capacity is charged with the duty of recommending the approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of tentative and final maps of proposed subdivisions. d. Real Party in Interest as to the Second Cause of ,Action DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ("HCD") is a department of the State of California. Under authority vested by Health and Safety Code Section 50459 (formerly section 41134), HCD has promulgated housing element guidelines, 25 Calif. Admin. Code Section 6400 et seq., in order to interpret and implement Governmental Code Section 65302(c). These guidelines and the statutory provision they interpret form the basis for several of the causes of action herein and the legal significance of the housing element guidelines will be at issue. Additionally, HCD has a substantial interest in the outcome of this action by virtue of its state mandated duties in connection with low and moderate income housing and its powers, inter alia, to administer housing or community development programs, to promote the formation of organizations intended to increase the supply of adequate housing and to implement a recently enacted $100 million subsidized hous- ing program for low and moderate income persons. —8— 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e. Defendant as to the Third Cause of Action THE IRVINE COMPANY is a corporation duly organized and existing ur1der and by virtue of the laws of one of the fifty states and is authorized to do business and.is doing business in the City of Newport Beach. THE IRVINE COMPANY is the owner of property in the CITY which may be affected by this action. 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis do allege, that defendants"named herein as DOE 1 through DOE 100, inclusive, are persons, firms, or corporations that are interested in the events herein alleged. The true names and capacities of defendants named herein as DOE 1 through DOE 100, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiffs who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. 'FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (To Enjoin Economically Exclusionary Land Use Practices, To Compel City To Make Realistically Possible Its Fair Share Of Low And Moderate Income Housing, And Declaratory Relief) 7. The CITY is located within the Southern California metropolitan area, a region marked'by an enormous need for low and moderate income housing. 8. The CITY contains substantial developable land, a major portion of which is suitable for low and moderate income housing. -9- 1 4 2 i 9. 'The CITY has developed and is in the process of further developing significant employment centers, which will 3 create thousands of jobs that will be filled by low and moderate 4 income persons. This industrial and commercial development has 5 created an enormous need for low and moderate income housing 6 within the CITY, a need exacerbated by the existing critical 7 shortage of such housing throughout Southern California. These 8 factors accentuate the already existing duty of each city in the 9 region to provide for its fair share of low cost housing needs. 10. Notwithstanding the need for low and moderate income housing described above and the availability of land to 12 build such housing., the CITY systematically has prevented low .13 and moderate income persons from living in Newport Beach through, 14 inter alia,• the following acts and omissions: 15 (a) The CITY has restricted by its General Plan 16 and has zoned virtually all remaining land in the CITY for low 17 density, single-family housing, while not only failing to develop 18 an adequate program for or zone sufficiently for multi -family, a 19 s mobilehome and higher density housing, but affirmatively pre- �_ 20 cluding the development of such housing, usually the only types 21 ' of housing affordable by low and moderate income persons. 22 '• Specifically, on December 10, 1979, defendant CITY COUNCIL 23 adopted General Plan Amendments 79-1 which severely restrict the 24 permissible densities of residential development throughout the 25 remaining vacant, developable land in the CITY. These amend- 26 ments have reduced permissible residential densities by 50% and 27 thus, have eliminated about 1600 dwelling units from the pre- 28 ' existing General Plan standards. The CITY has also taken actions 10 lon specific development and tentative tract map proposals which have restricted the availability of or prohibited the provision 311of housing affordable to low or moderate income persons. 4 (b) The CITY, both as a general policy and for 5 each individual development that has been built in Newport Beach 6llhas imposed on developers unreasonably strict design standards 7 and amenity requirements -- such as minimum lot sizes and maximum 811densities for development -- that -are unrelated to insuring 911minimum standards of health and safety. These standards and 10lrequirements have driven the cost of housing in Newport Beach 11 far above the price that private developers otherwise could offer 1211 consistent with minimum standards of health and safety, and well 1311beyond the means of low and moderate income persons. 1411 (c) The CITY,_ both as a general policy and for each: 15 individual development that has been built in Newport Beach, has 16 imposed upon developers exactions and dedication requirements for 17 such items as parks, open space, bike paths, equestrian paths, 18IIand transit rights -of -way far beyond those needed to preserve 19 11 dedication requirements, the 'cost of which has been passed on to 20 housing consumers, have'driven the price of housing within 21 Newport Beach well beyond the means of low and moderate income 22 persons. 23 (d) The CITY has established a land use regulatory 24 scheme which requires administrative review of residential 25 developments at several points in the development process. The 26 CITY has granted to itself unrestricted discretion at each stage 27 in the process to determine and approve, in all essential 28 characteristics, the uses of land and the density, intensity and -11- n 1 nature of all developments within the CITY, including the amount of land area to be devoted to various types of residential, 3 commercial and other uses, the allowable densities and the a11ow- 4 able housing types within each residential area, and the exact 5 location, size, shapg, height and use of all buildings and 6 other structures in a development site. This scheme not only 7 has led to delay in development of housing, thereby increasing 8 its cost, but has, in almost every development built in Newport 9 Beach, led to the requirement of lower densities and stricter 10 design standards and amenity requirements than originally 11 contemplated by the developer. This, in turn, has driven up 12 the cost of housing beyond the means of low and moderate income 1311 persons. 14 (e) The CITY's zoning ordinances and general land 15 use regulations have been interpreted and implemented in such a 16 way as to minimize the density and to maximize the dedication 17 and design standard requirements in each development actually 18 built within Newport Beach. 19 (f) The' CITY has failed to take meaningful 20 affirmative action -- such as effectively utilizing federal 21 subsidies, implementing an effective inclusionary zoning 22 ordinance requiring low income housing within each development, 23 or granting developers land use and other financial incentives -- 24 to insure that sufficient low and moderate income housing is, 2511built to fulfill the CITY's fair share of regional housing needs. 26 In fact, after initially participating in the federal community 27 development block grant program the CITY has refused to further 28 participate in that program as well as in the Section 8 housing -12- C 1 subsidy program, both of which are available and intended to 2 meet housing and other needs of low and moderate income 3 persons. 4 11. The CITY's conduct reflects a continuing pattern 5 of acts and omissions demonstrating hostility and unwillingness 6 toward meeting the low and•moderate income housing needs within 7 the CITY. It has held to the policy that residential development 8 within its jurisdiction must be of low density (primarily single- s family housing) with unreasonably expensive amenities, which has 10 the consequent effect .of creating obstacles to and precluding 11 the provision of least cost housing,as defined in Government Code 12 .Section'65913.1, and the meeting'of the CITY's fair share of its 13 regional low and moderate income housing needs. 14 12. As a result of the exclusionary acts and omissions 15 described in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, little or no housing 16 in the CITY is or will be affordable to persons with low and 17 moderate incomes. Accordingly, many lower income persons who t8 are employed in the CITY must commute unreasonably long distances 19 to work there, many are forced to live in undesirable substandard 20 housing outside of Newport Beach, and many are prevented from 21 obtaining job opportunities in Newport Beach. 22 13. If the CITY eliminated its exclusionary practices 23 described in Paragraph 10 and complied with its constitutional 24 and statutory duty to zone for the least cost housing and to 25 provide for its fair share of regional housing needs, plaintiffs 26 would be able either to live in the CITY, or to afford better" 27 housing outside of -the CITY, and would have greater access to 28 opportunities within the CITY. -13- u 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. The CITY's exclusionary practices described in Paragraph 10 and its resulting failure to zone for the least cost housing, as defined in Government Code Section 65913.1,and to provide for its fair share of low and moderate income housing in the region, violate state planning and land -use statutes, exceed the CITY's police powers, deny_•.plaintiffs equal protection of the law in violation of the state and federal constitutions, constitute racial discrimination -in the provision of housing in violation of state and federal constitutional and statutory law, deprive plaintiffs of their liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the state and federal constitu- tions, and abridge plaintiffs' constitutional right to travel. 15. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law due to their inability to show money damages as individuals or as a class resulting from defendant CITY's failure to comply with said duty, their inability to repair with money damages the continuing harm resulting from defendant CITY's failure to comply with said duty, their inability to repair with money damages the con- tinuing harm resulting from defendant CITY's failure to comply with said duty, and their inability to adequately compute total damages to human aspirations and emotions resulting from defendant CITY's violation of said duty will inevitably lead to a multiplicity of lawsuits. Respondents CITY and CITY COUNCIL fail and refuse to carry out or discharge their duty to zone for the least cost housing and to provide for its fair share of low and moderate income housing. Unless compelled to perform said duties by this Court respondent will continue to fail and refuse -14- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 121 131 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 �10 4A PE to perform said duties and petitioners unlawfully will be deprived of their rights and opportunities to acquire or rent affordable housing in the CITY, to the great and irreparable damage of petitione . rs. Unless and until this court exercises its equitable and mandatory powers to require -defendants to Comply forthwithwith said duty, plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury in that they will continue to be unable to afford housing in Newport Beach or its region. 'Furthermore, Code of Civil Procedure Section 526a authorizes injunctive relief for ehjoining the illegal expenditure and waste of funds. 16. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that plaintiffs contend that the CITY's land use practices constitute an exercise of authority in excess of the CITY's police powers, violate their rights to due vrocess and equal protection of -the law, and abridge their constitutional right to travel, whereas the CITY disputes that contention - SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For A Writ of Mandate Com pelling CITY To AdoptA Legally Sufficient General Plan) 17. Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 14 of this Complaint. 18. - The California Planning and Zoning Law, at 11 Section - 65300 to 65302 of the Government Code, provides,that every City in California has the mandatory duty to prepare and adopt an officially adopted general plan including, specifically, a housing element developed pursuant to housing -is- 2 3 4 6 7 8 7J 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 element guidelines adopted by Real Party in Interest HCD under Health and Safety Code Section 50459 (formerly Section 41134)4 As of October 1, 1981, Government Code Section 65302 provides that -every City has the mandatory duty to adopt a housing element as provided in Article 10.6t Gov. C. Sections 65580, 2t seq. Either under the housing element guidelines adopted by HCD or under Gov. C. Sections 65580, et seq., the housing e lement, inter alia, must consist of standards and plans, includ- ing goals, policies, quantified objectives and scheduled programs, for the improvement of housing and for provision of adequate sites for housing and it must make adequate provision for the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. 19. Real Party in interest HCD adopted housing element guidelines on an emergency basis on August 3, 1977 and adopted new guidelines on November 17, 1977 (25 Cal. Admin. Code §5 6400, et seq.) which required the CITY to adopt by July 1, 1979 and to submit to HCD within two weeks of such ad option a housing element consistent with Gov. C. Section 65302(c) and such new guidelines. The CITY asked for and received from Real Party in Interest HCD an -extension of time to October 1, 1979, to adopt said housing element. No'further extensions of time have been granted for the CITY's adoption of said housing element. .16- 2 3 4 5 7 A 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2f 20. Defendant CITY has failed io comply with said mandatory S tatutory duty since October lt 1979, in that it ha�; not adopted a general plan which-meets'the requirements of Government Code Section 65302, inter alia, in the following respects:* s 40f it fails to adequately assess the need low and moderat�hcome persons in -the region of Newport Beach. t fails to set forth adequate policies and 'within land use regulatory programs which provide affirmatively the CITY for the housing needs of low and moderate income families in the community, as 'further described above at Paragraph 10. I�C:)_ it -fails to identify obstacles and barriers to meeting -said housing needs created by the CITY's exclusionary conduct and set forth a program for removing or overcoming said obstacles and barriers, as further described above at paragraph 10. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 K-1 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 .26 27 28 d. it fails to set forth plans, proposals and a time frame'for achieving housing objectives. e. It fails'to make provision for adequate sites for housing and to*make adequate provisions for the housing needs of all economic segments'of the community. f. It fails to commit the CITY to seeking to use all available resources, including federal and locally generated subsidy programs, to meeting said housing needs, as further described above at paragraph 10. Q� The CITY's General Plan Amendments 79-1, adopted on December 10, 1979, severely restrict the permissible residential densities throughout the remaining vacant, develop- able land by 50% and have eliminated the development of about 1600 dwelling units from the pre-existing General Plan standards, which were already unreasonably restrictive and did not provide for the CITY's absorption of its fair share of the region's housing need's. Thus, General Plan amendments 79-1 and the pre-existing density standards are directly contrary to the requirements of Government Code Section 65302(c). -=MMWMWA 21'. Respondents CITY and CITY COUNCIL fail and refuse to carry out or discharge their duties alleged in paragraph 20. Unless compelled to perform said duties by this Court, respondents will continue to fail and refuse to perform _18- 1 said duties and petitioners unlawfully will be deprived of their rights and opportunities to acquire or rent affordable 3 housing in the CITY, to the great and irreparable damage of 4 petitioneis. 5 22. Petitioners have no plain,, speedy or adequate 6 remedy at law, other than the relief sought in this petition. 7 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 8 (To Enjoin CITY's Approval Of Subdivision 9 Maps, To Set Aside Approval of Subdivision 10 Maps, And For Declaratory Relief Against 11 Defendant CITY) 12 23. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate Paragraph 1 13 through 14 and 18 through 20 of this Complaint. 14 24. This action seeks to enjoin defendant CITY from 15 approving and conditionally approving tentative and final maps 16 of proposed subdivisions and to set aside approval of such maps 17 until such time as defendant CITY adopts a housing element, as f/ 18 part of its general plan, which is consistent with Government 1-9 Code Section 65302. Although the Subdivision Map Act requires 20 that no tentative or final subaivision maps be approved until 21 the CITY officially has adopted a general plan meeting the 22 requirements of Government Code Section 65302,, defendant CITY 23 illegally has approved and continues to approve tentative and 24 final subdivision maps. 25 25. Government Code Section 66473.5 provides that no 26 local agency shall approve a tentative or final subdivision map 27 unless the legislative body of such local agency finds that the 28 proposed subdivision is consistent with the general plan .19- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 171 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 required by Government Code Section 65302. Government Code Section 66473.5 further provides that a proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan only if the local agency officially has adopted a plan as required by Government Code Section 65302, including HCD'S guidelines, and the proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. 26. The -CITY has not adopted officially a general plan meeting the requirements of Government Code Section 65302 described in the Second Cause of Action, above. 27. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66473 and 66473.5, defendant CITY is required to disapprove tentative and final maps of proposed subdivisions because the CITY has not adopted officially a general plan meeting the requirements of Government Code Section 65302. Notwithstanding Government Code, Sections 66473 and 66473.5f municipal defendants have approved and conditionally approve d, and continue to approve and condi- tionally approve, tentative'and final maps of proposed subdivision. 28. The approval and conditional approval of tentati and final maps of proposed subdivisions by defendants, unless and until enjoined and set aside by order of this Court, will cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are interested in securing adequate housing and employment opportunities for all economic segments of the community. The approval and conditional approval of tentative and final maps of proposed subdivisions, without the benefit of an officially adopted general plan, affects the character of the community, -20- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -both within the CITY and'within its regionj, and affects the provision of housing and employment Opportunities for all economic segments of the community. The approval and condi- tional appi - oval of tentative and final maps of proposed subdivisions by defendants constitute an illegal expenditure and waste of public funds. 29. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66452.4 and 66458, tentative and final maps -of proposed subdivisions are approved unless acted upon by defendants within certain pre- scribed time limits. Unless and until defendants PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH are enjoined and restrained from accepting for filing tentative and final maps of proposed subdivisions, said tentative and final maps would be deemed approved upon the failure of defendants to act upon said maps. 30. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law to prevent the continuing injury alleged herein. 31. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiffs and defendants relative to their respective rights and duties in that plaintiffs contend that the CITY has not adopted a general plan meeting the requirements of Govern- ment Code Section 65302. Defendants dispute such contentions and contend that the CITY has adopted a general plan meeting the requirements of state law and therefore may legally approve tentative and final subdivision maps. Plaintiffs desire a declaration of their rights with respect to the adequacy of the general plan of the CITY with particular reference as to whether defendants' approval of tentative and,final subdivision maps .21- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ffell 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 1�41111111 V*A 23 24 25 26 27 28 violate Government Code Section 66473.5. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For A Writ Of Mandate Compelling City To Adopt Legally Sufficient Land Use Ordinances And Regulations And For Declar�Ltory Relief) 32. Petitioners her&by reallege and incorporate each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 14 and 18 through 20 of this Complaint.` 33. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.1, in exercising its authority to zone for land uses, CITY has a manda- tory duty to zone sufficient vacant lands for residential use wit 11appropriate standards" to meet housing needs as identified by the general plan. "Appropriate standards" include densities and other requirements imposed on residential lots "which contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of producing housing at the lowest possible cost given economic and environmental factors, the public health and safety, and the need to facilitate the development of housing for persons and families of low or moderate income." 34. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, in exercising its authority to regulate subdivisions, the -City I shall "(a) Refrain from imposing criteria for design. . . . or improvements,. for the purpose of rendering infeasible the development of housing for any and all economic segments of the community "(b) Consider the effect of ordinances adopted —22— 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141 V 16 A 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 2E 26 27 2E and action taken by it with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the local jurisdiction is situated." 35. As a result of the exclusionary land -use practices and procedures as described in Paragraph 10 of this Complaint? and as a result of the inadequacy of the CITY's gener plan as described in'Paragraph 20 of this Complaint, the CITY jj:V&17 e is violating and threatens to continue to the California Zoning and Planning Laws as set forth in Government Code Sections 65913, 65913.11 65913.2, 65913.4. in addition to the exclusionary practices and procedures described in Paragraph 10 and the CITY's.failure to adopt a legally adequate general plan, the CITY is violating these state statutes, inter alia, by the following actions: (a) The CITY'has failed to zone sufficient land at densities high enough,for the production of affordable housing. (b) The CITY has failed.to designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to meet housing needs of all economic segments of the community, especially low or moderate income households. (c) The CITY, in exercising its authority to regulate subdivisions, has imposed criteria which have rendered infeasible the development of housing for all economic segments of the community. (d) The CITY, in exercising its authority to regulate subdivisions, has failed to consider the -23- III effect of ordinances and actions taken by it with respect to the housing needs of the region. 311 36. Unless compelled to perform its mandatory statutory duty to adopt zoning and planning laws which provide 5 for the development of adequate housing for all economic 6 segments of the community by this Court, CITY and CITY COUNCIL 7 will continue to fail and refuse to perform said duty. 8 37. Petitioners,have no plain, speedy, or 9 adequate remedy at law, other than.the relief sought in this 10 petition in that petitioners seek to compel CITY and CITY COUNCIL to perform their mandatory statutory duty to adopt 12 zoning and planning laws which provide for the development of V housing affordable to all economic segments of the community. 1411 38. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists be- 1511 tween the parties in that petitioners contend that the CITY and 16 CITY COUNCIL have failed to comply with their mandatory statutorY 17 duty to adopt zoning and planning laws which provide for the 1811 development of sufficient housing affordable to all economic 1911 segments of the community as provided in Government Code 2011 Sections 65913, 65913.1, 65913.2 and 65913.4, whereas respondents 21 dispute that contention. 22 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION > (To Enjoin CITY's Racially Discriminatory 2� Land Use Practices And To Compel CITY To 25 Provide Equal Protection Of The Law) 26 39. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate each 27 and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 14, and 28 18 through 20, of this Complaint. -24- 40. Because of the exclusionary practices described 2 in Paragraph 10 of this complaint, the CITY'S failure to adopt 3 a legally sufficient General Plan and the CITY's failure to meet 4 its regional fair share housing obligations, very few Black and 5 Hispanic people live.'in the CITY; the percentage of Blacks 6 and Hispanics in Newport Beach is far smaller than their per- 7 centage in the Southern California or orange County population. 8 Many Blacks and Hispanics, including those who are employed in 9 Newport Beach, would like to live in Newport Beach, but because 10 of the CITY's policies are forced to live in substandard and/or 11 segregated housing. 12 The CITY's exclusion of Blacks and Hispanics from .13 housing opportunities in Newport Beach amounts to racial 14 discrimination in violation of the equal protection clauses of 15 the California and United States Constitutions, the Rumford Fair 16 Housing Act, Health & Safety Code §§ 35700,.Et seq., the State 17 Planning and Zoning.Law, Government Code Se ction 65008, and 18 Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 19 et seq. The CITY's exclusion of Blacks and Hispanics from 20 housing opportunities in Newport Beach deprives resident 21 plaintiffs of the social benefits and business and professional 22 advantages of living in an integrated community. 23 _�r_< Defendants CITY and CITY COUNCIL fail and 24 refuse to carry out their duties' under the California and 25 United States Constitutions, the Rumford Fair Housing Act, 26 Health & Safety Code 99 35700 et seq., the State Planning and 27 Zoning Law, Government Code Section 65008, and Title VIII of 28 the Civil Rights Act of 1968f 42 U.S.C. SS 3601 et seq. to -2s- 1 provide equal protection of the laws and not to discriminate on 2 the basis of race. 3 43. The unlawful conduct of defendant CITY in con- 4 tinuing racially discriminatory land use practices, unless and 5 until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, will 6 cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiffs SHARION 7 GARRISON, ALFREDO ORTIZ and MARIA ORTIZ in that they will con- 8 tinue to be unable to live or afford housing in Newport Beach. 9 Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy -at law to prevent this 10 continuing injury. 11 44. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists 12 -between:the parties in that plaintiffs contend that the CITY 13 is implementing racially discriminatory land use practices, 14 whereas the CITY disputes that contention. 15 S USE 0 ON 16 (To Enjoin CITY From Illegal Use of Public 17 Funds) 18 45. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate each 19 and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 14, 18 20 through 20, 24 through 29, 33 through 35, 39 and 40 of this 21 Complaint. 22 46. The CITY has made monetary payments and is 23 continuing to make such payments, including payment of zoning 24 and planning officials' salaries and capital improvement expendi- 25 tures, in order to implement its land use regulatory program. 26 For the reasons explained in this Complaint, such expenditures 27 are illegal. 28 47. Plaintiffs SHARION GARRISON, FRANK H. BARNES, .26- 1 MARION S. BARNES and JOSEPH P. BOYLE$ who paid a tax to the CITY within the past year, have been substantially affected by these 3 illegal expenditures. 4 48. The CITY's unlawful conductl unless and until 5 enjoined and restrained'by order of this'Courts will cause great 6 and irreparable injury to plaintiffs SHARION GARRISON, FRANK 7 H. BARNES, 14ARION S. BARNES and JOSEPH P. BOYLE in that the 8 CITY will continue to make illegal expenditures in order to 9 im lement its land use regulatory program. ,P 10 1 49. An actual controversy has arise and now exists 11 between the parties in that plaintiffs contend that the CITY 12 is making illegal expenditures in order to implement its land 13 use regulatory program, whereas the CITY disputes that 14 contention. 15 PRAYER 16 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and petitioners pray for 17 relief as follows: 1. on the First and Fifth Causes of Action that 1,9 this Court: 20 a) Issue its preliminary and permanent 21 injunction enjoining the CITY from approving 22 or furthering in any way,'including the 23 issuing of -building permits and any land use 24 approvals, any residential, industrial or 25 commercial development within the CITY, except 26 the Ford Aeronutronic Project described in 27 Paragraph 21 above$ and except for those 28 residential developments containing at least -27- 15% of proposed housing units affordable to 2 low income housholds and an'additional 20% 3 affordable to moderate income householdso 4 until such time as defendant CITY ceases to 5 engage in 6xclusionary conduct against low 6 and moderate income persons and against Black 7 and Hispanic persons on the basis of their 8 race and until such time as defendant CITY 9 develops and implements effective programs, 10 as outlined in Paragraph lb below, to satisfy 11 its "fair share" of the present and prospective 12 regional need for low and moderate income 13 housing. 14 b) issue its permanent injunction mandating 15 or in the alternative issue a writ ordering the 16 CITY to produce an affirmative housing plan to 17 insure the construction in the CITY of an 18 appropriate variety of housing affordable to 19 families and persons of low and,moderate income 20 and to affirmatively market such units to Black 21 and Hispanic persons, at least to the extent of 22 the CITY's fair share of the present and pro- 23 spective regional need for such housing and for 24 said racial and ethnic groups and, pursuant to 25 said plan, to amend, revise or rescind, in 26 whole or in partr its General Plan, Zoning 27 ordinance, Planned Community Development 28 Regulationse Subdivision ordinance, and other _28- i land use ordinances, regulations or actions, to conform to said plain. 3 c) Declare that the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH's 4 Zoning ordinance, Planned community Development 5 Regulations, Subdivision ordinance, and other land 6 use ordinances and regulations are in violation 7 of the Constition and laws of the united States, 8 and the State of California insofar as they: 9 (i) prevent, and fail affirmatively 10 to make possible, the construction within the 11 CITY of an appropriate variety of housing 12 affordable to families and persons of low and 13 moderate income, at least to the extent of the 14 CITY's fair share of the present and prospective 15 regional need for such housing; 16 (ii) discriminate economically against 17 plaintiffs who are not residents of the CITY, 18 and against other persons and families of 19 low and moderate income by preventing the 20 construction of housing that is affordable 21 and appropriate to their needs, and thereby 22 relegating such households to housing that is 23 affordable and appropriate to their needs, and 24 thereby relegating such households to housing 25 that is substandard, overcrowded, unaffordabler 26 racially or economically segregated, and/or 27 located :unreasonably far from places of 28 employment within the CITY;- -29- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (iii) unlawfully discriminate against Black and Hispanic persons on the basis of their rqce; ,(Jv) unlawfully maintain and further economic and racial segregation in the provision of housing, education and employment; and (v) unlawfully deprive non-resident plaintiffs and other low and moderate income pe . r- sons of their constitutional right to travel to and reside in the CITY. 2. On the Second Cause of Action that this Court .issue its peremptory writ of mandate commanding respondents CITY and CITY COUNCIL to comply with their mandatory statutory duty to prepare and adopt a legally sufficient general plan to meet the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. 3. On the Third Cause of Action that this Court: a) issue its preliminary and permanent injunc- tion enjoining defendants CITY, CITY COUNCIL and PLANNING COMMISSION from approving or conditionally approving tentative and final subdivision maps and from accepting for filing tentative and final sub- division maps except for maps on the Ford Aeronutronic Project. b) Set aside approval of tentative and final subdivision maps approved by the CITY within 180 days prior to the filing of this Complaint, except for the approval of maps and other approvals on the Ford Aeronutronic Project'. -30- I*.- '*". I 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c) Declare that the CITY cannot approve any tentative or final subdivision maps until it has a4opted a general plan which complies with the provisions of Government Code Section 65302, including specifically Section 65302(c) and HCD's implementing regulations. 4. on the Fourth Cause of Action that this Court: a)' issue a peremp�ory writ of mandate ordering respondents CITY and CITY COUNCIL to exercise their authority and to revise their Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and other land use ordinances and regulations so as to comply with their statutory duty as provided in Government Code Sections 65913, 65913.1, 65913.2, and 65913.4. b) Declare that the city of San Clemente's Zoning Ordinances, Subdivision Ordinance and other land use ordinances and regulations are in viola-, tion of California Zoning and Planning Laws as provided in Government Code Sections 65913, 65913.1, 65913.2, 65913.4 in that they fail to provide for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, especially low and moderate income households. 5. on the Sixth Cause of Action that this Court issue its preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the CITY from approving, processing, enforcing and from spending any local tax monies to approve,'processr enforce or further any of the following, except as to the Ford Aeronutronic Project: -31- a) All invalid portions of its General Plan, 2 Zoning ordinance, Planned Community Development 3 Regulations$ Subdivision ordinance, other land 4 use ordinances and regulations, including but 5 not limitea to all exclusionary'provisions and 6 policies which prevent or hinder the provision 7 by private industry of least cost housing, under, 8 appropriate standards as defined in Government 9 Code Section 65913.1. 10 b) Any tentative or final subdivision maps 11 until the CITY adopts a legally sufficient General 12 Plan. 13 7. Retain continuing jurisdiction over the case. 14 8. Award plaintiffs their costs in this action, 15 including reasonable attorneys' fees. 16 9. Grant plaintiffs such further,relief as this.Court 17 considers just and equitable. 18 DATED: July 17, 1981. 19 Respectfully submitted, 20 CRYSTAL C. SIMS MICHAEL WINE 21 TOBY J. ROTHSCHILD MARVIN E. KRAKOW 22 GREGORY VEACH JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER 23 RICHARD A. ROTHSCHILD 24 B 25 y;( A? 26 —CR TAL C. SIMf 27 By 28 JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER orneys for Plaintik S/ Petitioners .32- N RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A' A RUTAN (1000-HI721 A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS JAMES B, TUCKER, SR. ClOOD-19501 M14FORO W. DAHL. JCFFRCY M. OBERMAN' WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING H. ROBBER NOWELV RUDOLPH C. SHZPARO' JAMCS O�TUCKtR' C. S. WOLCOTT. =- 401 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST GARVIN F. SHALLENSCROER' ROOCRT L. PIKE' JA14CS R. MOORE' LAWRENCE C. BCRTtNO' POST OFFICE BOX 1976 ROBERT L. RISLEY' ROBERT S. SOWER HOMER L. MCCORMICK, JR.- MARCIA A� FORSYTH SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 WILLIAM R. B;CL' WILLIAM M� MARTICORENA RICHARD A. CUANUTT' LAWRENCE J. DREYFUSS TELECOPIER (714) S5e-jS66 LEONARD A� HAMPEL' ANNC NELSON LANPHAR JOHN 0. HURLBUT. JR.- PATRICIA L. STEARNS MICHAEL W. IMME44- RENA C. STONE TELEPHONE 1714) 835-2200 MILFORD W. DAHL. JR.- WILLIAM J. CAPLAN THEODORE L WALLACE. GARY M. LAPE RICHARD P. SIMS' RANDALL S. WAIER MARSHALL M. PEARLMAN" DIANE L. DOUGLAS ROOCRY C. BRAUN' PHILIP 0. KOHN ROGER A. GRABLE' JOEL D. KUPEAbERG March 31, 1981 EDWARD 0. STOESMA. JR.- ELIZABETH A. NEALE THOMAS S. SALINGER' SCOTT n. HOYT BARRY n. LAUDSCHCR' MARY S. MCILLECE DAVID C. LARSEN' KATHRYN L� TOBIN CLIFFORD C. PRICOCN' PHILIP C. MAYNARD ARTHUR 0. KtOMAN' NCILA R. BERNSTEIN MICHAEL 0. RUBIN' DONNA SNOW WOLF MARC WINTHROP' DEBRA J. DUNN-PETERSON IRA 0. RIVIN' Mr. Bob Lenard Advance Planning City of New ort Beach 1p 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92,660 Dear Bob: � I TWX 910 596-1083 CABLE APORCSS RUTAN TUC MONFORT BtIkCH OMCC 610 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 900 POST OFFICE Box 7389 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 TELCCOPIER (714) 759-80a2l TELEPHONE 1714) 759-0833 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO APR 198 1 -1� I CIII, ; , NEWrO'A't L�ACH, CALIF.- I Pursuant to our telephone conversation of March 31, 198i, enclosed herein please find a copy rof the City of Yokba Linda's Draft Housing Element. if you have any questions concerning the enclosed i please call at your convenience. LAH: loh Enclosure Very truly yours, ;RUTAN & TUCKE eonar PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 11. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 7. BUILDING COST INDEX After Section V 8. HOME PRICE TRENDS APR 1 9. HOUSING SITES After Section VI INTRODUCTION Yorba Linda is a predominantly single-family residential community located in northeastern Orange County. The City consists of 16 square miles of wilich approximately eight.square miles..(50 percent) is developed. The City was acorporated in 1967 and is a General:Law Jurisdiction. The population at t e time of Incorporation was-11,433. t -12. -The Housing Element sets fOrth-the.City's locally -determined strategy to preserve.and enhance the community's desirable residential character, expand housing -opportunities for all economic segments, and provide guidance and direction for,local government decision -making in all matters relating to housing. The City's first Housing Element was contained within the General Plan adopted by the City Council in April 1972. The Housing Element was revised in 1974 by City staff. It is notable that in both previous docu- ments, the issue of housing was deemed to be of critical importance to the residents of this community and a strong attitude existed for retaining the rural, single-family residential character of the City. The State has identified the Housing Element as a mandatory. Element since 1969. Section 65302(C) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element will "....be developed pursuant to regulations established under Section 37041 of the Health and Safety Code, consisting of standards — and plans for the improvement of housing and for provision of -adequate sites for housing. This element of the plan shall make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the Community." in 1971, the State Commission of Housing and Community Development adopted guidelines for the preparation of local housing elements. The Guidelines were revised in 1977, and the "Housing Element Manual" subsequently pre- pared in March of 1978. Both the Guidelines and the Manual, particularly the latter, outlined in detail the items to be included within the Housing Element. It became evident in discussions with the State Department of Housing and Community Development and the State Office of Planning and Research that strong emphasis was being placed upon implementation of the plan, and identifiable and measurable goals and objectives. More speci- fically, the 1977 Guidelines a Housing Element concept of the f ouowing three components: 1. Analvsis.of Housing Needs: Surveyiug.the extent to which the existing housing supply,falls short -of providing all e'c'onomic segments of the community with decent.housing. ...1-2. Comprehensive Problem Solving Strategy: A statement of goa s, policies and priorities aimed at alleviating unfulfilled need, and.remedying the housing problem. 3. Course of Action: Specific description of actions.the locality is undertaking and intends to undertake to achieve these goals, policies and priorities. As previously noted,.Assembly Bill #2853 (Roos) was passed and signed into law in late 1980. The'Bill amends Section 65302(C) of the Government Code and removes the requirement that housing elements be developed pursuant to the State Housing Element Guidelines and a6"_16- recognize5the advisory nature of the Guidelines., In addition, the Bill adopts a new d Article 10.6 outlining the components of a housing element. This document has been developed to comply fully with Article 10.6 as amended. Also, where' . 3 t has been deemed appropriate, this document has incorporated the components of the Guidelines, while recognizing that the Guidelines are advisory. The purpose of the Housing Element is to provide local government officials and citizens with an understanding of the housing needs of Yorba Linda, and to provide guidance and direction to governmental decision -making in all matters relating to housing. In addition, the Housing'Element is designed to promote close coordination of Yorba Linda with its neighboring cities, the County, Regional, State and Federal agencies. An overriding intent throughout the preparation of the Housing Element has been two -fold: (1) Provide a dynamic housing program consistent with COALS AND OBJECTIVES The broad goal of the preliminary California Statewide Housing Plan is "the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every California household." In addition, five subordinate goals address.the following: Availability, - To increase the availability of an adequate new housing supply, and a choice o housing opportunities, through f ­t-private -investment. and public ac tions. -_T Ul To support and provide incentives for the S 'tability T­ ..maintenance and.rehabilitation of the existing -housing supply. % Affordability To bring available housing within the economic means of all persons. Community Development To provide strong -community developmentand integration of housing with sound and adequate employment, services and community facilities. Accessibility To provide equal access and opportunity for all. The above goals and their accompanying State policies are consistent with Yorba Linda's housing goals and objectives. -The City of Yorba Linda endorses and supports the goals outlined in Sections 6452, 6454, 6456, 6458 and 6460 of the Housing Element Guidelines. Those -goals are summarized below: Preservation of existing housing and neighborhoods. Preservatio6 of affordable housing. Standards and plans for the provision of adequate sites for housing. Provision of accessible housing. Adequate provision for.the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. C In addition to the above, the Orange County HOusin�� Element and the SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) Regional Housing Element have been reviewed. it is fullyrecognized that a rational approach to the housing problems within the community will require coordination and cooperation with neighboring cities, the County and Regional organizations. The following goals are recommended as providing the basis of Yorba Linda's housing program: 1.1'Improvement of Existing Housing Stock and Neighborhood Environments Enhance.and-maintain existing stable residential neighbor o Programs designed to -rehabilitate and upgrade deteriorating units in order to revitalize declining neighborhoods. 2— Provision of adesuate Sites for New Housing Prevent discrimination in housing based on race, color, creed, 'sex, age, �family size, religion, national origin, marital status, or other arbitrary factors. Encouraging development of affordable housing throughout the City. Specific sites shall be designated throughout the City and periodically reviewed to assure continuing adequacy of sites for affordable housing. Sites shall be considered basedon such factors as economic feasibility, quality of construction, proximity to employment, transportation, goods and services. Planned Residential Development designation shall be considered to provide flexibility while also maintaining quality community standards. Use of zoning powers shall be considered for low-cost housing proposals meeting community standards. 3. Provision of Housing For All Economic Segments A full ranie of housing with an appropriate balance between rental and home ownership units.. Safe, -decent and sanitary -housing for all -economic segments 5: within the community. Housing to accommodate --- special'needs.groups such as sen or 'c­ citizens and, the handicapped. Close -coordination between the public and private sector in providing.affordable housing. Meeting the existing fair share allocation goals for affordable housing established by the Southern._California Association of Governments'. - Continuing participation in state and federally sponsored programs designed to maintain affordability. Maintaining City policy of.no municipal property taxes for the foreseeable future. , 7�, Encouraging innovative financing techniques both.in the private and public sector. Continuing participation in the Section 8 Rent Subsidy Program. Encouraging continued construction of new affordable units. e� er ei ;73r,�' r PRIORITIES IN MEETING HOUSING NEEDS 7 First priority in meeting housing needs will be provided for exist- ing low and moderate income families in the City of Yorba Linda. * Special need groups such as senior citizens and the handicapped must also be given priority in the provision of :housing.. Every effort shall be made to recognize the special needs of these groups. V X. Single -parent families need housing in residential -areas �but*of are -unable to do -so because oi�limited financial. resources coupled-.. �with the high cost of housing. --Priority. shall be*�given to housing programs -which meet the needs of this segment of the community. The young family, with small children, As at a disadvantage in the housing market. Generally, the wage earner is at the entry income level of his/her career and does not have the benefit of equity in a previous home. Priority shall be given to providing housing for -low and moderate income families -in this category. The goals and policies by themselves will not adequately address the require- ments of the Housing Element Guidelines nor Assembly Bill 2853. As previously noted, the Guidel ines.place-particular emphasis on implementation- The Housing Element must demonstrate that Yorba Linda.will "...make a good faith, diligent effort to provide opportunities for and to facilitate the maintenance, improvement and development of an appropriate variety and choice of housing for all economic- segments of the comnunity." �To that end, the goals and policies outlined above in Section VI - Implementation Program, relative to specific actions which will be undertaken by the City. * Housing Element Guidelines 9O.-z'7 III DMIOGRAPHIC PROFILE Statistical evaluations of housing and population characteristics are basic to all local planning and essential to the development of effective housing programs. The source of the information has been primarily thi 1976 Special Census, -In some cases, sources.have included th e 1970 '4_ Census, SCAG estimat�s,' EDT) data and, when feasible, older data updated s u ing either straight-line projections or ... special -study and analysis.. The 6ertinent-data is outlined in the following charts and descriptive materials: V, 17 S-757 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Total Population(l) 1986 Population (2) Persons in Group Quarters AGE OF POPULATION Under 18 Years 18 - 65 Years 65 Years and Over ETHNIC CUARACTERISTICS BACKGROUND DATA 1� HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS, 28,350 Total Households (2) 37,950 1986 Households (2) 17 Average Household Size Large Families (4) Elderly Households (4). -Female-headed Households (4) 'Overcrowded Households (4) 8t970 (38.6%) 13,585 (58.3%) 711 (3.1%) INCOME CHARACTERISTICS (3) White 21,404 (92%) 50% of Counky Median Income% Spanish -Surname 930 (4%) 50-80% of County'Media n Income Other 930 (4%) 80-120% of County Median Income A-120% + of County Median Income Unless otherwise noted, figures are basee on the 1976 Special Census. (1) 1980 Census (2) Estimate (3) Estimates based u�oni 1976 Census',* updated to 1980 (4) 1970 Census 8,100 10,843 3.5 2,687 (79.0%) 700 (20.7%) 54-((1.6%) 49 (1.4%) 2,381 (8.4%) 3,090 (10.9%) 11,028 (38.9%) 11,851 (41.8%) HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS TENURE CONDITION. (2) Total Units 6�858 Total -Substandard 42 Owner 5,913 (89.07) Units Needing R�babilitation 84 Renter 731 (11.0%) Units Needing Replacement 0 Vacant 214 Vacancy Rate 3.12 TYPE HOUSE PAYMENT Single Family .60093 $0.149 769 2-4 Units 274 150-299 2,926 5 + Units, 199 300-399 1,384 Mobile Homes 292 400-499 538 500-599 201 600 or More 95 AGE (1) RENTS Pre 1940 371 (4.6%) $0 - 99 40 1940-1949 159 (2.0%) 100-199 214 1950-1959 433 (5.3%) 200-299 380' 1960-1969 4,304 (53.1%) 300-399 79 1970-1981 2D83� (35.0%)-- 400 or More 18 (1) Estimates updated from the 1970 Census*' (2) 1977 SCAG Housing Assistance Plan EMPLOYI�W.NT CHARNCTERISTICS NO. OF TYPE FIRMS EMPLOYMENT % OF TOTAL Agriculture 115 5.7 Mining -.3 Construction 36- 265 -2 i3. 7-= - Manufacturin -.2 7 �5 Trans./Comm./Utilities:z 10 �31 Trad e 50 480 23 9 Z'Y Fin./Ins./Real Estate :12 - 67 "'l-"3 3 Services 58 17 ... ---20 8 -4 Government 17 586 ''29 2 Unclassified TOTAL 200 2,008 *Entry not available due to disclosure regulations Major Employers: R & H Packing House Metropolitan Water District. Placentia Linda Hospital Z'; r Source* Industrial Commercial Data System (INCOM). As noted in the following Land Use Exhibit, there is a projected increase in commercial use. This increase would find resultant increases in employmeiij, particularly associated with trade, financial/insurance/real estate, and service categories. No projections are available relative to actual number of employees that will be added as a result of the increased land use; however, it may be reasonable to assume that the number will double over existing number of employees in the previously -mentioned categories. USE LAND USE EXISTING 1986 ULTIMATE 4,011. 6,453 595 170 a 201,.,, 3 4,977 11-7,fl?,l 1) SUMMARY The 1960 census revealed a population of only 1,198- The early sixties brought rapid development to the area however and by 1967, at the time of the community's Incorporation, the population had grown to 9000. --The.1970 census indicated that during the preceeding ten years, the :Population expanded to 11, 856, .,and the preliminary 1980 Census shows a population of 28,350. Rapid -growth, 140 percent -in the ten years between ;,7 1970 and 1980, is expected to*continue,..wIth an expected 1986 populaition of,37,950. The population is estimated to reach 58,000 by the year 2000 21, 7 The Orange County Planning Department has projected population changes in the City through 1988 at.which time they predict a popula tion I of 44,508 with almost all the growth having occurred in the undeveloped eastern portion of the City. This estimate is somewhat higher than the 1986 estimate presented in this plan and estimates prepared by SCA'G. An actual decline in population has been predicted for the western portion beginning in 1981. The influx of young families who came in the 1960's now have children who will soon be finishing school. Because affordable housing for today's young families is not available in I th e s community most of these second generation families will locate elsewhere. A large age cohort is now moving beyond the child bearing years and the birth rate is decliningalthough at 16.8 per 1000 it remains ahead of the County average of 14.8*. Because there are relati vely few older persons in the community, only 3.1 percent at the 1976 census, the death rate is very low, 3.4 per 1000 Population compared to 5.9 for the County as a whole.* The ethnic composition of the population was surveyed as part of the 1976 Special Census by the California State Department of Finance. Ninety --two percent of the respondents indicated the head of the household to be non --minority white. Four Percent indicated a Hispanci her itage and 4 percent reported other ethnic or racial origins. These percentages vary only slightly from the total Orange County population composition. The 1976 Census for the total County reported 7.2 percent of the population as Hispanic, 4.8 percent other minority and 88 percent as non --minority white. Orange County Health Department (1977). Ag riculture, construction, retailing, and service industries are the most -significant.categories of employmentin the City of YorbaLinda. Most residents however must commute to employment centers in, other areas of the County,'especially the urban centers of Irvine and Anaheim. It Is t erefore,.appropriate to discuss employment activities in terms 0 the Orange County labor market. The California Employment Development Department (EDD) labor statist . ics show low unemployment rates for the County and projections for continued expansion of employment opportunity. Seasonal adjusted rates of employment have declined in each of the three preceeding years. In 1976, 7.7 percent of the civilian labor force in the County was unemployed. This percentage declined to 5.9 percent in 1977, 4.9 percent in 1978 and in January 1979, the rate was 4.7 percent. Orange County unemployment rates have remained even with or below the National average since 1976 and have remained significantly lower than the State average during this time frame. V, The number of jobs in Orange County expanded 10.7 percent in 1978 and and projections by EDD indicate advantageous employment opportunities will continue. Slight losses of jobs in the public sector due to effects -- of Proposition 13 have been more than offset by substantial gains in the! retail trade, finance, insurance and real estate categories. As noted in the Land Use Exhibit, there will be a more than doubling of commercial acreage in the City. This can be expected to increase employment by at least 100 percent., However, it should be noted that Yorba Linda has a I ;; 4 7,Pl-3 / very low amount of commercial, and, even given a doubling of commercial acreage, the City will remain below the norm. Considerable residential acreage and sufficient low -and moderate -income housing is proposed to more than meet -the need for housing within the City which may be created as a result of the increased employment. Documented information on current family income for the City of Yorba Li nda is not available. Howeveri projections based upon previous census information reports prepared by the United States Internal Revenue Service and the California State.Department of Finance place the median '�T annual family income at $24,737. This represents a 72 percent increase over the $14,374 reported in the 1970.Census. The 1976 Special Census produced a profile of community income 70 percent of.the-families with annual incomes in excess of u�,060.­ Twenty-five percent of the families had incomes above $25,000, A recent estimate indicates that over 40 percent of families residing within Yorba Linda earn 120 percent or more of County median income.* At the other end of the income scale, 15 percent of families responding to the 1976 Census reported annual incomes less than $12,000. Internal Revenue Reports for 1976 indicated that 1.4 percent of Yorba Linda families were living on adjusted gross incomes at or near the Federal poverty level ($5,820 or less for a family of four). The income profile reflects a relatively affluent community with little J:- poverty and family incomes significantly above those of nearby communities. * The 1981 County family income is estimated to be $29,100. Source: Orange County Administrative Office. TV HOUSING NEEDS The critical housing shortage has made it increasingly difficult to produce affordable housing. Rapid population growth in the Southern California and Orange County. areas has further contributed to the increas need for a balanced ratio- f- b�e ownership and rental housing.in all:'price ranges. Consequently,. -the provision of housing for all income groups is ah4rculean.challenge for the City of Yorba Linda.,. Dramatic increases in the cost of land.construction and financing have combined 7 duril�g the last severalyears to make decent housing affordable to a; smaller and smaller segment of the population. 71 GENERAL NEEDS The measures of success of a local housing element is its effectiveness in addressing housing -needs. If a housing -element, Including its�action programs, is to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the dimensions and character of need must first be ascertained. Yorba Linda's "fair share", as established by SCAG, and the demographic profile of the City, will together provide ageneral measure of normarke housing needs. A primary goal of the community is to maintain a lo enisty, rural living environment. Inferred within that goal is maintenance of a high degree of neighborhood quality and continued future stability. Yorba Linda is, on balance, a fairly new community. Generally, the construction is of high quality. As shown by the statistical profile of the City, elderly, handicapped, large families and overcrowding are not contributing factors to Yorba Linda's housing problems. The overall need, therefore, I is to provide I.OxJand moderate ncome housing for familyoccupied dwelling units. t A FAIR SHARE HOUSING ALLOCATION The Housing Element Guidelines establish a fair share allocation process which will identify for each locality that portion of the affected market area households whose needs must be adequately addressed in the housing element. In accordance with the stipulations of Article 2, Sections 6420. through 6436 of the California Government Code, the fair share allocations are to be made by -the Regional Councils of Governement (COG'S). The COG for the area within which.Yorba Linda is a part is the Southern Caifornia Association of Governments (SCAG) and the fair share allocation.is'' contained in the Regional Housing Allocation Model (RHAM) - The most recent RHAM (1978) allocates the'folloving "fair share" for Yorba Linda: t s Needing Households Needing "Fair Share" Need Adjusted Uni Assistance Adjustment For :'Fare Share" Rehabilitation 611 .424 �"11-035 93 The RHAM, therefore, assigns a total of 1,035 units to Yorba Linda as its responsibility for meeting a percentage of the regionfs lowincome housing need. Discussions with the State Department of Housing and Community Development indicate that a community is expected, as a minimum, to meet between three and five percent of the "fair share" per year on a five year basis. Given that, Yorba Linda would be expected to provide 155 to 259 lo ncome units over the next five years. W� V HOUSING CONSTRAINTS MARKET CONSTRAINTS A number of factors operate in the private sector which are obstacles to providing lowcost housing- -.", ­Absentee Landlords Often deterriorated unxts are renter -occupied. -be difficult to lo t or communicate The absentee landlord may ca e and may not have any Interest in maintaining his property. Also, the tenants, not having equity in the property, cannot be expected to make excessive improvements or be totally responsible for maintenance.. Inflation The costs of home production resources (lumber, cement, etc.) have been considerably higher than overall increa'ses in wages. In addition, inflati6n has further drivenup the cost of maintenance and rehabilitation. .Financing - Often new and higher loans with better terms are more readily available for new homes. In general, there tends to be an inbalance favoring new production over the conservation of existing homes. The cost of money in itself excludes many potential homeowners. .Vacancy - Low vacancy rates, such as exist in Yorba Linda and surrounding areas, will contribute to inflationary rent spirals. .Condominium Conversions - Although not a problem in Yorba Linda, the conversion of apartments to condominiums in surrounding communities -indirectly results in a further decrease in the vacancy rate. .Speculation - Many homes and apartment buildings are bought for profitable resale after a sbortterm holding for appreciation. Speculation results in higher housing prices and rents. Of the foregoing, the most notable aspect of market constraints is the severe rise in housing costs. Hosing cost:�. have risen dramatically in the Southern California region. The price increase took a severe upswing in 1974 and has increased considerably since, with home prices far out- distancing the cost of living. Rents have been increasing, however, at a must slower and uniform rate. Rents remain below the cost of living index. The average price of a home in Southern California in April, 1980, was $119,200.* The cost of construction has been.increasirig,,although at a more uniform and steady ratelthan housing costs. -The average overall cost.of construct-- ing a new home was $19,781 in 1972, and has increased to $42,087 in 1978.* The cost of building a home has risen 47 percent in the last five years, due to increases in labor, materials, -fees and Code requirements. However, the cost of new homes during the same period has risen over'150 percent. Typical cosqlreakdown for a single family dwelling and a multiple family building are outlined as follows: Source: Real Estate Research Council of Southern California Single Family:* Direct Costs - Land $ 25,000 - Site Improvements 3,000 - Construction (@$45/sq. ft). 81,000 - Fees 1,800 Indirect Costs - Financing 3,600. - Sales & Marketing 7,200 $121,600 I 30C ;,# rf A-F Multiple Family:** Direct Costs - Land (One Acre) 80,000 - Site Improvements 8,000 Construction (@ $35/sq. ft). 560,000 rom 07 r-� f i kja --tf V Based upon a 20-unit apartment complex, each unit consisting of 800 square feet. Another factor in the.cost of housing is the interest rate. The effective rate of mortgage loans in the Southern California area has increased from approximately 9 percent to 14 percent currently.''To demonstrate the impact of the interest rate increase, a $60,000 note at 9 percent interest, amortized over a 3 1 ear period would cost $483 per month Ily (principle and interest); the same amount at a rate of 14 percent would be $711 per month. y followin the affordability in terms of interest rate, is illustrated b the Un o-a 0 AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING* .(BASED ON A 30—YEAR TERM, $60,000 LOAN) PERCENT OF INTEREST ANNUAL INCOME FAMILIES WHO RATE PAYMENT EXPENSE. NEEDED TO AFFORD CAN AFFORD 9 $483 $215 ,$33,504 10 527 215 35,616 18.4 11 572 215 37,776 :-16.1 12 617 215 39,936 13.8 13 664 215 42,192 11.8 14 711- 215 44,448 9.1 15 758 215 46,704 6.7 The combined impacts o f increased house price and interest rates is dramatically illustrated by the following,.** MEDIAN INTEREST MONTHLY PRICE RATE PAYMENT 1970 $25,703 8.95% $165 1972 28,093 7.49 157 1974 34,439 9.64 235 1976 48,275 9.31 319 1978 69,922 9.92 483 1980 97,937 13.96 915 Source: National Association of Home Builders. For California as a whole. Source: California Federal Savings and Loan. 41 During the past five years, a marked increase in the cost of homes has occurred in th�t�t of Yorba Linda. n 19 the average selling price foiC an existing home was n 1979, the average price of a home (!�17800) Ir rose to $113,000. This represents a 474 percent increase in the V-\ cost of hous ing while wages only increased by an estimated 72 percent during this same period. It is quickly realized that housing costs h ave -_.--__so far exceeded income that the difficulty of securing adequate housing zi_ rl is- a problem for a significantly larger segment of the community.., ------ In January of 1978, average housing costs in the City were approximately In December, of that year the same unit had increased 'to'$94,900. in:,tAe City of Yorba Linda, most existing housing falls in the- $'85,000 to $200,000 range. A survey of real. estate brokers disclosed that virtually no homes could be found ln*the City for less tRan $50,000. Al mos t al 1 of the housing available for sale is single-family, detached units. This is due largely to the fact tbat.there are relatively few condominium or townhouse projects within the City, less than 6 percent of total housing. Similar t� other areia�_tommunities, there have been more condominiums developed in Yorba Linda in recent years, but the number of condominiums is at a much lower rate than in other area communities. The rapidity with which new homes are sold, many before they are eve n built, reflects the desirability -of new homes to many of the buying public. The new home market generally ranges in cost from 170,000 to $200,000. The rural character of the community and the desirability of very large lots makes most of the new housing stock . in Yorba Linda quite expensive. Comparable existing housing is often considerably less than new homes due to the rapidly increasing construction costs for new homes. The deficiency of affordable housing is pronounced when viewed against the necessary income to "afford" the average home in Yorba Linda. In order to qualify for the average home of $113,000 after making the minimum 20 percent down payment, it is necessary to have an annual income of $43,392. Significantly, less than 20 percent of the City's population falls within this category. Realistically, more than 75 percent of all the present residents could not afford to be a "first time" home purchaser in this community. .� U /I,-? V 11 -1 < Many of the existing residents have had a previous home and applied the equity to the cost of the next home purchased. The current, housing costs are most difficult for the first time buyers, principally young families and low/moderate income buyers. This buying category is priced out of the housing market unless able to accumulate a substantial down payment. The moderate income families,. 80 to 120 percent of the median, make up 31.5 percent of the total population. If the population below 80 percent of the median is also considered, the percentage increases --to,63.5 percent. Annual income of this group, $13,440 to $21,060 is not 71 sufficient to purchase the as expensive.home within this community. The'middle iacome buyermay have a somewhat 'easier time in qualifying. However, even this group. is facing an increasingly difficult situation. Apartment units presently make up 11% of households in the City. This low number reflects the location of the City within the market area, the lack of employment opportunities within the City as well as its low density semi -rural life style. Another contributory factor is the lack of a major transportation corridor through :the City. All of these items have discouraged the private sector from constructing new apartment units. The present vacancy rate of approximately 2.8 percent indicates a need for additional units and the City has identified and approved zoning w ithin its newly -annexed eastern area for additional sites. The existing rental apartment s in Yorba Linda are all in excess of 5 years old. These units are approaching an age where additional care will be required to enhance and maintain a desirable residential character. In addition, there presently exists a trend throughout the County toward converting existing rental units into condominiums. In Yorba Linda, 87 rental units have been converted; however, it should be noted that there have been no conversions since 1975 when the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance was adopted. a 13 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Several constraints prevent development of affordable housing. The City of Yorba Linda does not levy a property tax and it is not presently contemplated that this policy will be changed in the future, particularly in light of restrictions imposed by Proposition 13 and subsequent legislation. The City does not receive substantial revenues. of tax Proaram and.service limitations brought about by the absence 'generated funds can be reduced through pariicipation in state -and. feder- ally funded programs. -However, the City has been reluctant to partici­o patetin any programs requiring a long term commitment of funds or which are subject to cutbacks or elimination at --anytime.. Lacking adequate capital to directly fund programs for the provision of affordable housing the City must depend on outside funding or private development of lower -cost housing. The primary source of funding� presently available for housing is the CDBG Program. The City's alloca- tion however, is not sufficient to meet the housing needs of all segments of the community. Most state and federal housing programs use median income of the region a s the major criteria to determine funding levels and individual partici- pation. As an example, some of the programs available through California Housing and Finance Agency are not available to the City of Yorba Linda because income levels have been determined to be too high. High income levels and the relatively new housing stock, combine to preclude the City's participation in some of the state and federally funded housing programs. 'Limited staff to administer such programs has also restricted City involvement. Low density patterns to preserve the semi -rural residential character of Yorba Linda further limits the production of affordable housing. A recent survey disclosed a majority,of the community desires to preserve this community pattern. The problem arises in that the cost of land for low density developments significantly adds to housing cost. Despite this, however, the City does provide for high density residential uses. Of a total of 881 acres 'designated for high density use, 361. acres remain undeveloped... In addition, mobile home parks have been permitted and the City's PRD (Planned-.Residential.Development) Orrdinauce encourages clustering. .. ....... . _.The City has the opportunity (and has implemented the use of the opportunity) to enicourage private'.development of affordable housing by granting fee waivers and priority processing. The ftLe waivers can be substantial; current fees which may be waived, include park fees ($890/unit), drainage fees ($3,500/cx._� w%-uc), and a portion of the building permit fees. In terms of priority processing, a. time savings of up to eleven weeks can be saved. Minimum levels of municipal services have been fostered in keeping with the rural, residential character of the community. Currently there is no me-chanism -If or providing the increased level of. services required in higher density areas, Until such time as sufficient funds exist to provide for increased services, it may be necessary to continue to limit construction of 'higher density, affordable housing. VI IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM EXISTING PROGRAMS The City currently participates in the Co unty Housing Authority. The following programs are currently undertaken by the City and/or.Housing Authority: Housing Rehabilitation.Program: The City budgets $10,000 per year for low interest home improvement loans. In addition, the City has adopted a restrictive condominium convers ion ordinance which, due to stringent site development standards, virtually prohibits conversion of apartments to condominiums - A number of Federal and State programs exist for provision and improvement of housing. Some of these programs are currently used and some may prove appropriate for use within Yorba Linda. The following is a brief. discussion of those programs: FEDERAL: 1. Section 8 Low Income Rental: There are three basic Section 8 Programs: existing housing, new construction and substantial rehabilitation. The program provides housing assistance payments (rent subsidies) based on a fair market rent formula. Eligibility is determined by the local housing authority based on income criteria. 2. Section 106(b) PUD Money Loans: Funding to non-profit sponsors to cover 80 percent of construction costs. Presently loans are only made in conjunction with 202 loans (senior citizen and handicapped housing). 3. Section 202 Direct Loans for Housing for the Elderly or Handicapped: Long term direct loans to private non-profit sponsors to finance rental or cooperative housing facilities for elderly and handicapped persons. 4. Section 207 Mortgage Insurance for Multi -Family Housing and mobile Home Parks: Mortgage Insurance to private lenders for construction or rehabilitation of multi -unit housing (including mobile home ..Parks) for moderate and middle income families. 5.",'Section 221(d) (3) and .(4) 14ulti-Family Rental Housing for Low-: Moderate Income Families Insurance on mort ages at FWk intere'sit e ga ..rate for constructionor rehabilitation of rental or cooperative housing for low -and moderate -income families. 6. Section 223(f) Mortgage Insurance for Existing Multi -Family Rent al I Housing: Designed to provide property owners with money to rehabilitate projects without the need to increase rent levels. 7. Section 234 Mortgage Insurance for Purchase of Condominiums: Mort- gage insurance to families for the purchase of individual condo- minium units and to sponsors for the construction or rehabilitation of housing units they intend to sell as individual condominium units. 8. Section 245 Graduated Payment Mortgage: Insurance on graduated payment mortgages (allows mortgage payments to begin at low level and gradually increase). Five different payment schedules available substantial down payment required. STATE: 1. California Housing Finance Agency: The purpose of CHFA is to provide financing for the development and rehabilitation of housing for low and moderate income households. The agency accomplishes this by selling tax - exempt revenue bonds an d using the proceeds as follows: 3 A. Providing direct loans for the development of new rental and cooperative multi-family,housing for low and moderate income households. 1. Goal: Improvement.of Existing Housing Stock and Neigh- borhood Environments. Action #1: Continue participation in the Orange County Housing Authority. Responsible Agency: Orange County Housing Authority Financing: County Housing Authority Schedule: On -going Action #2: Continue to utilize Section 8-Rent Supplement. Responsible Agency: County Housing Authority Financing: Federal Block Grant Funds Schedule: On -going. Action #3: Continue to use CDBG funds for housing projects. Responsible Agency: County Housing Authority/City Financing:_ CDBG Schedule: On -going Action #4: Pursue Section 31Z and Marks-Forau Bonds to upgrade �exiStinglhousing wh ich may not meet Code requirements. Action #5: Develop an occupancy inspection ordinance for City inspection of a dwelling upon sale to determine if the structure is to Code. Aesponsible Agency: City Financing: Inspection fees Schedule: Late 1981 Action #6: Utilize services of the County Housing Authority for promotional and educational services relative to available housing rehabilitation, rent subsidy and home -purchase programs. Responsible Agency: County Housing Authority Financing: Housing Authority Budget Schedule: 1981-1986 '/ -7 rl , rw.;� Action #7: Implement the Senior Citizen Project (Sice A-1) for G2 moderate -income units. Responsible Agency: City/Private development (Site B-3) for 224 units4-(Note: The site is unincorporated area; but is within Yorba 0,% VA I %e_4 + 0 Linda's Sphere of Influence and a"Re" the City) AY,Aex&+t..-.. +v Responsible Agency: City/County Financing: Schedule: Action #10: Private MW Develop the Mobile Home Park (Site C-2) for 201 moderate -income units. Responsible Agency: City/Private Financing: Private -4 Schedule: 1982 Action #11: Conduct a site survey and evaluation to the end of selecting a site or sites to accommodate approximately 100 low-income units. .Responsible Agency: City/County Housing Authority .Financing: City/County Housing Authority Action #13: Investigate incentive programs, such as fee waivers and priority waivers, for tracts.containing affordable housing units. Responsible Agency: City Financing: Schedule: 111. COAL: City Funds Late 1981 Provision of Housing for All Economic Segments Action #14; Utilize the services of the County Housing Authority for all complaints of discriminatory practices in housing, counseling in landlord -tenant disputes, housing literature, presentations and housing assistance counseling. * z? -7.R Responsible Agency: County Housing Authority Financing: Housing Authority Budget Schedule: On -going Action Do not deposit City funds wit� any banking -found to engage.in ied rac -lining P Responsible Azency: city 41 F Financing: No t Applicable Schedulez On -going Action #16: Conduct a City-wide survey of rental housing suitable for handicapped and elderly occupants; waintain a directory of such housing. Responsible Agency: County us g Authority Financing: Schedule: CDBG Funds Late 1981 The net effect of the Action Programs would be to produce 639 affordable units consisting of 200 low-income and 439 moderate -income. The program goes beyond the City's Fair Share Allocation� -tjL—� HOUSING SITES A survey has been undertaken to identify appropriate sites for low -and moderate -income housing. In accordance with the programs described previously, these sites have been categorized as Senior Citizen Housing, Affordable Housing and Mobile Homes. -7 P 6 �13 SITES: A. Senior Citizen Housing: 1. East side of Lakeview Avenue, south of Altrudy Lane — 2 acres (62 units). Southeast corner of Rose Drive and Bastanchury Road 6 acres. 17 4. 3. Southwest corner of Rose Drive and Bastaachury Road 2 acr�e%: st. — 4� '7" East side of Village Center Drive, north of Yorba Linda Boulevard 6 acres. 5. South side of Yorba Linda Boulevard at Avocado Avenue 2 acres (52 units). B. Affordible Housing=- 1. Northeast corner of Van Buren and Pine Streets 2 acres. 2. Bryant Ranch (south side of future extension of Esperanza Road) 20 acres. 3- East side of Kellogg Road, north of Imperial Highway 6 acres (224 units). C. Mobile Home Park: 1. Southwest corner of Wabash and Prospect Avenue — 10 acres, 2. Northwest corner of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Esperanza Road — . 1 40 acres (201 units). 3. Northeast corner of Fairmont Boulevard and Esperanza Road — 20 acres. The aforementioned sites are representative of some of the more appropriate locations for affordable housing. It is recognized that some sites may be dropped or that additional sites may be considered in the future. The State:- Housing Plarrhas been closely reviewed and every effort -has been made to be consistent with that plan. Government Code Section 65300.5 also requires that the Housing Element be consistent and compatible -with all the other General Plan Elements. That section states: "The legislature intends that the General Plan, the Element and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agencies." In order to meet the goals and objectives outlined within this plan and in order to effectively carry out the action programs, it may be necessary to rezone property to a higher density residential use. At such time as a specific site may be designated within the City, the Land Use Element Zoning and other affected General Plan Elements and City Ordinances will be evaluated and, if required, amended to reflect consistency. _�? 4/ - Jqa6 VIII CITIZEN PARTICIPATION public workshops were held to explain the necessity of preparing a revised Housing Element, the housing needs of the community, the alternative methods of responding to those needs and to hear the views and proposals of community residents. Announcements of the meetings were published in local newspapers and leaders and officers of all identified.groups and organizations were contacted and invited to participate. Additionally, special letters were mailed to all residents in the Community Development Block Grant Rehabilitation Area. Through this process, input has been sought from representatives of the following groups interested in the provision of housing: financial institutions, real estate professions, housing industry, homeowners associations, civic groups, organization representing lower economic segments o� the community, senior citizen and ethnic associations. Groups, organizations contacted for input included: All Churches in the City of Yorba Linda. Rolling View Homeowners, Parkside Estates Homeowners, Lynridge Homeowners, Cerro Verde Homeowners Association and Fairmont Hills Homeowners Association. Nixon School PTA, Mable Paine School PTA, Yorba Linda Junior PTA, Linda Vista School PTA, Rose Drive School PTA, Fairmont School PTA, and Bernardo Yorba-School PTA. The meetings held to elicit citizen response include the following: February 1979 Workshop for Planning Commission and Staff March 1979 Public Workshop/Western Section 1979 Public Wotkshop/Bastern Section ,April 1979 Housing Survey Mail June 1979 Workshop/Review of Draft by Planning Commission August 1979 Public-Hearing/Planning Commission .'September 1979 -Public Hearing/City Council d 11 . , � q A survey of Yorba Linda residents conducted in -April 1979 by the Planning Department revealed a wide range of views and opinions on housing issues. Only one subject produced a near unanimous agreement; the desirability of the community maintaining its predominant residential nature. Ninety- four percent of the respondents agreed with the statement, "It is important that the City retain its residential character." Although two-thirds of the residents believed that housing should be available at various prices in various locations in the community, there was less agreement on how affordable housing should be developed. Sixty-four percent a greed that -there should be some degree of public- ----involvement to encourage the ivate sector to develop lower cost housing. pr However, none of the respondents felt that the governnent.should develop housing and approximately one-third indicated that there should be no public sector assistance, or restriction, on private developers. Over half of those answering felt the City should participate in programs to provide housing for senior.and handicapped citizens yet in -an apparent contradiction, two-t - hirds opposed City involvement in subsidized housing programs and/or state and federally funded programs. The survey results clearly indicate that City participation in housing programs will not be popular and could become the source of controversy. The survey questionnaire and the full listing of. responses are on file in the City Planning Department. In addition to -the previous citizen meetings, public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and' City Council prior to adoption, at which time official tes.timony will be taken from all citizens wishing to speak. 94 /Y -7 Ix SERVICES In accordance with Section 6456 of the Housing Element Guidelines, housing sites will be provided in suitable locations. Criteria for judging site adequacy is outlined in the "HUD Site and Neighborhood Standards for New Construction Projects" (Section 880.206). Some of those standards include: Adequate in size to accommodate the number and type of units proposed; VZ Proximity to services.and facilities such as streets, sewers, water, electricity, telephone, schools, parks and public transit; Facilitate and further compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent related acts, executive orders and federal regulations; Avoid concentration of assisted persons in areas containing a high proportion of low-income persons; Free from adverse environmental conditions such as flooding, unstable sail, harmful air pollution, excessive noise and fire hazards; Accessible to social, recreational, educational, commercial, health and other municipal facilities and services. The City herein states its commitment to the above mentioned standards and further states its commitment to providing fair and open housing for all ethnic groups. , , � 1 . 1, 1 x HOUSING ELEMENT REV10i AND UPDATE PROCESSING In order to keep the Housing Element current, it will be the intent to periodically review and update the document. The Housing Element, in terms of its programs, is a five year plan. It would be reasonable to review the document every two years, with a major review, evaluation and update occurring at the end of five years. With primary emphasis on Implementation, it is anticipated that the Housing Element will.be reviewed annually in conjunction with the preparation of the City's Budget. RECENT HOUSING LEGISLATION Recently, three laws have been passed by the State Legislature: Assembly Bill 2320, Assembly Bill 1564 and Senate Bill 1960. Assembly Bill 2320, which became effective on January 1, 1981, requires that local governments zone sufficient land at densities which will allow the I production of affordable housing. Actions -proposed within this document are designated to accomplish the intent of that legislation. in addition, the City_has a Planned Residentia,.Development (PRD) Ordinance which encourages clustering— A.net effect of clustering will be to lower development costs,. and hence, housing price. Assembly Bill 1564, which became effective on January 1, 1980, requires that housing elements consider manufactured housing as a possible tool in implementing the goals of the plan. The City acknowledges the legislation and will fully compIY7 Where in conformance with the Zoning and Building Codes, manufactured housing :will be permitted on parcels within the City. Senate Bill 1960, which will become effective on July 1, 1981, prohibits cities from restricting the placement of mobile homes on lots zoned for single family dwellings. The City adknowledges the legislation and, at such time as the Act becomes effective, the City will fully comply. x1i GLOSSARY Households in the category of greatest housing needs are generally defined as those with 120 percent or less of the median income for the area. The median income for the Worth Orange County market area as determined by the 1976 Census -was $19,887 per year; this has increased to $29,100 in 1981*. All households with incomes below 80 percent*,of the median income level are considered low income households.. The various classifications are as -follows: '.Very Low Income: 50 percent -or less of median Income., In Orange County, v ry low income would be $14,550 or less. e Low Income: 51 percent.to 80 percent of median income.. In Orange County, low income would be between $14,550 and $23,280. Moderate Income: 81 percent to 120 percent of median income. In Orange County, moderate*income would be between $23,280 and $34,920. The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has defined households in need as I'low and moderate income families" with one or more of the following conditions: 1. Overcrowding: Families with more than two persons per bedroom. 2. Substandard Housing: Housing units.with major structural problems. 3. Overpayment: Households paying more than 25 percent of income for housing. * Source. Orange County Administrative Office - Forecast and Analysis Center 4/1). --,a DOCUMENTATION FOR ESTIMATES INCOME 1976 County Median :$17,780 50% 8,890 80% 14,224 120% 21,336 1976 Yorba.Linda Income: 0 $8,890 8.4% 1,954 8,890 14,224- 10.9% - 2,536 14,224 21,336 38.9% - 9,050 21,336 + 41.8% 7* 9,726 1980 Yorba Linda Income: 507..of County Median 2, 381,.: 50-80% 3,090 80-120% 11,028 120% 11,851 1986 POPULATION 1976 Certified Population 26,750 198O.Census Population 28,350 Yearly Average 1,600 1986 Estimate (6 x 1600 + 28,350) 37,950 1986 HOUSEHOLDS 37,950 + 3.5 10,843 LAND USE Sources: Ceneral Plan, Current and Proposed Tracts, Ranch Development Plans Single Family - Western City Ranches total Developed Undeveloped Xultiple Family - Western City Ranches Total Developed Undeveloped Commercial Public/Quaisi-Public- 2722 Acres - 90% Developed 3731 Acres - 20% Developed 6453 Acres 3196 (2450 Western/746 Ranches) 3257 (2985 Western/272 Ranches) 200 Acres — 96% Developed 681 Acres — 20% Undeveloped 881 Acres 520 Acres 360 Acres 288 Acres (Developed Undeveloped 355 Acres (Developed Undeveloped Open Space (Balance) — 2263 Acres 115 -Acres 173 Acres) 175 Acres / 180 Acres) .5.�,3 f Yopba Linda no 4 Do Con 6 &mt. Orangoo OAnahsh �0 Tustin Gordon Grove' nl&Ano El Toro Oirvine Oslo mesac, F NJ h�. L uns Beach Son C amente ton Beach Point I? A C I IF I C a C 9 A 14 Ilia I ". I I ", I AGE 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-59 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 M A LE CITY OF YORBA LINDA Population Profile 28.9% 25-39.yrs. 39.8% under 20 yrs. I 5DO lavo 500 1 1 -JEM A -LE t L 63.7% I in these two age coho�ts 1500 CITY OF YORBA*.LINDA .GROWTH OF POPULATION 68 73 78 83 88 .'93 98 55 10 50 ESTIMATE[ BUILD -OUT 45 POPULATION to 1990-199! #* - 55,000 16,224 H(USEHOLDS 40 . 10*# 'o * lo�� 40 35 30 1/1/79 27,850, 25 1/1/78 '25,350 20 15 10 1968 P PULATION 93899 SOURCE: 1976 Census- AGE OF POPULATION BY AREA CENSUS TOTAL. MEDIAN AREA REPORT POP.' UNDER 18 % OVER 65 % AGE Western Edge 117.06 804 341 42.4 15 01.8 21 East Side 218.01 10,172 3,,985 40.5 318 03-1 27 Town Center 218.02 5,596 1,982 35.4 251 04.5 26 West Side 218.03 4,646 1,866 40.2 88 01-9 25 South Side 218.04 2,048 796 38.9 39 01.9 26 TOTAL 23,266 8,970 38.6 711 03.1 26 See blap No. I 197CCensus Trac�ts SOURCE: 1976 Census, California State Department of Finance j - A- M r I i. k lkf HOUSEHOLDS 14ITH ANNUAL INCOMES OF $25,000 IN 1975. CITY OF YORBA LINDA AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES CITY NUMBER OF FAMILIES PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS Yorba Linda 1086 25.1 % Brea 896 19.7 % Fullerton 3950 18.1 % Placentia 1163 23.4 % SOURCE: Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center HOUSEHOLDS WITH ANNUAL INCOMES OF LESS THAN $8,000 IN 1975 CITY OF YORBA LINDA AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES CITY NUMBER OF FAMILIES PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS Yorba Linda 273 6.3 % Brea 930 18.6 % Fullerton 5029 23.0 % Placentia 618 12.4 % SOURCE: Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center r7l I I , e INCOME i FAMILY INCOME IN CITY OF YORBA LINDA, 1976 I PERCENTAGE OFJOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 1 U70 1 b�G ZU70 Zb7, $ 4,999 5,000 - 9,-999 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME-- $19,887 10,000 14,999 15,000 19,999 20,000 24,999 71 25,000 29,999 30,000 39,999 40,000 49;999 r 7- 50,000 or more SOURCE: 1976 Special Census, California State Department of Finance (Percentage of respondents who answered in66me*:�669io�- 1-:*65�-02% of those surveyed.) ' 1� N � 1 111111111 BUILDING COST INDEX BASED ON THE COST OF BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OF MEDIUM QUALITY IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA AS REPORTED BY THE APPRAISAL DEPARTMENT OF THE BANK OF AMERICA 279297 $23,254 $309844 400-- $199142 1972 1974 1976 1978 t PICIFICATIONS Basic Constyuclion2 K Fon,ndation — Conc,etip nDFM7] Flocts — Con,antional wood f,a.0 78DD. Wall$ — Fla.. slioccis e0e,ior and inle,io, pmilions. Somi, wood aiding an tione elevations. Itool — Wood cents, shingles LV EID -14fl F-TB-TH' Floo's, — Stlw ask li.01. kitchen and bath. Walls 3 coot, — kitchen and baths; *the, mas 2 coal, list. Callings — $am* as walls HOUSE 1,39: SO. FT GAR Hosting Famed at, unit baths — IV. — intid., file vall shower and ho.or 1.1, GARAGE - 40 SO. FT with file wainsail, poilimm lavolory with tilt mwiflirrope. Built Im — None HOME PRICE TRENDS In Southern California - With Comparisons BASED ON A CONTINUING SURVEY OF THE SAME SINGLE FAMILY SAMPLE HOMES IN THE 7-COUNTY AREA rx CM1 of hk" &;,;no N..h 30. CA. LA. LA. Apw 311.6 313.5 110.5 Oct 1133 116.2 112.9 Apr 116.1 116.7 113.2 0,1 118.7 120.2 117.2 Apt 121.4 121.2 117.1 Oct 124.3 123.9 119.0 Apw 129.1 126.9 120.3 Oct 134.1 132.3 122.9 Apt 141A 139.0 126.1 Od 132.5 147.1 129.4 1973 163.2 155.6 132.7 00 175.3 161.5 136.1 Apr 192.3 164.1 141.2 Oct 214A 171.5 146.4 Apr 243.7 177.9 152.7 Oc, 279.7 161.6 160.4 Apw 311-7 1119A 1".4 stil" COST OF LIVING LA. AREA SOURCE: REAL ESTATE RESEARCH COUNCIL OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOME PRICES 7-CO. AREA RESIDENTIAL RENTS L.A. AREA 275' N�D CERTIFIE COPIES OF 1. Resolution No. 11051, 9/28/81, adopting G.P.A. 81-1(H); G.P.A. 81-1(H); ov- YlEAVROWAl 1:51 e,M eA4' 3. Resolution No.P7- Al 11/22/82 adontinff G P A 82�1(Hll A. C.C. minutes of 7/26/82, initiating G.P.A. 82-1(H); Staff report re G.P.A. 82-1(H), 7, 6 82 CC meeting; n() 5(A-C� P.C. ninutes of 8/12 2,�na $.P.A. 82-1(H);�AO SVCtl N_ �k ah C.C. minutes of 11/22/82, adovtlrl-ng 82-1(H); C.C. minutes of 7/14/81, re G.P.A. Initial staff report re G.P.A. 81 7/1 /8 -2, 1. 644 Staff report re G.P.A. 81 6/4/8 S 6fA f) .11 Im EIR on GPA 81-2; P.C. minutes of 5/6/82 re G.P.A. 82-1; Staff report re GPA 82-1, 5/6/82; psaw zj� C.C. minutes of 5/24/82, re G.P.A. 82-1; JIM Staff report re G.P.A. 82-1, 5/24/82; Staff report re G.P.A. 82-1, 9/9/821- '10. C.C. minutes of 1/11/82 re Mobile Home Park Zone Ord.; P. Ordinance 1894 (MHP); C.C. minutes of 7/12/82, re De Anza rezoning to MHP; Ordinance No. 82-15 (De Anza); S. Ordinance No. 1817 (Condo Conversion); T C.C. minutes of 8/9/82 re Council Policy P-1; Council Policy P-1; Chapter 20.33 - Commercial -Residential Zone- W- Cha-ter 20 51 - P r -7)ne I C.C. minutes of 7 82 re CDBG;(�\o Gxk rv�-b H.A.P. plicatior�-and cover letter re CDBG; H.U.D.'aycep,tance of CDBG application. q J Planning CamAssion Meeting ... h!��19, �1982 � Agenda Item No. 10 CITY OF NEWORT BFACHCERTI )ASATUEAVC RICT PY CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning CaTImission FROM: Planning Department VATAg /- -�I-es SUB=: General Plan Amendment 82-1(H) (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Housing General Plan. to update the Housing Element implementation Housing Elezrent. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action Element of the Newport Beach program objectives to reflect progress since adoption of the Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired: ReconTnend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 82-1(H) be approved. Environmental Signif icance -in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the "State CEQA Guidelines", and the City's procedures for the implementation of CEQA, an Initial Study has been prepared and it has been determined that this project will not have any significant environmental inpact. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached for Coffaission review. Background Objective 13 of the Housing Program (Page 114) provides for an annual review of the Housing Element in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the goals, policies, and program objectives contained in the Element. Implementation of Objective 13 is to be accomplished through a Planning DeparbTent Housing Element monitoring 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, nplementing actions, and re-evaluate the Goalst 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 inplementation of the Program Objectives, and some changes to the inplementing actions are warranted, the City Council initiated, General Plan krendrent 82-1 (H) and directed the Planning Comnission to camv--nce public hearings as soon as possible. TO: Planning Commission - 2 Discussion The purpose of the proposed General Plan Amendnient is to update the Element to reflect the extensive Housing Element inplemantation actions taken by the City. These implementation actions involve Program Objectives 3, 4, 7 and 9. Attachment No. 1 is a strikeout and underline copy ot 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 Irrplementation Plan has been modified by adding a new inplerrentation 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 Development (page 3) - . New language has been added to the Findings section ot Program Objective 4 identifying the General Plan policies and zoning districts available to the City to acconpl i sh mixed use developrmnt. Households j.u) . -.une (;ity nas concentratea its uenera-L v.Lan inp-Lementation exrorts on Program Objective 7 which discusses the development of housing -for low and moderate income households. Some �bsolete 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 Home 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 Ob3ective 7 has been modified to reflect the actions the City has taken to implement the Housing Eleamt. Inplemantation. action "a" has been rewritten to identify when the City shall consider the use of the C==ity Development Block Grant and Tax -Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond Programs. Implementation action "b" clarifies when the City will encourage the development of rentai 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 Com�ission 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 "d" has been rewritten to commit the City to future evaluation of mobile home parks for rezoning purposes. Implementation action "e" has not been changed. TiTplen-entation action 'T' 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. LTplaTentation action "g" TO: Planning Commission - 3 describes the City's authority to waive planning fees and limitations on park dedication requirements. Action "Y 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 Goverment Code Sections 65915 through 65918. Rehabilitation of Existing Housing Inventory (page 11). Four paragraphs of obsolete language have been deleted fran the findings section of Program Objective 9. Both iuplementation actions (9a and 9b) and companion target dates have been eliminated. A new implenentation action has been added to Program Objective 9 which identities the City's commitment to submitting a CDBG Program application for a housing rehabilitation program. Attachment: Attachment No. 1 "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 locaf jurisdiction can take to stimulate increased production within its boundaries, assuming suitable economic conditions exist. Among the usual techniqu I es 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 more 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 67 only meaningful, however, when it is applied to specific sites within the city. Page 2. Since the adoption of the Housing Element the Planning Commission and Citv council have held General Plan Housincr NU 2. Implementation Plan: The following activities shall be a. to densities on th Site Cal Trans West Freeway Reservation West (Big Canyon Area 16) Fifth Avenue Parcel i Marguerite Avenue Parcel North Ford also Act. ve: conduct General Plan Buildable Acreage 10.1 acres 8.7 acres 10.0 acres 6.8 acres 29.5 acres in conformance with b. The Planning Commission shall continue to conduct public 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 the compi7e—tion of the General Plan Amendment hearings discussed in 2(a) Z-Ove', and recommendations for further action shall be submitted to the City council within six -months one year after said adeption 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 patt��trns are most preferable; 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, �ased 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 locations throuqhout the communitv. The General Plan and P-C zone are used on laraer narcels to accomolish mixed use 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 b T 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. eems true th� the Page S. The factor of project size in determining the appropriate "threshold" for government regulation is wel 1-establi shed. 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 goverment incentives to mitigate the adverse dffects of regulations; the owner. of existing units has no such options. Go"vernmental efforts to provide housing for low- and moderate -income households through the regulation of private property, such as reAt 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. is --- s1awe4 ------ F-I�jy-j----stjeh--- 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 I the Housing Element the Planning Commission and City Council have held General Plan ot 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 housinq for low and moderate To mobile home park has been rezoned (291 units) , one is identified as a site for North Ford Site has been ic Page 7. The federally funded Section 8 Rent Subsidy Program currently subsidizes 30 lower income renters in the C!itv- of the S Rent 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 Zonina use. The parking standards were relaxed and all in -lieu a KIN Government and the tenants receive Section 8 rental as 2. Implementation Plan: The following activities will be undertaken in support of this objective: --- the --- eity --- will 's Housing Task Force on Government aluate the use of the Community Dev Programs to facilitate the development, construc- tion and financing of housing for low and moderate M ftY - -ID--- -U-L-i-I-i-o ed- -to - -f-dei-14+tAe- -the- -4ev�_-Iepmeftt� -an a lew--- Page 8 be - ­a-1-1,oeat-ed- ­br - -t-he- -e-i-t-pi- - and- re m ep e rate - Aft- 4iewpet-t- -Beae-h-r - - A- -m dy be -t4bs-P-I-aftni-ng6 - Eepaicotff eft+- -te- -a eelt heusi"J� - el eve -1 epme n t -f funetiens-that-direetly-ved?aee-heusin(ff -eanatruetien Department-. eammere ial -as as 9 sing eT--The --- Planning --- Department --- shall --- explore --- the b. Rental housing shall be not The city shall seek to maintain rental opportunities by restricting conversions of sueh rental units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental housing is 5% or higher for four consecutive quarters. d. The City shall preserve mobile home park land uses through a combined program of mobile home park Bene evaluE�tion to determine Vhich mobile home parks should be rezoned with the Home Park Zone. a 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 9. low and housing low and requirem projects h. other provisions of this Housing Element. The City shall use Its discretionary authority to review and waive Dlannincr fees for Drolects with as a siqnizicanr source cl-n ffitJWIJ 3. Target Date: The following implementation schedule shall be observed: a. Program 7a: This shall be done as projects with housina for low and moderate income households are Page 10. preqram--7b� --- -te r3anudry-aI7-1982T b. Program 7b: This shall be done when housing is not feasible on sites desi --- 7-e-;---?4v --- -be i:mplemeytted-t�mmedlatelyT c. Program 7c: This ordinance is currently in effect. d. Program 7d: These rezonings shall be done on an e. Program 7e: This program shall he implemented immediately. I f. Program 7f, 7g, 7h: These programs shall bi Page 11. 9: To promote the conservation, rehabilitation, and objective sing inventory. reaevelopment of the existing hou 1. Finding: The cityls existing housing Supply is important them are the following: the for many reasons. Among 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 be found in the wealth of many Newport Beach residents may equities of their homes- The existing housing supply also last hope for homeownership for represents essentially the amilies who find many moderate- and middle -income f 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 Efforts must be expended to protect existing occupancy. for lower -income equities, preserve affordability households, deter the spread of physical blight, preserve strengthen the tax ba e, and extend opportunities for and T These varied objectives are not entry into homeownership. 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. h i gh e r - - e-s� - -vet-lutrt-irork-� - - -,Phe�se, - - ee, s *-.s- - wevk --- be —the th e - *eftefti+_�- -ef- -lertc .j6-t,&rm-ewnership-- tam a1919ree iftt&en--- - -bend­te- - -&E-fte-t --- sh&x+---t&rm - -ee sta r --- The typi e --cf ­41-i-v4*9" -t4iatt- - 9 ingle - !ff arai 9:y - -tttA-t-s-, - -prov44e- --& -h e dq e - ege-i*&t- -!rrf-Ia4_4errr- -aft& - th e i 1! eve Bleeh-Gtant-preqr&M7 Page 13. 2. implementation Plan: --The -jha-1-1--amend-4,L & e a Rve I! s i en !i m - _p, eje�__t-ga- f-ea r - -i� - eff - -to- -own e r 9 hip b. The 3. Target Dates: the Zone a. The CDEG application shall be made for 1982 funds. Pregram-:�b7 b. This program shall be utilized as projects are proposed. NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 r 7x Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 FROM: *Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 I NAME OF PROJECT: General Plan Amendment 82,1 (H) I PROJECT LOCATION: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Staff Report dated August 19, 1982 FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions oflCity 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 DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 3300 Newport Boulev rd, Newport Beach, CA Environmental Coordinator Date: NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 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: FROM: -Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 See attached Staff Report dated August 19, 1982 FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of bity 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 31 OUJOIT J�dt�!- T, jt:;,( Y�o /7 If p 4L If( rl If 40 �, 71), 1 Alt — Z2 -7- ;2 96 �r,31 T C3 T -T r 3 T how Pa7l,� &2:. ue4l'�L)) Jet Li5L e'e,<J do c cc �-�l Q-',X If 7 'T 11 G6, -T T yes- -!L-7L7, Do 7- L/b /< 0 y V- col 0-n Y) 6) C-o ol tLfe- T T IT61 of, 1� TV12 Tre Ij T 70 ikelv jol T T P� 7— To A Tp uo lit TP9 T!Oa , -1 . . -#0 RUTAN & TuCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNWRSM�P CONSISTING 01 PROFESSIONAL COR�ONAVIONS ....... W. DAHL' ..... T S. BOWER AMERICAN CITY BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 ........ NO WELL' MARCIA A FORSYTH 'ARVIN , SHALLENBERGEN' WILLIAM M. MARTICOPENA SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER JAMES R. NO.RE, LAWRENCE 4. REYFUSS ROGER, L RISLEY ANNE NELSON LANPHAR 611 ANTON BOULEVARD (...L 'MCCOR .,C. E.1FNCU, L, STEARN. WILLIAM R. 8' EL' ...A C. TO.. P05T OFFICE BOX 1950 .I ..... A� CURNUTT WILLIAM J. CAPLAN LEONARD A MA.PEL- ART .. L.FE COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 JOHN .� HURLBUT. JR.' RANDALL S. WAIER MICHAEL W. I MMELL4 MICHAEL T HORNAK MILFORD W. DAHL, JR.- JANICE L. CELOTtl THEODORE I LLACE. JR.' PHILIP 0 KOHN RICHARD P ,W -S. J..1 .. NVP.NB�N. MARSHALL M. PEARLMAN' ELIZABETH A. NEALE ROBERT C. BRAUN' SCOTT N. HOYT ROSE R A GRABLE' ART .. ..ILL..E EDWA.0 6 SYBESMA. JR,' KATHRYN L. TOBIN 7.0 MA. 5 5ALINDEN . PH C. MAYNARD 0. R1 R. LAUBSCHER. P NE:LIF LA R. BERNSTEIN DAVID C. LAREIE�- 0O.H1 SHOW WOLF �LSFFOIAO D�. BE ARTHUR R. VRI.R�I [VICKI) DALLAS MICHAEL �_ 4111A U - '"* STEVEN A. NICHOI-S MARC W6NTHN.F- DAVID .. REY I.. .. AHII.- HARVEY .� M..NE ,IE"I'" M .ENHAH. INAUNICE SANCHEZ R ... URN C. SHEPAID- BRUCE HALLETT , . S. WOLCOTT. IJI- WILLUM T. C410POULOS ROBERT L. PIKE' EPIC .. ..WFA. LAWRENCE E. C�MC- ... CALL .. "ENBUS. '. PRSFIDEWOH�L September 13, 1982 Mr. Mike Miller City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92663-3884 Dear Mike: TELEPHONE (714) 641-SIOO (Z13I 625-7586 TELECOPIER (714) S46-9035 TWX 910 age-18433 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO �,Vo r /;z 0 Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Enclosed herein please find another set of Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories. Please cause them to be examined'by youroffice and the Planning Department and preliminary responses prepared for us so that we may answer them by October 8, 1982. . If you have any question's concerning the enclosed, please call at your convenience. Very truly yours, RUTAN-& TUCKER mp eonard 4A LAH: loh Enclosure cc: Craig Bluell 6 Y NE-W I CRYSTAL C. SIMS LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 2 2700 North Main Streett 11th Floor Santa Anal California-92701 3 Telephone: (714) 835-8806 4 RONALD L. ROUDA LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES 5 1544 West 8th Street Los Angeles, California 90017 6 Telephone: (213) 381-2131; 385-9691. 7'1 TOBY J. RO ' THSCHILD LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LONG BEACH 8 205 East Broadway Long Beach, California 90802 9ITelephone: (213) 434-7421 1011GREGORY VEACH ,j4LEGATLh AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO 111 29 ird Avenue 121Chula Vista, Californi-a 90210 ITelephone: (714) 722-1935 13!JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER I 11RICHARD A. ROTHSCHILD 1411WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, 113535 West Sixth Street I 15-Los Angeles, California 9UUZ ITelephone: (213) 487-7211 INC. 16 Attorneys fo-: Plaintiffs/Petitioners 171OLIVE DAVIS, ALFREDO ORTIZt MARIA 181ORTIZ, SHARION GARRISON, DOROTHY ,McALEAVEY, ORANGE jCOUNTY COMMUNITY' HOUSING CORPORATION 19 RICHARD W. PETHERBRIDGE 2011722 North Broadway [Santa Ana ' C,;�lifornia 92706 21�Telephone: (714) 835-0935 221Attorney for Plaintiffs/Petitioners FftANK H. BARNES, MARION S. BARNES, 23 JOSEPH P. BOYLE, and ORANGE COUNTY, FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL 24 1 25 26 2711 2811 CASE NO./32-95-85 f V 3 4 5 6 K3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARON GARRISON; DOROTHY M. McALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, a non-profit corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, V. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE COMPANY, a corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants/Respondents, -1- I CASE NO. 32-95-85 PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS t rE 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs renew their request that municipal defendants, the City of Newport Beach, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, within thirty (30) days after service of this document, answer the following interrogatories and request for admissions pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030 and 2033. U t. -2- A. Instructions: 2 3 1. Reference to Exhibits 1 through 59 is to the 4 e%hibits listed in Revised List of Exhibits in Support of Motion 51 -.or Peremptory Writ of Mandate filed by Petitioners and dated 6 July 12, 1982. 7 2. In responding to these interrogatories, you 9 are required to furnish all information that is available to you, 10 including information in the possession of your attorneys, or 11 other persons directly or indirectly employed by or connected 12 with you or your attorneys, and anyone else acting in your behalf 13 or otherwise subject to your control. 14 3. In responding to these -interrogatories, you 16 must make a diligent search of your records and of other papers 17 and materials in your possession or available to'you or your 18 representatives. ifyou cannot c)btain the records or information 19 to answer these interrogatories, you should explain in your 20 answer the circumstances and what his been and is being done to 21 obtain the information. L 22 23 4. if any document is withheld under claim of 24 privilege, so as to aid the Court and the parties hereto to 25 det�ermine -Che validity of the claim of privilege, furnish a list 20 signed by the pers*ons supervising your,response-identifying each 27 document for which the privilege is claimed, together with the 28 kollowind information with respect to each such document: 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Aft.9911 A" *7 (a) The identity 6f the person who signed it or over whose name it was sent or issued, including his or her last known business and home address and phone numbers; (b) The business and home addresses and phone numbers of the person to whom it was directed; (c) The nature and substance of the document with sufficient particularity to enable the Court and parties hereto to identify the document; (d) The date of the document; (e) The identity of the person who has custody of, or con�rol over, the document and each copy thereof; (f) The basis on which any privilege is claimed; (g) Whether any non -privileged matter is included in the document; and (h) The number of the interrogatory or request for admission to which such document corresponds. B. Definitions:. 1. The term "genuine" as used here in connection -d- with a document means to state, without limit-ation; 2 3 (a) That the writing is genuine as that term 4 is used in Code of Civil Procedure S 2033 and authentic as that 5 term is used in California Evidence Code 1400; and 6 7 (b), That the writing, in the case of copy, i� 8 a true and correct copy of the original. 9 .10 2. The term."person" as used herein includes any 11 individual, firm, corporation, partnership, receiver, joint 12 venture, estate, trust, association, and all other forms of 13 entities, including the parties to this suit and their officers, 14 agents, employees and representatives. 15 16 3. The term "docwnent" as usc�d herein means any 17 writing -and any other tangible thing in your.custody, poss . ession 18 or control or known -to you, whether printe(l, recorded, reproduced 19 by any process, or written or produced by hand, including but not 20 limited to letters, reports, agreements, communications, includ- 21 ing intra-department communications, correspondeifcc,. telegrams,' 22 maps, memoranda, summaries or records of personal conversations, 23 didries, minutes or records of meetings, conferences, expressions 24 or statements of policy, lists of persons attending meetings or 25 statements - of policy, lists of persons atti�ndin� meetings or 26 conferences, repor'ts, and/br'summaric� of interviews, reports, 27 and/or summaries Qf investigations, opini-.)ns or reports of con- 28 sultants't brochures� pamphletsr drafts of any documents, 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 revisions of drafts of any *documents, invoices, receipts and original or preliminary notes. As to each document, any comment or notation appearing on same but not a part of the original text is to be considered a separate document. 4. The word "identify" when used herein in connec- tion with a person means'to state: (a) The person's full name; (b) The person's last known business and home addresses7 (c) The person's last known business and home telephone numbers. 5. The word "identity" when used herein in con- nection with a document means to state: (a) The date on the document; (b) The name and address of each person who .prepared the document; (c) The identity of the person to whom the document was directed; (d) The name, address, and telephone number -6- I of the present custodian of'the document; 3 (e) An identifying description of the docu- 4 merit; and 6 (f) if you will do so without requiring a 7 motion to produce, attach to your responses to these interroga 8 tories'a true'and correct copy of each said writing. 9 10 .6. "Low and moderate income families" shall have 11 the meaning specified in Health and Safety Code Section 50093. IVA 13 7. "Affordable" refers to housing cos�Ep which do 14 not exceed 25% of a family's gross income as specified in Health 15 and Safety Code Section 50053. 16 171 8. "The City" means and includes the City of 18 Newport Beach, its City Council and Planning Commission, as well 19 as each and every officer, agent, employee or representative of 20 the Cityt City Council and Planning Conunission. 21 22 9. "City's HousincT Element" means and includes the 23 Housing Element of the General Plmi of the City of Newport Beach, 24 adopted by the.City on Sep tembcr 28, . 1981, by City Resolution 25 No. 11051. 26 27 10. "Each" means each and every. 28 -7- t I 11. "IjCD" mew is and includes the State of Califor- nia Department of Housing and Community Development, and each 31 officer, agentr employee, or representative of IICD. 4 5 12. "You" shall include your agents, representa- .6 tives and attorneys. 7 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 10 REQUEST FOR A6MISSION NO. 1: 11 That Exhibit 1 is genuine. 12 13 REQUEST rOR ADMISSION NO. 2: 14 That Exhibit 2 is genuine. 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: 17 That Exhibit 3 is genuine. 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: 20 That Exhibit 4 is genuine. 21 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: 23 That Exhibit 5 is genuine. 24 255 REQUEST rOR ADMISSION NO. 6: 26 That Exhibit 6 is genuine. 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: 2' That Exhibit 7 is genuine. 3 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: 5 That Exhibit 8 is genuine. 6 71 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION ' NO. 9: 8 That Exhibit 9 is genuine. 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:' 11 That Exhibit 10 is genuine, as to pages 1 through 10 12 of the May 16, 1979, Minutes of the Newport Beach Planning 13 commission. 14 15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: 16 That Exhibit 11 is genuine, as to Volume 33, pages 17 188 to 194, of the Minutes of the Newport Beach City Council. 18 1 1911 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: 20 That Exhibit 12 is genuine, as to pages 1 through 14 21 of the August 16, 1979, Minutes of the Newport Beach Planning 22 Commission. 23 2411 REQUEST FOR A ' DMISSION NO. 13: - I 25 That Exhibit 13 is genuine, as to volume 33, pages 2611 229 to 232, of the Minutes of the Newport Beach City Council. 27 28 -9- 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: 2' That Exhibit 14 is genuific, as to the pages included 3. in that exhibit. 4 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: 6 That on or about June 24, 1977, the City submitted an 711 application for Community Development Block Grant funds to tH6 8 Department of Housing and Urban Development. A 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: 11 That Exhibit.15 is genuine. 12� 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: 14 That Exhibit 15 was prcpared by the City. 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: 17 That Exhibit 17 is genuine. 18 191 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: 20 - That Exhibit 17 was received by Robert L. Wynn on 21 or about September 17, 1980. 22 23 REQUE-ST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: 24 That Exhibit 17 was sent or delivered to members of 25 the City of Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission 26 in September or October, 1980. 27 2 . 81 -10- 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: That Exhibit 18 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: That Exhibit 18 was received by Robert Wynn on or about Augus - t 23, 1981. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: That Exhibit 18 was sent or delivered to members of the City of Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission in'August or September,-1981. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: That Exhibit 22 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: That Exhibit 22 was received by Robert Wynn on or about June 17, 1977. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2G: That Exhibit 23tis genuine. H REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: That Exhibit �3 was rec'eived by Robert Wynn on or about March 22, 1978. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: That Exhibit 24 is genuine. j Doc 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: 2 That Exhibit 25 is genuine. 3 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: 5 That Exhibit 25 was received by the City on or about 6 September 11, 1979. 7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: 9 That Exhibit 25 was sent or delivered to each member 10 of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission in September 11 or October, 1979. 12 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: 14 That Exhibit 26 is genuii�a. 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIOU NO. 33: 17 That Exhibit 26 was received by the City on or about 18 September 19, 1981. 19 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: 21 That Exhibit 26 was sojiL or delivered tp members of 22 the City Council of the City of Newport Beach prior to Septem- 23 -ber 28, 1981. 24 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: 26 That Exhibit 29 is genuine. 27 28 -12- 2 3 4 5 6 .7 8, . 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 Z 2' 24 2! 2 2 2 REQUEST FOR AD14ISSION NO. 36; That Exhibit 29 was sent or delivered . to members of the city Council Of the City of Newport Beach*prior to March 8, 19.82. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: That Exhibit 30 is a true and correct copy of the Lan� Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General Planf adopted by the City Council on May 29, 1973, as amended through General Plan Amendment 8o-1, adopted March 24, 1980. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 110. 38* That Exhibit 32 is genuine. REQUEST FOR.ADMISSION NO.. 39; ectcd in the Request for Taking That Exhibit 33, as cOrl Judicial_Notice dated May 7, 1982, is genu.ine as to volume : 36, of the Minutes of the City Council of:the pages 96 through 102y City of Newport Beach. REQUEST FOR.ADMISSION NO. 40: L f That Exhibit 34 is genuine. REQUrST rOR._ADMISS-[ON NO. 41: That Exhibit 35 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: That Exhibit 36 is genuine. -13- -77 0 2 3 4 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: That Exhibit 37 is genuine. I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: That the only amndmnts to the Land Use Eleffent adopted by the City since the adoption of General Plan Amendment 80-1 have been General Plan Amendment 80-2, adopted September 22, 1980, and' contained in Exhibit 32, and General Plan Amendment 81-1, adopted March 12, 1982, and contained in Exhibit 36. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: That Exhibit 38 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: That Exhibit 38 was prepared pursuant to an agreement or contract with the City. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: That the City. Council of the City of Newport Beach approved the preparation of Exhibit 38. I t, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: That Exhibit 38 was sent to or delivered to each of the members of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. REQUEST FOR ADMIS51ON NO. 49: That Exhibit 40 is genuine. 1 -14- 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 IE 2( 2' 21' 2, 2e 2! 2( 2� 21 REQT,EST FOR ADMISSION NO. '50; That Exhibit 40 wat sent or delivered to each member of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach prior to "anuary 9, 1978. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51: That Exhibit 41 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: That Exhibit 41 was sent or delivered to each member of the City Council of t.he City of Newport Beach on or about October 16, 1978. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: That the City of Newport Beach participated in the Community Development Block Grant Program for the years 1975 through 1977. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: That the City of Newport Beach has not participated in the Community Developmept Block Grant Program from 1978 to t, present. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: That the letter from Herbert L. Roberts to Mayor Paul Ryckoff, dated September 18, 1978, was sent or delivered to each member of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach on or before 0%,tober 10, 1978. ,�5- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 " REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach voted not to participate in the Community Development Block Grant Program for 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57: Tha� the City =- ceived Exhibit 43, excluding the letter from John H. Gibson to Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, in February or March, 1982. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: That the City of Newport Beach has not signed a cooperative agreement with the County of Orange in connection with the mortgage revenue bond issu c! reforred to in Exhibit 43. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59: That Exhibit 43, excluding the letter from John I.i. Gibson to Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: That Exhibit 44 Lis genuine, as to items �,.2 and 3 referred to in the letter from Mark Pizano to the Planning Con�iiissioncr dated October 8, 1981. REQUEST FOR' ADMISSION NO. 61: That Exhibit 45 is genuine. I - .1. 6 - I REQUEST rOR ADMISSION NO. 62: 2 That the City of Newport Beach received Exhibits 44 and 3 45 in October, 1981. 4 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: 6 That Exhibit 48 which is attached to Request for Taking 7 Judicial Notice, dated May 7, 1982, is genuine. 8 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: 10 That Exhibit 54 is genuine as to the excerpts contained 11 -therein. 12 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65: 14 That Exhibit 55 is genuine as to Volume 35, pages 119 15 to 126 and 296 to 302, of the Minu tes of the City Council of the 16 City of Newport Beach. 17 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66: 19 That Exhibit 56 is genuine as to excerpts contained 20 therein. 21 2211 REQUEST rOR ADMISSION NO. 67: 23 ' - That Exhibit 57 is genuine. 911 25 REQUEST FOR -ADMISSION NO. 63: 26 That Exhibit 60 is genuine as to Volume 36, pages 175 27 to 177, of the Minutes of the City Council of the City of Newport 2BII Beach -17- 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 ILI 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 w REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.'69: That the City of Newport Beach received on or about April 13, 1981, the letter from Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline 11cather,. dated April 6, 1981, together with all of the attachments contained as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, datcd April 5, 1982, and submitted by peti- tioners in this case. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 70: That the letter by Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Heather, dated April. 6, 1.981, and the attachments, referred to in the previous Request for Admissions, is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71: That the memorandum from City Managcr to Mayor and City Council dated April 27, 1.9.01, and attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Eugene Scorio, dated Ppril. 5, 1982, is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72: That the letter from Bill. McCue to�Mayor Marlene M. Dostil, dated July 26, 1977, and attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Eugene Scorio, dated April 5, 1982, is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73: That the letter from Robert L. Wynn to Bill McCue, dated August 41 1977, and attached as Exhibit E to the Declara- tion of Eugene Scorio, dated April 5, 1982, is genuine. -18- ru 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 251 261 27 K-1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74: That the memorandum from the Fair Housing Council to City of Newport Beach, dated November 9, 1977, and attached as Exhibit F to the Declaration of Eugene Scorio, dated April 5, 1982, is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 75: That Exhibit,F attached to the Declaration of Eugene Scorio, dated April 5, 1982, was received by the City of N&wport Beach in November, 1977. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach did not approve a request by the Fair Housing Council for $586.00 to support the Fair Housing Forum, as that request is contained in Exhibit F to the Deblaration of Eugene Scorio, dated April 5, 1982. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77: That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has never approved membership by the City of Newport Beach in the Orange County Fair Hod'sing Council. t, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO-. 78: That the City Council of the City qf Newport Beach hag never 6dopted a resolution commending the Orange County Fair Housing Council. -19- 4 LIZ *I I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79 2 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has 3 never entered into a contract with the Orange County Fair Housing 4 Council for services performed by the Orange County Fair Housing 5 Council. 6 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80: 8 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has 9 never appropriated any money to the Orange County Pair Housing 10 Council. 11 12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81: 13 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach did 14 not make any appropriation of money to the Orange County Fair 15 Housing Council in response to the letter of April 61 1981, from 16 Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Ileathcr, attached to 17 the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April 5, 1982. 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 82: 20 That the Orange County Fair Housing Council provides 21 counseling, conciliation and mediation servicc,- for dealing with L C 22 racial discrimination complaints concerning housing in the 23 County of Orange. 24 25 REQUEST FOR -ADMISSION NO. 83: 26 That the City of Newport Bcach has no factual basis 27 for disputing the figures contained in Exhibit 8 to the April 6, 28 1981, letter from Rugene R. Scorio to the Honorable, Jacqueline -20- 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 251 261 27 4111 Heather, attached to the Dec'laration of Eugene R. Scorio dated April. 5, 1982. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 84: That the City of Newport Beach Oocs not provide the services that the Orange County Fair Housing Councilhas been rendering to the residents of the City. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 85: That the Orange County Fair Housing Council provides the services listed on Exhibit 9 of the April 6, 1981, letter from Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Heather attached to the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April 5, 1982. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 86; That the provision by the City of Newport Beach of services comparable to those bein.9 provided by the Orange County Fair Housing Council to residents of the City of Newport Beach, as itemized on Exhibit 8 to the April 6, 1981, letter from Eugene R. Scorio to the 11oftorable Jacqiieline 11catli-er, attached to the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April 5, 1982, �qould cost the City of Newport Beach in excess of $20,000 per year. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 87: That the provision by the City of Newport Beach of services compare.ble to those being provided by the Orange County W1 -21- 1 2 3 . 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fair Housing Council to residents of the City of Newport Beach, as itemized on Exhibit 8 to the April 6, 1981, letter from Eugene R.,Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Heather, attached to.the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April 5, 1982, would cost the City of Newport Beach in excess of $100t000 per year. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 88: That the 3-5% residential impact fee on commercial building permit fees, as proposed in the City's Housing Element, page 108, would generate $43 to $72'on a commerc�al structure valued at $500,000, or $155 to $259 on a commercial structure valued at $2,000,000. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION ON. 89: That the allowable densities of development on ail undevelo�ad sites in the City, excluding Newport Center, and the Beeco Property, are four dwelling units per acre. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90; That Newport Center contains the only site -in the City which is presently permitted to be developed at residential densities in excess of 1.2 dwelling units per acre. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 91: That the City has more than,297 acres of undeveloped land in the City. - -22- 0 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 . 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 92: That the 297 acres of non -committed 1,ndeveloped land cited at page 116 of the Housing Element, refers to land currently designated for residential use by the City's land use regulations, and does not include remaining undeveloped land which is designate& for other than residential uses by the City's land use regulations. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93A: That the site numbers listed on pages 49 and 50 of the City's Housing Element correspond to the site numbers and parcel names attached hereto as Exhibit 66, which is a copy of the document of the City of Newpo�:t Beach entitled Undeveloped Parcels, September 1980. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93B: That Exhibit 66, attached hereto is genuine. REQUESTS FOR AD14ISSIONS NOS. 94 to NO. 134 refer to the site numbers in Exhibit 66, attached hereto. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 94: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 1 under the current Land Use Element is 40. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 95: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 'built on Site No. 1 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 348 dwelling -dnits. 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 96: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. I immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 78-2 was 426 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 97: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built o n Site No. 2 under the current Land Use Element is 24 dwelling units which are transferred as a credit to Site No. 26. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 98: That the - number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 2 immediately prior to the adoption -of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 42 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR AD141SSION NO. 99: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 2 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 84 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 100: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site'No. 3 under the current Land Use Element is 212 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 101: That the number of dwcl.ling units -allowed to be ­24- 7 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Pi 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 built on Site No. 3 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 440 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 102: That the number of dwelling uniis allowed to be built on Site No. 3 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment'78-2 was 704 dwelling units. REQUEST -FOR ADMISSION NO. 103: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 4 under the current Land Use El xement is 80 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 104: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 4 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 160 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 105: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 4 immediately prior to the adoption -of General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 338 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 106: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on -Site No. 5 under the current Land Use Element is 151 dwelling units.- -25- 4 6 10 11 12 3.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 107: That the humber of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 5 immediately prior to the adoption of Gerie*ral Plan Amendment 79-1 was 325 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 108: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 5 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 320 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 109: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 6 under the current Land Use Element is 108 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1.10: That the number of dwelling units allowed to.be built on Site No. 6 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 198 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. That the number of units jilowed to be built on Sit e No. 8 under the current Land Use Element is 76 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 112: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site N6. 8 immediately prior to the adoption of General -26- 1 2 3. 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 Plan Amendment 79-1 was 100 dwelling -units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 113: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 8 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 290 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 114: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 9 under the current Land Use Element is 68 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 115: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 9- immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 140 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 116: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 9 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 78--�2 was 147 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 117: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be bui-lt on Si7te No. 12 under the current Land Use'Element is 406 dwelling units., -27- 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IG 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 118: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 12 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 900 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 119: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 13 under the current Land Use Element is 300 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1ZO: I/ That on May 16, 1979, the Planning Commissibn of the City of Newport Beach approved the development of 610 dwelling units on Site No. 13. REQUEST.FOR ADMISSION NO. 121: That on May 16, 1979, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach approved the development of 610 dwelling units on Site No. 13, of which 132 dwelling units were required to be rentaluas opposed to ownershili units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 122: That on July 10, 1979 the City Council of the City of Newport Beach disapproved the development of 450 dwelling units on Site No. 13. CK:= 4 7 10 11 IP 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 127: That Site No. 15 was designated as Recreational and Marine Commercial immediately prior to the adoption of Ge�neral Plan Amendment 78-2. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 128: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 16 under the current Land Use Element is 0. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO'. 129: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 16 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 145 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 130: That the number of dwelling units al.l.-)wc--.d to be built on Site No. 22 under the ciAi.rent Land Usc: Elei nent is 120 dwelling units. L 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 131: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be bui lt on Site No. 26 under the cqxrent Land Use Element is 505 dwelling units, of which 121 divelling units ai:c credited from Site No. 1 and 24 dwelling units are credited from Site No. 2*. -30- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 132: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 3. built on Site No. 26 immediately prior to the adoption of 4 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 339 dwelling units. REQUEST'FOR ADMISSION NO. 133: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 8 built on Site No. 26 as a result of the adoption of Gene'ral 9 Plan Amendment 78-2 was 538 dwelling units. 10 11 . REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 134: 12 That on October 19, 1978, the Planning/Commission 13 of the City of Newport Beach recommended to the City Council of 14 the City of Newport Beach that the number of dwelling units 15 allowed to be built on Site No. 26 be 800 dwelling units. 16 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 135: 18 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beadh 19 has never approved for placement 'on a municipal ballot the 20- approval of a low rent housing project under Article XXXIV 21 of the California Constitution. 22 23 RE -QUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13G: 24 That Exhibit 67 attached hereto is genuine. 25 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 137: 27 That the funds available to the City of Newport 28 Beach under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974t 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 as amended, can be used by the City for subsidizing the cost of land on housing to be occupied by low and moderate income persons. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 138: That only one housing project under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 has been approved for development in the City of Newport Beach. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 139: That the Section 8 housing project referred to in the previous request for admission was a project sponsored by the Lutheran Church of the Master and was a project for housing low and moderate income senior citizens. If you fail to comply with the provisions of Section 2033 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to this Request for Admissions, each of the matters of which an admission is requested will be deemed admitted. 32. a a 1 2 3' 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 , and , (c) identify, as that term is used in Definition No. 4 above, all persons possessing knowledge of facts relevant to your answer to sub -part (a) of this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO*. 2: Has the City'of Newport Beach entered into any agreement with the Orange County Housing Authority regarding the implementation of Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 within the City of Newport Beach. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: if the answer to Interrogatory No. 2 is anything but an unqualified no, then state the following: 1. IdentUfy any documents which embody such an agreement. 2. State whether such an agreement applies to existing housing, or to newly constructed housing, or to both. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Has the City of Newport Beach supportedtin.any way the Minority Bank Deposit Program which is administered by the'Department of Housing and Urban Development. . INTERROGATORY NO. 5: If the answer to"Interrogatory No. 4 is anything but an unqualified -no, please state: .. 1. *Identify any documents which embody such support. -Q3- 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 �15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LUA� 0 2. State any actions taken.by the City in support of the Minority Bank Deposit Program. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Has,the City of Newport Beach undertaken any affirmative efforts to utilize minority businesses in any work contracted by the -City. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is anything but an unqualified no, please state the following: 1. Identify any documents which embod� the affirmative actions. 2. State the nature of such affirmative action. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify all actions taken by the.C-ty of Newport� Beach within the past ten years to promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color. L t, INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify any elected officials of the City of Newport Beach who knew prior to Se�tember 28, 1981 that some of the residential housing in the City is. built on land leased from The Irvine Company. -34- a INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify the elected officials of the City of Newport Beach who knew prior to September 28t 1981 that lease 4 payments on residential land owned by The Irvine Company and leased to residents of the City would increase in the next 6 five years. 7 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 9 As to each of the officials identified in 10 Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 10, state the following: 11 1. Identify the -bases or sources for their 12 information. 3.3 2. Identify the nature of such information known 14 to each of them prior to September 28, 1981. 15 3. Identify the approximaite date or dates on 3.6 which such information was acquired. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 19 Identify whether any of the following of the City 20 employees, or categories of City employees knew prior to 21 September 28, 1981 that some of the residential housing in 22 the City was built on land leased from The Irvine Company: 23 1. The City Manager. 24 2.- The Planning Director. 25 3. Any of the non -clerical. and non -secretarial 26 staff -of the Planning Department of the,City. 27 28 -35- INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify whether any of the City employees listed in InterrogaLory No. 12 knew prior to 4 Sep�ember 28, 1981 that lease Payments on resid..2ntial land owned 5 by The Irvine Company and leased'to residents of the City 6 would increase in the next five years. 7 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 9 As to each of the employees of the City identified 10 in Interrogatories 12 and 13, state the following; 3.1 1. Identifv such employee by name and position. 12 2. Identify the bases or sources for their 13 information. 14 3. Identify the nature of such information known 15 to each of them prior to September 2 8,,1981. 16 4. Identify the approximate date or dates on which* 17 such information was acquired. 18 -19 INTERROGATORY NO. .15; 20 Has the City ever supported an application by the 21 Southern California Association of Government to the Department 22 of Housing and Urban Developilticnt for Bonus Units under the 23 Area Wide, Supplemental Section 8 Housing Program. 24 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 26 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 1.5 is anything 27 but 'an unqualified no, please state the following: 28 Identify any documents which embody the cityls 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 support. 0 1] 2. Identify any other means by which the City contends it has supported the actions specified in Interrogatory No. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: State each fact and identify each document which you contend supports the City's adoption of Resolution No.. 8630, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 26, adopted November 10, 1975. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State each fact and identify each document which the City contends supports its adoption of Resolution No. 9485, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 78-2, adopted December 20, 1978, in regard to the following sites enumerated in Exhibit 66, attached hereto: 1. Site No. 1, Westbay. 2. Site No. 2, Eastbluff Remanent. 3. Site No. 3, Newporter North. 4. Site No. 4, Big Canyon (Area 10). 5. Site No. 8, Freeway Reservation East. 6. Site No. 9, Baywood Expansion. 7. Site No. 15, Bayview Landing. B.- Site No. 26, Newport Center. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: State each fact and identify each document which —37- I a , ". . 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the City contends supports its adoption of Resolution No. 9689, adopting General Plan Amendment 79-11 adopted December 10, 1979F as to each of the following sites, as enumerated in Exhibit 66, attached hereto: 1. Site No. 1, Westbay. 2. Site No. 2, Eastbluff Remanent. 3. Site No: 3, Newporter North. 4. Site No. 4, Big Canyon (Area 10). 5. Site No. 5, Castaways. .6. Site No. 6? Fifth Avenue Corridor Parcels, also known as Fifth Avenue Parcels. 7. Site No. 9, Baywood Expansion. 8. Site No. 12, Beeco Property. 9. Site No. 13, Aeronutronic Ford. 10. site No. 15, Bayview Landing. 11. Site No. 16, Moutli of Big Canyon. 12. Site No. 22, North Ford. 13. Site No. 26, Newport Center. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: State each fact and identify each document which the City contends supports the disapproval by the City Council of the City on July 10, 1979, of the devel6pment of 450 dwelling units on Site No. 13 as identified on Exhibit G6, attached hereto. INT2RROGATORY NO. 21: .State each fact and identify each document which -38- 1* 1 2 G 8 9 '10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Pr 'A 2Z 21 2 2 2 uia the failure.of the City council nds supports �he City cQnte development of 'I' dwelling units the City to approve the planning Cornmls,ion nded by the 3n Site No. 13, as recommc site No- 13 is the Aerpnutronic Df the City On May 16, 1979. on Exhibit 66, attached hereto. Ford site as identified INTr �OGATOIY No, 22: cument which State each fact and identify each do the City . contends . supports . its failure to approve the development nded by the Planning Commission on site No. 13t as recomme, on August 1(51 1979. site 'No. 13 is identified on Exhibit 66r attached hereto. INTERROGATORY 140. 23% tify each document which State each. fact and iden the City contends supports the action by the City council of the City on August 27, 1979, app3.'Ov3-ng the develOPmcllt o.n site No. 13 of 300 dwelling units without any requirements as to dwelling units affordable to either low or moderate site No. 13 is identified on Exhibit 66, income families. attached hereto. INTERROGATORY NO- 24: State each fact and identify each document which 5 the City contends supports its failure to apply for community 3 development'block grant funds from the,Dcspartment Ot- ljousing for the federal fiscal years 1978, 1979f 7 and Urban Development 1980, &nd 1981- T I 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 25: State each fact and identify each document which the City contends supports the failure by the City Council of the City to do any of the following in relation to the Orange County Fair Housing Council- 1. Approve membership by the City in the Orange County Fair Housing Council. 2. Adopt any resolution commending the orange County Fair Housing Council. 3. Contribute any money to the Orange County Fair Housing Council. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: State each fact and identify each document which the City contends supports the failure by the City Council of the City to approve the signing of a cooperative agreement between the City and the County of Orange in.connection with the mortgage revenue bond issue referred to in Exhibit 43. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: State each fact and identify each document which the City contends supports the failure of the City Council of the City to approve for placement on a municipal ballot the approval of a low rent housing project under Article XXXIV of the California Constitution. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Identify the precise meaning of -the word committed j , �40- 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for each of the parcels as to which it is used on pages 124 and 125 of the Housing Element, and in particular specify whether it means that a tentative or final subdivision map has been approved for that parcel or whether any other development approvals have been made for that parcel. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: As to the parcels identified in interrogatory No. 28 identify the particular use to which such parcel has been committed and identify any document which supports the City's contention that such parcel is committed to such use. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Has the City prepared or contracted for the prepara- tion of any study or document which amends or modifies the study embodied in Exhibit 38. if so, please identify each such document. IDATED: September 10, 1982 41. Amok W71.7 AMA"Nk W17- a -sum too L 0 t. 12) V UNDEVELOPED PARCELS Site Number Parcel 1. Westb�ay 2. Eastbluff Remnant '3. Newporter North 4,. Big Canyon Area 10 5. Castaways 6. Fifth Avenue'Corridor Parcels 7. Freeway Reservation West 8. Freeway Reservation Last 9. Baywood Expansion 10. Caltrans West 11. Caltrans East 12. Beeco 13. Aeronutronic Ford 14, Harbor Point 15. Bayview Landing 16. Mouth of Big Canyon 17. Koll Center is. Emkay--Newport Place 19. Jamboree and MacArthur 20. San Diego Creek North 21. San Diego Creek South 22. North Ford. 23. Newport Dunes 24. Buck Gully ?5. Dean Property 26. Newport Center 27. North.Bay (unincorporated) 28. Irvine Coastal Area (unincorporated) -29. Beeco (unincorporated) vt -UNIMA mAir a SITE # 1 WESTBAY 1 General Plan Designation: Low Density Re'sidential/Density Transfer Area 2. Existin'g Zoning:. Planned Community (No development plan adopted) 3 Site Area: 71 Acres. 4. Allowable Uses: Low Density Re buildable 'acre be transferred estimated that as follows: a) On -Site b) Off -Sit sidential at 4 DU's per with 75%of the units to to Newport Center. it is 161 units could be built 40 DU's 121 -DU's The site also includes a 6.4 acre County - owned parcel at the'southern end and a 6.0 acre City park near the extension of Monte Vista, dedicated as a part of the Sea Island Condominium Project. There is a te-n-foot wide relocatable pedestrian and bike easement along the blui top with access from Irvine Avenue and University Drive, 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. I SITE #2 d EASTBLUFF REMNANT General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential/Density Transfer Area 2. Existing Zoning: R-3-B 3. Site Area: 8 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses would be allowed on this site, with all.development rights transferred to Newport Center. It is estimated that 24 units could be built,as follows: On -Site 0 DU's Off -Site 24 DU's 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. L I UrrLpl - N16!WMKr VAY t. 0� SITE #3 NEWPORTER NORTH I.. General Plan Designation: Low -Density Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned'Community (P-C) 3. Site Area: 88 Acres 14. Allowable Uses: Low -density residential development at 4 DU's per buildable acre with 25% of the allowable units transferable to either Newport Center or North Ford at the option of the property owner. Additionally, the structures shall be clustered to accommodate archaeological sites and marsh sites. It is estimated that approximately 212 DU's could be built. 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. V JZAA,T�. 119 s0silo allow Wa� SITE #4 BIG -CANYON - AREA 10 General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 80 d�elling uni.ts. 2. Existing Zon . ing: Planned Community with adopted P-C Development Text. 3. Site Area: 15 Acres 4'. Allo�able Uses: Medium Density Residential uses with a maximum of 80 dwelling *units. 5. Timi.ng: Planning Commission public hearings scheduled -or Fall 1980. Possible construction by Spring 198'1. h SITE #5 1. General Plan Designation: CASTAWAYS The northerly 60 acres of the site is designated for "Low Density Residential" at 4 DU's per build- able acre. The southerly 5 acres of the site is designated for "Recreation and Marine Commercfal Uses" with the exception of hotels and motels. ..2.- Existing Zoning: Planned Community (no adopted P-C Text) 3. ' Si te, Area: 65 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Lbw Density Residential development at 4 DU's per buildable acre. -It is estimated that 151 dwelling units could be built. A ten foot by 50 foot relocatable pedestrian and bike trail easement has been granted on the site. The trail is located along the bluff top from Polaris Drive to a Point fifty feet to the south. Recreation and marine Commercial uses (exclusing Hotels and Motels) on ;L 5 acres. It is estimated that ± 40,000 sq. ft. of develop- ment will occur. I 5. Timing: Applications are being pro- cessed and construction coulc begin in'1981. W� I SITE #6 .. 5th AVENUE PARCELS General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential at 4 DU's per buildable acre. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community and R-l-B 3. Site Area: 35 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Low Dons i ty Res i den ti a l uses. At 4 DU's per buildable acre, approximately 108 dwelling units would be allowed. 5. Timing:' No immediate plans for development. SITE # 7 FREEWAY RESERVATION -WEST General Plan Designation: Recrea ti on al and Env i ronmental Open Space Existing Zoning: P-C No development text 3. Site Area: 10 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: The Land Use Element allocates an additional 100 units to, Big Canyon which could be al- located to this site, subject to a P-C text and L/U Map Amendment. 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. I I I F SITE V 8 CDCCI,IAV DCCrQVATTAM CNCT General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential with a maximum of 4 DU's per buildable acre. 2. Existing Zoning: P C 3. Site Area: 25 Acres. 4. Allowable Uses: Residential with a maximum of 4 DU's per buildable acre. It is estimated that 76 DU's could be built on this site. 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. SITE #9 BAYWOOD EXPANSION General'Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 68 dwelling units. 2'. Existing Zoning: Planned Community 3. Site Area: 9 Acres -4. Allowable Uses: Residential with a max.imum of 68 dwelling units. 5. Timing: Spring 1981 construction. 0'" SITE -#To CALTRANS WEST General Plan Designation: Recreational apd Environmental Open Space 2. Existing Zoning: Open Space 3. Site Area: 17 Acres 4. Allowable -Uses: Open Space Uses. 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. Vp -Z� MV1. � M V4 SITE 4 11 CALTRANS EAST General Plan Designation: Recreational and Envirornmental Open Space. 2. 'Existing Zoning: Unclassified 3. Site Area: 22 Adres -4. -Allowable Uses:. Parking, public recreational and visual - environmental purposes. 5. Timing: Hoag Hospital is negotiating with the State to purchase this parcel for expansion of ho-spi tal facilities. If the purchase occurs, it is anticinated that the General Plan would be amended to accommodate this expansion. L V SITE #12 BEECO General PI . an Designation: Low Density Residential/ . SPe�cific Area Plan. 2. Existing Zoning: P - C, 3. Site Area: 50 Acres 4. *Allowable Uses: Residential at 4 DU's per buildable acre. It is estimated that 150 dwelling units could be built on the site. 5. Ti mi n 9: The property owner is considering a request to change the designation of this site to allow for T A"etrial and office Uses. There a mixture ol - are no immediate plans MA SITE' it 13 AERONUTRONIC FORD General Plan Designati,on.- General Industry, Admini-strative, Professional and Financial Com- mercial, and Residential 2. Existing Zoning: P-C 3. Site Area: 102 Acres (Undeveloped) 4. Allowable.Uses: Additional development is limited to: Office and Industrial 360,000 Residential 300 units 5. Ti mi n g: Resi-dential 300 Units 1981 Office and Industrial 64,000 sq.ft. 1981 123,000 sq.ft. 1983 123,000 sq.ft. 1986 25,000 sq.ft. 1990 25,000 sq.ft. 199� SITE #14 HARBOR POINT 1 . G�neral Plan Designation: Low -Density Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: R-l-B 3. Site Area: .10.6 Acres 1 4. Allowable Uses: Low -Density Residential 5. Timing: The City is currently processing a Final Tract Map for twenty-one lots. Construction should begin in the spring of 1981. L 6-1-A W!" SITE #15 BAYVIEW LANDING General Plan Designation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential. 2..' Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) 3. Site Area: 19 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Recreation and Environmental Open Space for public recreation uses with a view park and bike path on upper portion and R-V camping on the lower portion, or similar recreational uses of no greater intensity. As an alternate. use$ Low Density Residential development at a, maximum of 4 DU's per buildable acre may be ' located on the lower portion.of the site only: to preserve existing public views. 5. Timing': No immediate plans for development. se C% 0.11� I'ACIFIC. 0, 4* a op", SITE 1116 MOUTH OF BIG CA14YON General Plan Designation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space. 2. Existing Zoning Unclassified (U) 3. Site'Area: 48.5 Acres 4 Allowable Uses: Open Space. Two relocatable ten -foot wide pedestrian and bike trail easements have been granted on this site. One trail is in the north side of tl)e site, the other on the SOLIth-side; both trails extend from Jamboree Road to,Back Bay Drive. 5. Ti mi ng No plan for site improvemen.t is being considered. 2 I SIT E #17 KOLL CENTER General Plan Designation: Government, Educational and Institu- tional Facilities; Administrative, Professional and Financial Com- mercial; Retail and Service Com mercial ; and General Industry. 2. 'Existing Zoning: -P-C (with adopted development text). 3. Site Area: 159 Acres, approximately 34.7 acres vacant (excluding courthouse site).' 4. Allowable Uses: Future development is limited as follows: Office Site A Office Restaurant Retail Hotel Office Site B Office Restaurant Office Site C Office Office Site D Office Office Site E Office 10,198 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. ± 440 rooms (subject to Use Permit) 200,685 sq.ft. .7,000 sq.ft. 358,200 sq.ft. 93,051 sq.ft. 5,725 sq.ft. SITE #17 KOLL CENTER (Cont. - Page 2) Office Site F -0- Office Site G -0- Retail Site I Office 20,000 sq.ft. Retail 60,120 sq.ft. Industrial Sites I & 2 Industrial 31,775 sq.ft. Orange County Courthouse 25,625 sq.ft. Koll Center Total Office 687,859 s q . f t . 'Restaurant 12,000 sq.ft. Retail 60,120 sq.ft. Indust�ial 31,775 sq.ft. Courthouse 25,625 sq.ft. ... 817,379 sq.ft. Hotel ±440 rooms (subject to Use Permit) 5. Timing: A Development Phasing Plan has been adopted for Office Site C allowing 100,1000 sq.ft. in 1981 and 132,830 sq.ft. in 1982. A Phasing Plan is currently under consideration for the remaining Koll/Aetna-owned property and to re�ise The Irvi.ne Company -owned Block C. a r7w-1 LAM r-41" LAW SITE #18 EMKAY - NEWPORT PLACE Gene'ral Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial, General Industry, and Retail and Service Commercial. 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - with adopted development text. '3. Si . te Area: 145 Acres, approximately 20 acres vacant� 4. Allowable Uses: Industrial, Commercial and Office uses. Remaining development is limited to 503,924 sq.ft. 5. Timing: The_approved Traffic Phasing Plan allows 247,220 sq.ft. in * 1980 and 78,442 sq.ft. in 1981. An additional 178,262 sq.ft. is subject to. a future phasing plan. t 7,911 SITE -1/19 JAMBOREE and MacARTHUR 1. General Plan Designation: Gove�rnment�l , Educational , and Insti tutional Fadili ties with a secondary alternate designation of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2.. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) 3. Site Area: 2 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Freeway loop ramp and/or "Park and Ride" Facility, or as a secondary alternate a mixture of Retail, Service, Administraiive,. Professional and Financial Commercial uses with density limitations to be established in the P-C Development Plan.. 5. Ti,ming: There are no immediate plans for development. L t. SITE #20 SAN DIEGO GREEK NORTH General Plan Designation: Governmental , Educational and Institutional Facilities with a secondary alternate designation of Retail and Service'Commerc-ial. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) 3. Si t�' Area: 12 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: !'Park and Ride" Facility or secondary alternate use of Retail and Service Com- mercial uses not to exceed 52,727 square feet. - 5. -Timing: There are no immediate plans for development. �11 j)A SITE #21 SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH General Plan Designation: Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities with a secondary alternate use of General Industry. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) 3. Si'te Area: 47 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: A desilting basin,or as a secondary alternate, General Industrial development not to exceed 204,732 square feet. 5. Timing No immediate plans for development. 41p 11 I SITE #22 NORTH FORD 1. General Plan Designation: General Industrial, Residential, Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial, Retail and Service Commercial, and Govern- mental, Educational and Institu- tional Facilities. 2. Existing Zoning: -Planned Community (P-C) -3.. Site Area: 68.0 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Commercial, Office, Residential, Institutional and Industrial. Residential 120 un i ts Industrial 295,000 sq.ft. Retail 28,500 (subject to Traffic Phasing P.1an-TPP) 5. Timing: Industrial 1981 - Residential 1983 Retail After TPP SITE #23 NEWPORT -DUNES 1. General Plan Designation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space. 2. Existing.Zoning: Unclassified 3.- Site Area: 70 Acres Land +26 Acres Water 4. Allowable Uses: Public, Marine -oriented Park, and related facilities would be permitted under Newport Beach planning programs. However, under Orangd County's proposed Local Coastal Program, uses permitted would include marine uses includ- ing an additional.70 to 100 boat slips, 50 to 100 new dry boat storage spaces, and -marina amenities, as well,as non -marine facilities such as a campground, a 250 to 300 room hotel , an additional restaurant, a-nd full hookups and support for an expanded RV park accom- modating up to 440 vehicles. 5. Timing: Newport Dunes, Inc. has applied -to Orange County for amendment of the.Newport Dunes' lease to allow redevelopment of the s i te . When and if necessary. approvals are obtained, the Lessee will commence with redevelopment. ( � N=414,Rm %W.049"49 malms- ­ - C0�6_r 14 414WA..( SITE #24 BUCK GULLY General�Plan Designation: Recreation and Envi ronmental open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: R-l-B 3. Site Area: 57.6 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Open Space or Low Density 'Residential uses. Si,nce a substantial portion of the site has slope areas greater than 2:1, and other envirbnme,ntal constraints, residential development is not likely. 5.- - Timing: . No immediate plans for development. SITE ' 11125 DEAN PROPERTY General Plan Des i gnati on: Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial with an alternate of Multi -Family Res i den ti a l Existing Zoning: AP (Administrative Professional) 3. Site Area: 4.5 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Office uses. A 69,7.20 sq.ft. project has been approved. 5. Timing: Spring 1981 f Uffilt:g�".%Ti ;7� Aga 1w SITE #26 NEWPORT CENTER 1. General Plan Designati,on: Retail and Service Commercial; Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; Residential; and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 2'. Existing Zorying: Mixed - Total development limited by "General Plan Amendment 79-1. 3. Site Area: 330 Acres (122 vacant) 4,. Allowable Uses: a) Existing development includes the followin.g: Office & Medical 1,844,001 sq.ft. Commercial 1,181,000 sq.ft. Theater 1 750 seats Hotel 377 rooms Residential 199 Duls Civic 812,000 sq.ft. Automobile 5 acres Golf Course 18 holes Tennis Club 24 courts b) Future additional includes: Office & Medical 896,342 sq.ft. Commercial Retail 87,000 sq.-ft. Theater 2,000 seats. Hotel -0- rooms Residential 637 DU's Civic 2,400 sq.ft. Awy Ir 4 �10 i APO SITE #26 NEWPORT CENTER (Cont. - Page 2) 5. Phasing of Committed Development: Following is a p�asin�g schedule for the remaining committed development in Newport Center. a) 1980 Sea Island Residential* 132 Units Pacific Mutual Office 245,000 sq.ft. Restaurant 10,000 sq.ft. Civic Plaza Office 81 812 sq.ft. Library 14,000 sq.ft. b) 1981 Corp -orate Plaza Office 248,850 sq.ft. Civic Plaza Office 152,894 sq.ft. -Theater 1,350 seats Restaurant 8,000 s q . f t Art Museum 10,000 sq.ft. C) 1982 Corporate Plaza Office 101 l 50 sq. ft. .6. Non-Commi tted Developmen't: Following is the remaining -develop- ment in Newport' Center for which no phasing schedule has been -developed: 7. SITE h26 NEWPORT CENTER (Cont. Page 3) Office and Medical 66,636 sq.ft. Commercial Retail 69,000 sq. ft. Theater 650 seats Residential 505 DU's It is doubtful that any of the non -committed development would be constructed prior to 1982. Developmen't proposed in General Plan Amendment 80-3: Office and Medical 880,0 00 sq.ft. Commercial Retail 20,000 sq.ft. Hotel' 700 rooms A t SITE #27 NORTH BAY #4 General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential on most of the site. 2. Existing Zoning: City of Newport Beach Zoning - Unclassified (U) County of Orange Zoning - General Agriculture ( A:. 1 ) 3. Site Area: Approximately 80.83 acres, including the 11.0 acre Bay View School site. Allowable Uses: The Newport Beach General Plan permits Recrea- tion and Environmental OPen Space uses directed towards the development of a regional park. The alternate use would be Residential Develop- ment at 4 dwelling units per buildable acre. This site is impacted by several site considera- tions which would limit development to less than 200 units. The County's "draft" Local Coastal Plan proposes a combinatior Open Space at Residential I opment betwe( and 18 DU's I acre. Low at moderate inc( housing is b( proposed for residential velopment. 5. Timing: No immediate p'lans for development. 7.7, SIT E #28 IRVINE COASTAL AREA most of the development will occur General Plan Designation-* within the Cityls "Sphere of Influ- ence.11 The New' port Beach General ntain proposed Plan does not cO uses for this area. fCounty of orange 2. Existing Zoning: A-1 "General Agriculture zoning) 3. Site Area: 9,370 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Following are the uses proposed in the Orange, County LCP for this area: Residential 1785-2000 DU's (depending on outcome of public Puy -chase efforts) Hotel 2,000 rooms Tourist Commercial 250,000 sq.ft. 5. Timing'. Beginning in 1982: ultimate development within ten to twenty years. "�'�Santa Anae .po: IRVINE'00A�&-Ail SITE #29 BEECO (UNICORPORAT-ED.) 1. - General Plan Designation: Specific Area Plan directed towards the development of a harbor wi th marine service and commercial, re- creational and open space uses and associated neighborhood "Retail & Service Commercial." 'As an alter- nate use, without a harbor, resi- dential and associated Retail and Service Commercial. 2. Existing Zoning: County of Orange Zoning: Multiple -Fa mily Residential/"Oil Overlay" - R-4PO" # Light Industrial/"Oil Overlay" - MI/11011 General Commercial/"Oil Overlay" - C-1/11011 Multiple -Family Residential - R-4 3. Site Area: Ap proxim.ately 450.0 acres of unin- corporated territory. 4. Allowable Uses: 0 On 350 acres the City's General Plan. permits, the construction of a harbor with boat slips, marine service and commercial uses, and recreational and open space uses. Also permitted are 2108 residential ' units with asso- ciated Retail & Service commercial Timing: $ITE. #29 BEECO (UNINCORPORATED) (Con't. - Page 2) uses to provide necessary neighborhood commercial. On the remaining 100 acres, the General Plan permits residential development at four dwelling units per buildable acre. This allows an es Ci�- mated total development of approximately 2,408 dwelling units. Residential de- velopment could be -clustered; hoi4ever, no individual development would be per- mitted to exceed fifteen dwelling units per buildable acre. If the proposed West Newport Ha rbor proves to be infeasible, the 2108 re- sidential dwelling uni,ts will be, per- mitted on 350 acres of the site. Associated Retail -and Service Cc uses to provide necessary neighborhood commercial will also be permitted. On the ren4ining 100 acres the General Plan permits residential development at four dwelling units per buildable acre. This allows for the same estimated total de- velopment of approximately 2,408 dwellin, units. This residential development could be clustered; however, no indivi- dual development would be permitted to exceed.fifteen dwelling units per build- able acre. There are no immediate plans for development of this area. UNDEVELOPED PARCELS - STATISTICAL SUMMARY Site 1980 1981 1982 19i3 or Later Undetermined 1. Westbay 40 DU's 2. Eastbluff Remnant 0 3.' Newporter North 212 DU's 4. Big Canyon Area 10 80 DU's Castaways 151 DU's 40,000 sq.ft. 6. Fifth Avenue Parcels 108 DU' s 7. Fwy. Reservation -West 100 DU's 1. 8. Fwy. Reservation -East 76 OU's 9. Baywood Expansion 68 DU's 10. CALTRANS-West 11. CALTRANS-East 150 DU' 2- 12. BEECO s 13. Aeronutronic Ford 300 DU's 64,000 sq.ft. 296,000 sq..ft. 14. Harbor Point 21 DU's 15. Bayview Landing& 16. Mouth of Big Canyon 17. Koll Center 100,00 sq.ft. 1*32,830 sq.ft. t440 rooms 584,549 sq.ft. X 18. Emkay-Newport Place 247,220 sq.ft. 78,442 sq.ft. 178,262 sq.ft. 19. Jamboree & McArthur 3. 20. San Diego Creek -North 3. 2i. San Di�ago Creek -South 3- 22. North Ford 295,000 sq.ft. 120 DU's 28,500 sq.ft. 9. 23. Newport Dunes 25.000 sq.ft. t300 rooms 24. Buck Gully 25. Dean Property 69;720 sq.ft. 4. 26. -Newport Center 132 DU's 505 DU's 350,812 sq.ft 439,744 sq.ft. 101,150 sq.ft. 145,636*sq.ft. 27. North Bay (unincorporated) 2. 200 OU, s 28. Irvine Coastal Area (unincorporated) 5- 200 DU's 200 OU's 1,600 DU's- 2,000 roo ms Ah. 29. BEECO (unincorporated) 2- 250,000's, q.ft _LJ 2,500 DU's TOTALS 132 OU's 620 OU's 200 DU's 6. 320 OU's 7. 2,740 rooms 10. 1 5.491 DU's S. 61 598.032 sq.ft. 1,086,906 sq.ft. 233.980 sq.ft. 296,000 sq.ft- 1,211,947 sq.ftll. 1. Subject to Land use Map Amendment. 7. Includes 200 DU's in unincorporated areast 2. Under City's General Plan. S. Includes 4300 DU's in unincorporated areas. 3. Assumes primary use. 9. Under Orange County's Plan. 4. Includes units transferred from sites 1 and 2. 10. includes-2000 rooms in unincorperpted areas. S. Under Orange County's General Plan. 11. Includes 250,00 sq.ft. in unincorporated areas. 6. Includes 200 DU's in unincorporated areas. Amh� Februar'y 19, 19*11 ?t ) . 2.." -,1 V Mr. Pobort L. WY11,11 City'.IlanagQr City of 1,cwport Beach lAttelitiont Mi. Pat Te:tiple 3300 1-lowport BOO-Ovard 1;u�jq)ort 130fich, C:nIi_fornJa ')2u.0 Dcar ".r. li-YnIll S,ibject: Conmun I Ly Brant ':o. i1eport of ViSit On ]'�'hrunry 13, 19"A., "'.0. :1eb-ccca T'nilite", Vla;%ninq nnel Mprese"WAVO, conductoo an'01-citv totitor- fnj OE tho City of :iu�q�)Ort Dlloc!'. Pro-/ 13,nitas Wot with No, pnt TO;pin A Lho PlansK.-i Unpartmept to rcviuw the following arv= 13) PrOAX prom.'s, (2) proqray beqnUtc, 01 Eqvniv- AcSiMnnm PIP% &:" OP I — raMaLion. nod (41 Citizen PartWpKior Via ; iqPl---OtaniOa- Th, followi, inclueen a suqm%ry og Eindir :9 api re no : 'Anti Op n: I, ro,-, ram (�)� 1LO _�'r Ac-, of Soptember 2-, l9til), th,.� City has Letter of Cj:d,2it of ��322,030- ni:,Pc:e all fulsde: have be)lln ellid" Fj ... )iol. Citin*;t ll'v� b-::(-14: the Cit�ylr pro-..iral; ha.',* Qut af; of rebruary 12, l!"U. Proirari Rencrit Waa I.."011itored the last tw`0 ycarr' an"I if; ill th(.- rogjalations ill nffert at Lim '111*0�:r:!!A W:lf: boi 1.: naci-Ic It. cippfiarn frml n !Ate '..-irit to tile sonici. 'ontor th'it Ull�j votivitY I.-, beinV carrtnd cl�it rub!;tanLicilly 'In oflscrih'�'! in th�: 'tolpliorktioll. Pl.'i'l !Q11AP) 1:U t t ill- I Tiiiq itoil was ill:; o !-�.o:iitorml lart Year with no 'lllbstallLial challo.:t as. 0-' the dat� or t1iic moniwriiiq. Ar indicated ill lart yr,.-Irl!j no-�it.ojil.-!, u.o city ' har: proportio-intolY overcerved Lim n1clerly uilah liLtIv prA)vi,1v-J for 67. It2r!"- -1 - I i r . 2 *I the 11�77 JIAP', the City proposed to use tile sbction e �.xirjtiiirj program r o 1 0 to meaL all of itO falltilY 1101111ilirl 110od— 1.owov.r, tho Jac', of porf r- mance in mootincl those noodo iljdicat,�?z that the low micancy rates wid high rates in tile City makc., it infeasible to tobtlly depend on this prograin. A / If in the future, the City decider-, to ParticiPatc it' tile Beach Grant Prograin, a plan to moet. itr id-3ritifind fa.mily ilou-ine.: noods will have to be sub:;itted- .a - I a od Previous 110'AtOrinrl and revieW Of file tiO inc ic t , that t'Pic, city complicid with thr, -apPlicable Citizon par ticipl tir�rj requirnmenta. it-, tho futuro, tile city will be required cor;-,)lY With D�ction 570.30, "citinon Participation )jequiro:2rmt--," of tile current rr.-�lulations. I -le thalli-, you for your coovc-ration and will contilmiq to �)o available, for technical as needed. If you 11--wo a:,.y quc---tio�lr, please con. - tact Ms. jjcba(:cl 11aniten your CommUllitY Planning xid LOV010P.-.1011t: ROP"l- sentative al- (213)Vill,-52160. r2,r Col;uniunity Planning and Devolopptont c �itos, 9.2CI-11-1 C: �. � I. I./,c on drirp, 9.20-T Robertsl*9.2C X5GGO I 2/19/80J. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 (VERIFICATION — 446.2015.5 C. pe, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF I lan in the above entitled action or proceeding: I have read the and know the content.% thereof: and I certify that the saine is true of at)- own knowledge, except as to those matters which are thereln —r stated upon in.1, lationnation or belief, and a.% to those matters I believe it to be trite. I declare. under penal�v of perjur.r. that the foregoing is true and correct. E.%ertned on fdare) —at (place) California PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013a, 2015.5 C. C. P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY.OF LOS ANGELES I ain a resident qj the county aforesaid, I ton over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action: my business address is: 3535 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90020 September 10 82 PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED' Oil , 19— 1 served t lie within REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS interested parties insaid action, by placing a true copv thereof enclosed it ascaled envelope ivitli postage thereonfidly prepaid, in the United States nudl LOS Angeles; California addressed av fidlolvs: See attached. I (lei -fare. under penalty of perjury. that the foregoing is true and correct. Execiaesdon F,Pptembar —LU-2— at LQ q rs 1 Pq California foute) M. H. PECK SignawN. 1 2 3 4 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD HAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERq Attorneys at Law 611 Anton Boulevard Costa mesa, CA 92626 MICHAEL MILLER City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300*Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 ROBERT K. BREAK WILLIAM M. WYNDER LATHAM & WATKINS 660 Newport Beach Center Drive, Suite 1400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 L 6 mi MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY September 22, 1982 Craig Bluell - Planning To: Jim Hewicker(OBob Lenard, From: Robert H. Burnham - Assistant City Attorney Re: Davis v. CNB Attached to this memo please find a set of Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories propounded to the City of Newport Beach by.the plaintiffs in the above -referenced litigation. We have also4attached a copy of a letter from Leonard Hampel indicating that it is encumbent upon us to promptly prepare preliminary responses so that final answers to the Interroga- tories and Request for Admissions can be served by the October 8. 1982 deadline. I would suggest that we all meet on September 24, 1982, in the afternoon to begin to prepare answers. Please advise if that is convenient. Assistant City Attorney BBB -Davis RUTAN & TuCKER ATTORNCYS AT LAW SHIP CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS A. W RUTANII.DO;197�1 A PARTNER . JAM S 5� TUCKER. S N.1 AMERICAN CITY BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 MILFORD W� DAHL' ROBERT S. DOWER H. RODGER HOWELL' MARCIA A FORSYTH SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER GARVIN F. SHALLENSCROCR' WILLIAM M. MARTICORCHA JAMES R. MOORE, LAWRENCE J. OREYIUSS BOULEVARD ROBERT L. RISLEY' ANNC NELSON LANPHAR 611 ANTON H . L. IMIKQ ..004MICK' PArRICIA L. STEARNS BOX 1950 WILLIAM R. BIEL' .... C. STONE POST OFFICE RICHARD A. CURNUTY' LEONARD A. HAMPEL' WILLIAM J. CAPLAN GARY 1. LAPE COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92626 JOHN .. HURLBUT. JR RANDALL S. WAIER MICHAEL W. IMMCL1- MICHACL T. HORNAK MILFORD W. DAHL. JR.- JANICE L CCLOTTI THEODORE I . WALLACE. JR.- PHILIP . KOH. RICHARD F SINS' JOCL D. KUPC"DrRO MARSHALL M. PEARLMAN' ELIZABETH A. NEALE ROBERT C. ORAL.. SCOTT N. HOYT ROGER A GRAULC' MARY B. MCILLCCC EDWARD 6. 111CS.A. JR AT.R1. L. 1O.IN THOMAS 3� SAL....N. PHILIP C. MAYNARD IS ARRY R. LAUSSCMCR- NIZILA 9, BERNSTEIN DAVID C. LARSEN' DONNA SNOW WOLF CLIFFORD E. rnicocN- DEBRA, DUN. ARTHUR 0. K.O.A.- EVRIDIKI IVACKI) DALLAS .ACHACL 0. RUB'.- STEVEN A. NICHOLS N ARC WINTHROP' DAVID M. GREY I RA 0. IN.I.- HARVEY M. MOORE JcIrkey M. ODER.AN' MAURICE SANCNCZ RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD' BRUCE HALLETT C WOLCOTT. Iff- WILLIAM T. CLIOPOULOS L. PI.C. ERIC R NEWMAN LAWRENCE C. SCATINO. RANDALL M. RABDUSH September 13, 1982 Mr. Mike Miller City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92663-3884 Dear Mike: TELEPHONE (714) 641-5100 92131 625-7506 TELECOPIER (714) 546-903S TWX 010 506-1883 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASC RCrCR TO % C� r r Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Enclosed herein please find another set of Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories. Please cause them to be examined by your office and the Planning Department and preliminary responses prepared for us so that we may answer them by October 8, 1982. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed, please call at your convenience. Very truly yours, RUTAN-& TUCKER Leonard A. H mpel LAH: loh Enclosure 7 9 FA 1 CRYSTAL C. SIMS LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 2 2700 North Main Sireet, 11th Floor Santa Ana, California 92701 3 Telephone: (714) 835-8806 4 RONALD L. ROUDA LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES 5 1544 West 8th,Street ILos Angeles, California 90017 6!Telephone: (213) 381-2131; 385-9691 7'ITOBY J. ROTHSCHILD I. UNDATION OF LONG BEACH IiLEGAL AID FO 811205 East Broadway IlLong Beach, California 90802 91,Telephone: (213) 434-7421 10 ;GREGORY VEACH 11l'iLEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO �:429 Third Avenue jChula Vista, Californi-a 90210 121ITelephone: (714) 722-1935 1311JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER 11RICHARD A. ROTHSCHILD 140WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, 113535 West Sixth Street 15:lLos Angeles, California 90020 IfTelephone: (213) 487-7211 INC. . 161Attorneys fo� Pl,aint-iffs/Petitione'rs 17!!OLIVE DAVIS, ALFREDO ORTIZ, MARIA 11ORTIZ, SHARION GARRISONr DOROTHY 181'McALEAVEY, ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY 111HOUSING CORPORATION IRICHARD W. PETHERBRIDGE 211722 North Broadway I Santa Aria, C,�Jifornia 92706 211,!Telephone: (714) 835-0935 2211Attorney' for Plaintiffs/petitioners 11FRANK H. BARNESp MARION S. BARNES, 231JOSEPH P. BOYLE, and ORANGE COUNTY 24 JFAIR HOUSING Co . UNCIL 25 26 27 28 I CASE NO. 32-95-85 1. 3 4 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 10 1 11 OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARON GARRISON; 12 DOROTHY M. McALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; 1-iARION S. BARNES; 131 JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY 141 COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, a non-profit corporation; 1 ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING 151 COUNCIL, a non-profit 16 corporation, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, 17 V. 18 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY 19 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 20 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE 21 COMPANY, -a corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 22 Defendants/Respondents, 23 24 211 26 27 28 -1- I CASE NO. 32-95-85 PLAINTIFFS',RENEWED REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS A14D SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS I Plaintiffs renew their request that municipal 2 defendants, the City of Newport Beach, the City Council of 3 the City of Newport Beach, and the Planning Commission of the 4 City of Newport Beach, within thirty (30) days after service 5 of this document, answer the following interrogatories and 1 6 request for admissions pursuant to the requirements of Code 7 of Civil Procedure Section 2030 and 2033. 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - Ala I "... A. Instructions: 2 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 27 28 1. Reference to Exhibits 1 through 59 is to the e-.ehibits listed in Revised List of Exhibits in Support. of Motion ,.:or Peremptory Writ of Mandate filed by Petitioners and�dated July 12, 1982. 2. in responding to these interrogatories, you are required to furnish all information that is available to you, including information in the possession of your attorneys, or other persons directly or indirectly employed by or connected with you or your attorneys, and anyone else acting in your behalf or otherwise subject to your control. 3. In responding to these interrogatories, you must make a diligent search of your records and of other papers and materials in your possession or available to',you or your representatives. If you cannot obtain the records or information to answer these interrogatories, you should explain in your answer the circumstances and what has been and is being done to obtain the information. 4. If any documcnt is withheld under claim bf privilege, so as to aid the Court and the parties'liarcto to determine the validity of the claim of privilege, furnish a list signed by the persons supervising your,rcsponse identifying each document for which the privilege is claimed, together with the - following information with respect to cach.such document: -3� 0 I I. I (a) The identity of the person who signed it 2 or over whose name it was sent or issued, including his or her 3 last known business and home address and phone numbers; 4 (b) The business and home addresses and phone 6 numbers of the person to whom it was directed; 7 8 (c) The nature and substance of -the document 9 with sufficient particularity to enable the Court and parties 10 hereto to identify the document; 11 12 (d) The date of the document; 13 14 (e) The identity of the person who has 15 custody of, or con-Erol over, the document and each cop., thereof; 16 17 (f) The basis on which any privilege is Cl aimed; 19 20 (g) w1hether any non-priv.41agod matter is 21 included in the'documcnt'; and 22 23 (h) The number of the interrogatory or 24 request for admission to which such document corresponds. 25 26 B. Definitions: 27 28 1. The term "genuino" as used here in connection -d- 1 with a document means to state, without limit . ation; 2 3 4 6 7 8 12 J'2 (a) That the writing is genuine as that terH is. used in Code Of Civil Procedure 9 2033 and authentic Is that term is used in California Evidence Code § 140'0; anO (b) . That the writirn, in the case of copi i. a true and correct copy of the original. I 2. The term "person" as used herein includes any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, receiver,*joint venture, estate, trust, - association, and ail other forms of entities, including thd parties to this suii: and their officers, 1411 agents, employees and representatives. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. The term "docullient'! as usud herein means any writing and any other tangibic thing in your custody, possession or control or known to �ou,, whather printed, recorded, reproduce by any process, Or written or produced by hand, including but no limited to letters, reports, agreements, communications, includ- ing intra-department communications, correspondence, telegrams, maps,_ memoranda, summaries or recorft of personal conversations, diaries, minutes or records Of meetings, confcrences, expressions or statements of policy, lists of persons attending meetings or statements of policy, lists of persons att,andi�g njectings or conferencest reports, and/or summaries o' f interviews, reports, and/or summaries.of investigations, opini.-)ns or reports of con-:- sultants, brochures, pamphlets, drafts of any documents, -5- &Lek A" revisions of drafts of any 'do cuments, invoices, receipts and original*or preliminary notes. AS to each document, any comment 3 or notation appearing on same but not a part of the original tex 4 is to be considered a separate -document. 5 6 4. The word "identify" when used herein in connec- 7 tion with a person means to state: 8 9 (a) The person's full name; 10 11 (b) The person's last known business and home 12 addresses; 13 14 (c') The person's last known business and home 15 telephone numbers. 16, 17 5. The word "idonti.Ly" when uzod harein in con- 18 nection with a document means to state: 19 20 (a) The date on the document; 21 22 (b) The name and address'of each person who 23 prepar-ed the document; 24 25 (c) The identity of the person to whom the 26 document was directed; 271 28 (d) The name, address, and telephone number AL Q- 1 of the present custodian of'the document; 2' 3 (e) An identifying dcscription of t�a docu- 4 merit; and 51 6 (f If you will do so without requiring a 7 motion to produce, attach to your responses to these interroga- 8 torles a true*and correct copy of each said writing. 9 10 6. "Low and moderate income families" shall have 11 the meaning specified in Health and Safety Code Section 50093. 12 13 7. "Affordable" refers to housing cosi�s which do 14 not exceed 25% of a family's gross income as specified i6 Health 15 and Safety Code Section 50053. 16 1711 8. "The City" means and includes the City of 18 Newport Beach, its City Council and Planning Commission, as well 19 as each and every officer, agent, employee or representative of 20 the City, City Council and Planning Commission. 21 22 9. "citv's Housinci Element" means and' includes the 23 -Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach, 24 adopted by the City on September 1981, by City Resolution 25 No.. 11051. 26 , 1 2711 10. "Each" 'means each and evcry. 2811 // -7- I' �', 1 11. "IICD" mecu is and inciudes the State of Califor- 2 nia Department of Housing and COMMUILity Development, and each 3 officer, agent, employee, or representative of IICD. 4 5 12. "You" shall include your agents, representa- .6 tives and attorneys. 7 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 10 REQUEST rOR AD MISSION' NO. 1: 11 That Exhibit 1 is genuine. 12 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: 14 That Exhibit 2 is genuine. 15 16 REQUEST rOR ADIMISSION 140. 3: 17 That Exhibit 3 is genuine. 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 4: 20 That Exhibit 4 is genuine. 21 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: 23 That Exhibit 5 is genuine. 24 2 5 REGUEST rOR ADMISSION NO. 6: 2B That Exhibit 6 is genuine. 27 28 . I . 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 lu 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: That Exhibit 7 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: That Exhibit 8 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: I That Exhibit 9 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:' That Exhibit 10 is genuine, as to pages 1 through 10 of the May 16, 1979, Minutes of the Newport Bca6h Planning commissi..m. REQUES?' FOR ADIMISSION 110. 11: That Exhibit 11 is gdnuine, cis to Volume 33,. pages 188 to 194, of the Minutes of the Newport Beach City Council. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: That Exhibit 12 is genuine, as to pages I through 14 of the August 16, 1979, Minutes of the Newport Bocch Planning Corrunission. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: That Exhibit 13 is genuine, as to Volume 33, pages 229 to 232, of the Minutes Of tho Newport Boach.City Council. 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: 2' That Exhibit 14 is gcnuific, as to the pages included.' 3, in that exhibA. 4 5 REbUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: 6 That on or about June 24, 1977, the City submitted an 71 application for Community Development Block Grant funds to t1i'e- 8 Department of Housing and Urban Development. W 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: 11 That Exhibit 15 is genuine. 12� 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NOr. 17: 14 That Exhibit 15 was prepared by the City. 151 16 REQUEST FOR AT)LIISSION NO. 18: 17 That Exhibit 17 is genuine. 18 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: 20 1 - That Exhibit 17 was received by Robert L. Wynn on 21 or -about September 17, 1980. 22 23 REQUFST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: 24 That Exhibit 17 was sent or delivered to members of 25 the City of Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission 26 in September or October, 1980. 27 28' I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: 2 That Exhibit 18 is genuine. 3 411 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: That Exhibit 18 was received by Robert Wynn on or about August 23, 1981. 7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: 9 That Exhibit 18 was sent or delivered to members of 10 the City of Newport Beach City Council and Planning �ommlssion 11 in August or September,.1981. 12 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: 14 That Exhibit 22 is genuine. 15 '16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: 17 That Exhibit 22 was received by Robert Tlynn on or 18 about June 17, 1977. 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: 21 That Exhibit 23 is genuine. 22 23 REQUEST FOR AD -MISSION NO. 27: 24 That Exhibit 23 %q as reCeived by Robert Wynn o,, 1 -0 r 25 about March 22, 1978. 27 RtQUEST rOR ADMISSION NO. 29: 28 �hat Exhibit 24 is genuine. -11- 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.-29: 2 That Exhibit 25 is genuine. 3 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: 5 That Exhibit 25 was received by the City on or about 6 September 11, 1979. 7 '7 8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: 9 That Exh.'.L'bit 25 was sent or delivered to each member 10 of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission in September '11 or October, 1979. 12 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.- 32: 14 That Exhibit 26 is genuine. 15 16 REQUEST I -OR ADMISSION NO. 33: 17 That Exhibit, 2G was rcccived by the cj.ty on or about 18 September 19, 1981. 19 20 REQUEST rOR ADMISSION NO. 34: 21 That Exhibit 26 was sent or delivered to members of 221 the City Council of the City of Newport Beach prior to septem- 23 ber 28, 1981. 24 25 REQUEST POR ADMISSION NO. 35: 26 That Exhibit 29 is genuine. 27 /A 28 -J-)- 2 3 4 6 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIOIT No. 36': T . hat Exhibit 29 was sent or delivered . to members of the City of Newport Beach Prior to March 8t the City Council Of .71 8 .9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181 19 20 21 22 19.82. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: the That Exhibit �O is a true,and Correct copy of he City of NeWPOrt'Beach General Plant Land Use Elemen� Of t ouncIl on May 29, j973, as amended through adopted by the City C General Plan Amendment So-1, adopted march 24, 1980- 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 38: That Exhibit 32AS genuine. 3 V%VJN REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: That Exhibit 33, as 110tice dated May 7, Judicial ? pages 96 through 102, of the cOrj:ectcd in the Request for Taking 1982, is genuine as�tO Volume '16, . -jutes of th e City Council Of the mi, City of Newport Beach- r�EQUEST �FOR ADMISSIO-14 NO. 40: That Exhibit 34 is genuine. REQurST rOR. ADMISS-1012 No. 41: Tha:t Exhibit 35 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMiSSION NO. 42': That Exhibit 36 is genuine. . I - -13- I % "fA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 1 101 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISS1014 NO. 43: That Exhibit 37 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Tiat the only amandmants to the Land Use rlen-ent adopted by the City since the adoption of General Plan Amendment 80-1 have been General Plan Amendment 80-2, adopted September 22, 1980, and' contained in Exhibit 32, and General Plan Amendment 81-1, adopted March 12, 1982, and contained in Exhibit 36. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: That Exhibit 38 is genuine. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: That Exhibit 38 was prepared pur-luant to an agreement or contract with the City. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: That the City. Council of the City of Newport Beach approved the preparation of Exhibit 38. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: That Exhibit 38 was sent to or delivered to each of the members of the City Council o-f the City of Nowport Beach. REQUEST FOR ADMIS51ON NO. 49: That Exhibit 40 is *genuine. 1 REQT-EST FOR ADMISSION NO. *50: 21 That Exhibit 40 was sent or delivered to each member 31 of the city Council of the City of Newport Beach prior to 4 "anuary 9, 1978. 5 611 REQUEST rOR, ADMISSION NO* 51: 71 That Exhibit 41 is genuine. 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: 10 That Exhibit 41 was sent or delivered to each member .11 of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach on or about 12 October 16, 1978. 13 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.-5-11: 15 That the City of Newport Beach participated in the 16 Co.mmunity Development Block Grant Program for the years 1975 17 1 through 1977. ill 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: 20 That the City of Newport reach has not participated 21 in the Community Development Block Grant Program from 1978 to 22 present. 23 24 REQUEST rOR ADMISSION 1-70. 55: 25 - That the letter from Herbort L. Roberts to Mayor Paul 26 Ryckoff, dated September 18, 1978, was 6ent or delivered to each 27 momber of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach on or 28 before 0�1,tobe-- 16r 1978. Lila 662) 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: 2 That.the City Council of the City of Newport Beach 3 voted not to participate in the Community Development Block 4 Grant Program for 1978; 1979, 1980, and 1981. 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57: 7 Tha� the City ieccived Exhibit 43, excluding the letter from 8 John if. Gibson to Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, in February or March, 19 1 1982. 0 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: '12 That the City c�f Newport Beach has not �signed a 13 cooperative agreement with the County of Orange in-c8nnection 14 with the mortgage revenue bond issuc! referred to in Exhibit 43. 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59: 17 That Exhibit 43, excluding the letter from John H. 18 Gibson to Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwor, is genuine. 19 20 REQUEST.FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: 21 That Exhibit 44 is genuine as to items 1, 2 and 3 22 referred to in the letter from Mark Pizano to the Planning 23 commissioner dated October 8t 1981. 24 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61: 26 That Exhibit 45 is genuinc. 27 28 -16- I REQUEST rOR ADMISSION NO. 62: 2' That the City of Newport Beach received Exhibits 44 and 3 45 in October, 1981. 4 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: 6 That Exhibit 48 which is attached to Request for Takina 7 Judicial Notice, dated May 7, 1982, is genuine. 8 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: 10 That Exhibit 54 is gcnU4nc as to the excerpts contained 11 -therein. 12 13 REQUEST FOR ADMTSSIONT NO. 65: 14 That Exhibit 55 is genuine as to Volume 35, pages 119 15 to 126 and 2018 to 302, oL- the lhlinutas of the City Council of the 16 City of Newport Beach. 17 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66: 19 That Exhibit 56 is genuine �js to excerpts contained 2011 therein. 21 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. "07: 23 That Exhibit 57 is genuine. 24 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: 26 That Exhibit 60 is genuine as to Volume '116, pages 175 27. to 177, of the Minutes of the City Council of the City of Newport 281 Beach. -17- 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69: 2 That the City of Newport Deach received on or about 3 April 13, 19811 the letter from Eugene R. Scorio to the Honoral 4 Jacqueline Heather,. dated April 6, 1981, togethur with call of 5 tI ie attachments contained cis Exhibit A to the Declaration of 6 Eugene R. Sporio, dated April 5, 1982, and submitted by peti- 7 tioners in this case. 1.1 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSYON NO. 70: 10 That the letter by Eugene R. ScOrio to the Honorable 11 Jacqueline Heather, dated April. 6, 1981, and the attach:-.ients, 12 referred to in the previ ous Request for Admissiolls, is genuine. 13 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71: 15 That the memorandum from City Manager to 14ayor and 16 City Council dated April 27, 1981, Find attache.! as Exhibit B 17 1 1 to the Doc laration of EugDne Scorio, dated Ppril 5, 1982, is genuina. 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72: 201 That * the letter from Bill. McCue to Mayor Marlene M. 21 Dostil, dated July 26, 1977, and attached as Exhiliit B to the 22 D-mclaration of Eugene Scorio, dated knril 5, 1982, is genuine, 23 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO'. 73: 25 That the letter from Robert L. Wynn to. Bill McCue, 26 dated August 4, 1977, and a.ttachod as Exhibit E.to the Declara- ated April 5, 1D082, is qcnuinc. 27 tion of Eugene Scorio, & 28 Kill 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74: 2 That the memorandum from the Fair Housing Council to 3 City of Newport Beach, dated November.91 1977; and attached as 4 Eybibit F to the Daclaration of Eugene Scorio, dated hpril 5, 1982, is genuin 5 6 REQUEST FOR AD14ISSION NO. 75: 7 That Exhibit F attached to the Declaration of Eugene 8 Scorio, dated April 51 19.82, was received by the City of Newport 9 Beach in November, 1977. 10 11 REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76: 12 The City Council of the City of Newport Beach did not 13 approve a request by the Fair Housing Council for.$586.00 to 14 support the Fair Housing Forum, as that request is contained in 15 Exhibit F to the Declaration of Eugene Scorio, dated April 5, 16 1962. 17 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77: 19 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach 20 has never approved membership by the City of Newport Beach in 21 the Orange County Fair Housing Council. 22 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78: 24 That the City Council 6f the city of Newport Beach 2� has never adopted a. resolution commending the orange County 26 Fair Housing Council. 27 28 -19- X&A I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79 2 That the City Council of the City of'Newport Beach has- 3 1 never entered i . nto a contract with the Orange County Fair Housing 4 Council for services performed by the Orange County Fair Housing 5 Council. 6 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80: 8 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has 9 never appropriated any money to the Orange County Fair Housing 10 Council. 11 1 12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81: 13 That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach did 1 14 not make any appropriation of money to the Ori)nge County Fair 15 Housing Council in response to the letter of April 1981, from 16 Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Hapthar, attached to 17 the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April 5, 1982. 19 REQUEST rOR ADMISSION NO. 82: 20 That the Orange Co unty Fair Housing Cotincil provides 21 counseling, conciliation -and mediation services for dealing with 22 racial discrimination complaints concerning housing in the 23 County' of orange. 24 2511 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83: 26 That the City of Newport Boach-has no fadtual basis 27 for disputing the figures contained in Exhibit 8 to the April 6, 28 1981, letter from' Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline 1 Heather,. attached to the Dec'laration of Eugene R. Scorio dated 2 April. 5, 1982. 3 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 84: 5 That the City of Newport Beach Ooos not provide the 6 services that the Orange County Fair Housing Council has been 7 rendering to the residents of the City. 8 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 85: 10 That the Orange Count., Fair Housing Council provides 11 the services listed on Exhibit 9 of the April 6, 1981, letter 12 from Eugene R. Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Heather 13 attached to the Declarat7ion of Eugene R. Scorio, date�d April 5, 141 1982. 15 16 MQUEST FOR ADMISSION 140. 8G: 17 That the provision by the City of Newport Be�,Ich of 13 services comparable to those being provided by the Orange County 19 Fair Housing Council to residents of the City of Newport Beach, 20 as' 'Itemized on Exhibit 8 to th'e April 6, 1981, letter from 21 Eugene R. Scorio to the flonorab1c Jacqueline Huather, attachad 22 to the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April 5, 19832, 23 would cost the City of Newport Beach in excess of $20,000 per 24 year. 25 2611 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 87: 27 That the provision by the Ci`�y of Newport Beach of 28 -services comparz.b1c to those being provided by the Orange County -21- C 1 2 . 3 4 10 11 12 13 3.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fair Housing Council to residents of the City of Newport Beach, as itemized on.Exhibit 8 to the April G, 1981, letter from Eugene R. ' Scorio to the Honorable Jacqueline Heather, attached to..the Declaration of Eugene R. Scorio, dated April S. 1982, would cost the City of Newport Beach in excess of $100,000 per I year. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 88: That the 3-5% residential impact fee on commercial building permit fees, as proposed in the City's Housing Element, page 108, would generate $43 to $72' on a cornmmerc��al structure valued at �500,000, or $155 to $259 on a commercial structure valued at $2,000,000. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION ON. 89: That the allowable densities of development an all undevelo�o.d sites in the City, excluding Newport Center, and �he Beeco' Property, are four dwelling units per acre. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90: That Newport Center contains the only site -in the City which is presently permitted to be developed at residential densities in excess of 1.2 dwelling units per acre. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 91: That the City has' more thai'i,297 acres of undeveloped land in the City.. - -22- 3,11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 92: 2 That the 297 acres of non -committed undeveloped land 3 ci�ed at page 116 of the Housing Element, refers to land currently designated 4 for residential use by. the City's land use regulations, and does not include 5 remaining undeveloped land which is designateei for other than 6 residential uses by the City's land use regulations. 7 11 8 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93A: 9 1 That the site numbers listed on pages 49 and 50 10 of the City's Housing Element correspond tc. the site numbers 11 and parcel names attached hereto as Exhibit 66, whibh is a 12 copy of the document of the -City of Newpo::t Beach entitled 13 Undeveloped Parcels, September 1980. 14 1511 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93B: 16 That Exhibit 66, attached hereto is genuine. 17 18 REQUESTS FOR AD14ISSIONS NOS. 94 to No. 134 refer to the site 19 numbers in Exhibit 66, attached hereto. 20 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 94: 22 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 23 built on Site No. 1 under the current Land Use Element is 40. 24 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 95: 26 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 27 built on Site, No. 1-immediately prior to the adoption of 28 General Pla'n Amena&ent" 7§-1 was 348 dwelling units. 10, DL -3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REOUDST-FOR ADMISSION NO. 96: Ar, That -the number of dwelling units allowed to be Y built on Site No. 1 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 78-2 was 42G dwelling units. I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 97: That the nu,,rJ*.)or of dwelling units allowed to be 131A built on Site No. 2 under the current Land Use Element is 24 dwelling units which arc transferred as a credit to Site No. 26. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.- 98: That the nuTber of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 2 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 42 Owalling units. REQUEST :�Ojl ADMISSION NO. 99: Th at the number of dwerling units allowed to be built on Site No. 2 immediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 84 dwelling units. L 1& REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 100: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be eWtv3 e4e,,, pj p) built on Site No. 3 under the current Land Use Element is 212 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 101: That the 'ri - umber.of dwclling units allowed to be built on Site No. 3 immediately prior to the adoption of 2 General Plan Am�,ndment 79-1 was 440 dwelling units. 3 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 102: 5 That the number of dwelling uni�s allowed to be 6 built on Site No. 3 immediately prior to the adoption of 7 General Plan Amendment'78-2 was 704 dwelling units. 9 RDQUEST-FOR ADMISSION NO. 303: 10 That the number of dwelling units allowed to T be B (2, 4 10 3.1 built on Site No. 4 under the current Land Use Element is 12 80 dwelling units. 3.3 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 104: 15 That the number of dwelling units allov.,ed to i be 16 built on Site No. 4 immediately prior to the adoption of 17 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 160 dwelling units. .19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 105: 20 That the'number of dwelling units allowed to be 21 built on Site No. 4 immediately prior to the adoption of 22 General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 3.38 dwelli.ng units. 23 '14 2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 106: 25 That the number of dwelling unLts allowed -to be 26 O'd q - .. 4 6-wo "4 built on Site Noo 5 under the current Land Use Element is 27 151 dwelling units.. 28 -25- RP.Q17EST FOR ADMISSION NO. 107: That the humber of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 5 immediately prior to the adoption of 4 Gefieral Plan Amendment 79-1 was 325 dwelling 4- units. oo A 1 A 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 108: 7 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 8 built on Site No. 5 inLmediately prior to the adoption of 9 General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 320-dwelling units. 10 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 109: 12 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 13 built on site No. 6 under the current Land Use Element is 14 11 108 dwelling units. 15 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1.10: 17 That the number of dwelling units allowed tofie 18 built on Site No. 6 immediately prior to the adoption of 19 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 198 dwelling units. 20 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 311: Z� 22 That the number of'units allowed to be built on Fv-C4 Cok 23 Site No. 8 under the current Land -Use Element is 76 dwelling 24 11 units. 25 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 112: 27 That t�e number of dwelling units allowed to be 28 built on Site Nb. 8 immediately prior to the a6option of General -26- Plan Amendment 79-1 was 100 dwelling units. 3. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 113: 4 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 8 immediately prior to the adoption of General Pla� Amendment 78-2 was 290 dwelling units. 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 114: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 10 built on Sitp No. 9 under the current Land Use Element is 11 68 dwelling units. 12 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 115: 14 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be is built on Site No. 9- immediately prior to the adoption of 3.6 General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 140 dwelling units. 17 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 116: 19 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 20 bu*ilt on Site No. 9 immediately prior to the adoption of 21 General Plan Amendment 78-2 was 147 dwelling units. 23 REQUEsT� FOR ADMISSION NO. 117: 24 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be .25 built on Site-W6. 12 under the current Land Use Element is 26 406 dwelling units'. 27 28 -'27- I- 'A, 1 2 5 6 7 10 11 1 13 14 15 1G 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 118: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be 13 e ptco built on Site No. 12 immediately prior to the* adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 900 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 119: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on Site No. 13 under the current Land Use Element is 300 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 120: That on May 16, 1979, the Planning Commis sibn of the City of Newport Beach approved the development of 610 dwelling units on Site No. 13. REQUEST. FOR ADMISSION NO. 121: That on May 16, 1979, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach approved the development of 610 dwelling units on Site No. 13, of which 132 dwelling units were required to be rental as opposed to ownership units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 122: r That on July 10, 1979 the City Council of the City of Newport Beach disapproved the development of 450 d%.qelling units on Site No. 13. C 4L� CY, 51 .0 -10 Ir t9 n,� F -28; 3 7 8 41 10 11 12 13 14 15 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 127: a" Of&_J1P-J'4 - That-Sit44 No. 15 �as designated as Recreational and Marine Commercial immediately prior to the adoption of G,neral Plan Amendment 78-2. I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 128: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be _10� rA WOUS4 W1 uny" built On Site Nb. 16 under the current Land Use Elgment is 0. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO! 129: That the numbeY of dwelling units allowed to be built on site No. 16 i=xediately prior to the adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1 was 145 dwelling unin. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 130: TThat the number of dwelling units allowed to be built on JIM No. 22 under the current Land Use Element is 120 dwelling units. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 131: That the number of dwelling units allowed to be Ot"P,4 r_4v, built on Site No. 26 under the current Land Use Element is 505 dwelling units, of which 121 dwelling units are credited from Site.No. 1 and 24 dwelling units are credited -from Site No. Z. FAMA -30;- I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 132: 2 41 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be f pjawrevt t,4%e 3. built on Site No. 26 immediately prior to the adoption of 4 Gen,eral Plan Amendment 79-1 was 339 dwellin units. -3 REQUEST rOR.ADMISSION NO. 133: 7 That the number of dwelling units allowed to be A ecV, I$ V � ct'� 8 built on site No. 26 as a result of the adoption of Creneral 9 Plan Amendment 78-2 was 538 divelling units. 10 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 134: 12 That on October 19, 1978, the Planning Commission 13 of the City of Newport Be�Lch recommcnded to the city Co'uncil of 14 the City of Newport Beach that the number of dwelling units 15 allowed to be built on Site No. 26 be 800 dwelling units. 16 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION -NO.. 135: IS -0� That the City Council of.the' Cit'y of Newport Beach ig has never approved for placement on a municipal hallot the 20 approval of a low rent housing project under Article 'XXXIV 21 of the California Constitution. 22 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 136: 24 �% That Exhibit 67 attached 1�creto is genuine. 25 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 137: 27 1 That the funds available to the City of Newport 28 .-each Under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 as amended,' can be used by the City for subsidizing the cost of land on housing to be occupied by low and moderate income persons. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 138: 1 That only one housing project under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 has been approved for development in the City of Newport Beach. . Kot imot("� 5 �11 11 T REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 139: That the Section 8 housing project referred to in the previous request for admission was a project sponsored by the Lutheran Church of the Master and was a project for housing low and moderate income senior citizens. If you fail to comply with the provisions of Section 2033 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to this Request for Admissions, each of the matters of which an admission is requested will be deemed admitted. 32. N I 2 3 4 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 , and, (c) Identify, as that term is used in Definition No. 4 above, all persons possessing knowledge of facts relevant to your answer to sub -part (a) of this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO'. 2: Has the City*of Newport Beach entered into any agreement with the Orange County Housing Authority regarding the implementation of Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 within the City of Newport Beach. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: if the answer to Interrogatory No. 2 is a:nylthing but an unqualified no, then state the following: 1. Iden�Eify any documents which embody such an agreement. 2. State whether such an agreement applies to existing housing, or to newly constructed housing, or to both. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Has the City of Newport Beach supported in any way the Minority Bank Deposit Program which is administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 4 is anything but an unqualifie.d no, please state: 1. Identify any documents which embody such support. .33- LUX I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 3.2 13 14 1, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 2. State any actions taken by the City in support of the Minority Bank Deposit Program. INTERROGATORY NO.V6: flas.the City of Newport Beach undertaken any' affirmative efforts to utilize minority businesses in any work contracted by the -City. INTERROGA . TORY NO P7. If the answcr to Interrogatory No. 6 is anything but an unqualified no, please state the following: 1. Identify any documents which embody the affirmative actions. 2. State the nature of such affirmat4.ve action. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify all actions taken by the.C-.ty of Nc%..,port Beach within the past ten years to promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital. status, ancestry, national origin, or color. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify any elected officials of the City of Newport Beach who knew prior to Septomber 28, 1981 that some of the residential housing in the City iF. built on land leased from The Irvine Company. -34- INTERROGATORY NO. 10: identify the elected officials of the City of 2 3 Newport Beach who knew prior to September 28, 1981 that lease 4 payments on residential land owned by The Irvine Company and leased to residents of the City would increase in the next 6 five years. 7 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 9 As to each of the -officials identified in 10 Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 10, state the following: 11 1. Identify the -bases or sources for their 12 information. 13 2. Identify the nature of such information known 14 to each of them prior to September 28, 1981. 15 3. Identify the approximate date or dates on 16 which such information was acquired. 17 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 19 Identify whether any of the following of the City 20 employees, or categories of City employees knew prior to 21 September 28, 1981 that some of the residential housing in 22 the City was built on land leased from The Irvine Company: 23" 1. The City Manager. . 24 2. The Planning Director. 25 3. Any of the non-clorical and non -secretarial 25 staff -of the Planning Department of the,City. 27 -35- 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify whether any of tile City employees listed in Interrogatory No. 12 knew prior to Sep�ember 23, 1931 that lease payments on resid-2ntial land owned by The Irvine Company and leasod'to' residents o'L' the City would increa�se in the next five years. 1�- INTERROGATORY NO. 14: As to each of the employees of tho City identified in Interrogatories 12 and 13, state the following: 1. Identify such employee by name and Position. 2. Identify the bases or sourc3s for their information. 3. . Identify the nature of such information known to each of them Prior 'to September 2 8, 1981. 4. Identify the approximate da�c or dates oil which such information was acquired. INTERROGATORY NO. U:2 Y NO 11s he City ever suPpOl.-ted W1 aPPlication by the Southern California Associat�jolj of Government to thic' Department of Housing and Urban Developinont for Bonus' Units tinder the Area Wide Supplemental Section 8 11ousing Program. INTERROGATORY -NO. 1 If t e answer to *Illtcrr0g,'lt0ry No. 15 *is allything but an unqualified no, Please state tile following; .1. Identify any documents which embody the City's �3G, I support. 2. Identify any other means by which the City 3. contends it has supported the actions specified in Interrogatory 4 No.. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: State each fact and identify each document 8 which you contend supports the City's adoption of Resolution 9 No.. 8630, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 26, adopted 10 November 10, 1975. 3.1 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 13 State eachffact and identify each document 14 which the City contends supports its adoption of Res'olution 15 No. 9485, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 78-2, adopted 16 December 20, 1978, in regard to the following sites enumerated 17 in Exhibit 66, attached hereto: 3.8 1. Site No. 1, westbay. 3.9 2. Site No. 2, Eastbluff Reinanent. P, 0 3. Site No. 3, Newportor North. 21 4. Site No. 4, Big Canyon (Area 10) t 22 5. Site No. 8, Freeway Reservation East. P, 3 6. Site No. 9, Baywood Expansion. 24 7. Site No. 15, Bayview Landing. 25 8. Site No. 26, Newport Center. 27 INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 28 State each fact and idontify each document which -37- I phe City contends supports its adoption, of Resolution No. 9699, 2 adopting General Plan Amendment 79-1, adopted December 10, 1979�1 3 as to each of the following sites, as enumerated in Exhibit 66, 4 attached hereto: 5 1. Site No. 1, Westbay. 6 1 2. Site No. 2, Eastbluff Remanent. 7 3. Site No: 3, Newporter North. 4. Site No. 4, Big Canyon (Area 10). 9 5. Site No. 5, Castaways. 10 6. Site No. 6, Fifth Avenue Corridor Parcels, 3.1 also known as Fifth Avenue Parcels. 3.2 7. Site No. 9, BayWood Expansion. 13 8. Site No. 12, Beeco Property. 14 9. Site No. 13, Acronutronic Ford. 3.5 10. Site No. 15, Bayvic%.; Landing. 16 11. Site No. 16, Mouth of Big Canyon. 17 12. Site No. 22, North Ford. is 13. Site No. 26, Newport Center. 19 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 21 State each fact'and identify each docui4.cnt which 22 the City contends supports the disapproval by the City Council 23 of the City on July 10, 1979, of the development of 450 24 dwelling units on Site No: 13 as identified on Exhibit 66, 25 attached hereto. 26 27 INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 23 State each fact and identify each document which -38- I z 2 0 4 10 11 12 13 14; 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 re.of the City council he City contends supports the failu -he development of 610 dwelling units f the City to approve t ended by the planning Commission )n Site NO- 13, as recOmm of th . e City on May 16, 1979. site No. 13 is the Aer.onutronic rord site as identified on Exhibit 66, attached hereto. 110. 22, INTr MOGATO��R�Y State each fact and identify each document which the City . contends.sUPPOrts . its failure to approve the development ommended by the Planning Commission on site No- 13r as rec ite 13 . is identified on Exhibit 66j- on August 16, 1979. S attached hereto. 24 25 26 28 INTERROGATORY NO- 23: entify each document which State each. fact and id Orts the action by the CitY Council of the City contends suPP the City on Ijugust 27, 1979, approving the dlvelOPment O.n without any requirements site No. 13 of 300 dwelling unit' as to dwelling units affordable to either low or moderate identified on Exhibit 66, Site I�o. 13 is income families - attached hereto. INTER �0�)GIAVTXOIRYYNNO_ 2244: id;-,nt-4fY each document which State each fact and ly for community the city contends supports its failure to aPP ment . of Housing development . block grant funds from th0,5opart years 1978, 19791 and Urban Development for the federal fiscal 1980, a'nd'1981- �39_ 1. I I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 P12 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 25: State each fact and idontiJy each document which the City contends supports the failure by the City Council of the City to do any of the following in relation to the Orange County Fair Housing Council: 1. Approve membership by the City in the Orange County Fair Housing Council. 2. Adopt any resolution commonding the Orange County Fair Housing Council. 3. Contribute any money to the Orange County Fair Housing Council. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: State each fact and identify each document which the City contends supports the failure by the City Council of the City to approve the signing of a cooperative agreement between the City and the County of Orange in -connection with the mortgage revenue bond issue referred to in Exhibit 43. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: State each fact and'identify each document which the City contends supports the failure of the City Council c, f t�e City to approve for placemo.nt on a municipal ballot the approval of a low rent housing pr6ject under Article XXXIV of the California Constitution. INTERROGATORY NO - Identify the precise meaning of the word committed .140- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 23 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2i for each of the parcels as to which it is used on pages 124*, and 125 of the Houilnq Element,,and in particula,4 specify whether it means that a tentative or final subdivision map"has been approved for that parcel or whether any other'devalqpment approvali have,been made for that parcel. INTEPROGATORY NO. Y- m)'P, C49 ro L/4'1� LO -L --�> �34 61(14 wrn"�s As to the parcels identifil4d in Interrogatory No. 28 identify the particular use to which such parcel has'been committed and identify any document which supp6rtz the City�'$ contention that such parcel is committed.to such use. INTERROGATORY NO. n3O-- Has the City prepared or contracted fbr the prepara-.. tion of any study or document which(amend� r modifies the study embodied in Exhibit 38. if so, please identjrfy each such document. C171 CY DATED: September 10, 1982 U / '6e-/ torneys for PlaintiffEV -41. n LM, @ HOW[OD@T� t Site Number 1 . 2. 3. 4-. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. ?5. 26, 27. 28. 29. UNDEVELOPED PARCELS Parcel Wes tb�ay Eastbluff Remnant Newporter North Big Canyon Area 10 Cas taways Fifth Avenue*Corridor Parcels Freeway Reservation West Freeway Reservation Last Baywood Expansion Caltrans West Caltrans East Beeco Aeronutronic Ford Harbor Point Bayview Landing Mouth of Big Canyon Koll Center Emkay--Newport Place Jamboree and MacAr&r San Diego Creek North San Dieao Creek South North F�rd. Newport Dunes Buck Gully Dean Property Newport Center North Bay (unincorporated) Irvine Coastal Area (unincorporated) Beeco (unincorporated) SITE # 1 VIESTBAY General Plan De.signation: Low Density Re'sidential/Density Transfer Area 2. Existin*g Zoning:. Planned Community (No development plan adopted) 3. Si te Area: 71 Acres . 4. Allowable Uses: Low Density Residential at 4 DU's per buildable 'acre with 75% of the units to be transferred to Hlewport Center. It is estimated that 161 units could be built as follows: a) On -Site 40 DU's b) Off -Site 121 DU's .The site also includes a 6.4 acre County - owned parcel at the southern end and a 6.0 acre City park near the e.xtension of Monte Vista, ded * icated as a part of the Sea Island UN]YEr."try P Condominium Project: There is a ten -foot wide relocatable pedestrian and bike easement along the bluff top with access frdm Irvine. Avenue and University Drive.- ur".m NsWrWzr ONY Ti mi n q: No immediate plans for development. Ash SITE 2 EASTBLUFF REMNANT I.. General PI an Designation: Low Density Residential�Density Transfer Area 2. Existing Zoning: R-3-B 3. Site Area:' 8 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Recreational and Environmental Open SRace uses would be allowed on this site, with all developmeni rights transferred to Newport Center. It is estimated that 24 units could be built as follows: On -Site 0 DU's Off -Site 24 DU's 5. Timing: No immediate plans for development. NeWP%)&-r SITE 13 NEWPORTER NORTH General Plan Des_ignation: Low -Density Residential. . I 2. Existing Zoning: Planned'Community (P-C) 3. Site Area: 88 Acres .4. Allowable Uses: Low -density residential development at 4 DU's per buildable acre with 25% of the allowable units transferable to either Newport C , enter or North Ford at the option of the property owner. Additionally, the structures shall be clustered to accommodate archaeological sites and marsh sites. It is estimated that approximately 212 -DU's could be built. 5. jiming: No immediate plans for development. I SITE 1/4:, BIG,CANYON - AREA 10 General Plan Designation: Medium Density Resi den ti a I wi th a maximum of 80 d�elling uni.ts. 2. Existing Zon . ing: Planned Community with 'adopted P-c Development Text. 3. Site Area: 15 Acres 4'. Alloiqable Uses: Medium Densi ty Residential uses wi th a maximum of 80 dwelling units. S. Ti mi ng: Planning Commission public hearings scheduled for Fall 1980. Possible construction by_Spring 1981. SITE #5 General Plan Designation: CASTAWAYS The northerly 60 acres of the site is designated for "Low Density Residential" at 4 DU's per build- able acre. The southerly 5 acres of the site is designated for "Recreation and Marine Commercfal. Uses" with the exception of hotels and motels. 2. - Existing Zoning: Planned Community (no adopted P-C Text) 3. Site, Area: 65 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Lbw Density Residential development at 4 DU's per buildable acre. -It is estimated that 151 dwelling units could be buil t. A ten foot by 50 foot relocatable pedestrian and bike trail easement has been granted on the site. The trail is located along the bluff top from Polaris Drive to a point fifty feet to the south. Recreation and marine Commercial uses (exclusing Hotels and Motels) on 1 5 acres. It is estimated that 40,'000 sq. f�. of develop- ment will ocbur. 5. Timing: Applications are being pro-- cessed and construction coulc begin -in 1981. L-A SITE #6 5th AVENUE PARCE-LS General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential at 4 DU's per buildable acre. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community and R-1-8 3. Site Area: 35 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Low Density Residential uses At 4 DU's per buildable acre, approximately 108 dwelling units would be allowed. 5. Timing:- No immediate plans for L SITE # 7 FkEEWAY RESERVATION -WEST General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space 2. Existing' Zoning: P-C No development text 3. Site Area: 10 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: The Land Use E I emen t a 11 oca tes an addi ti on� I 100 units to Big Canyon which could be al- located to this site, subject to a P-C text and L/U Map Amendment. 5. Timing: . No immediate plans for development. t a SITE # 8 F�EEWAY RESERVATJON-EAST General Plan Designation: Low Den'sity Residential wi th a maximum of 4 DU's per buildable acre. 2. Existing Zoning: PIC 3. Site Area: 25 Acres. 4.' Allowable Uses: Residential with a maximum of 4 DU's Oer buildable acre. It is estimated that 76 DU's could be built on this site. 5. Tim.ing: No immediate plans for development. SITE #9 BAY1400D EXPANSION General'Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 68 dwelling units. Existing Zoning: Planned Community 3. Site Area: 9 Acres -4. Allowable Uses: Residential 'Wi th a max.imum of 68 dwell'ing units. 5. Timing: Spring 1981 construction. fCD 9", tj A LA SITE CALTRANS WEST General Plan Designation: Recreational a0d Envir6nmental Open Space 2. Existing Zoning: Open Space 3. Site Area: 17 Acres 4. Allowable -Uses: Open Space -Oses. 5. Timing: No imme-diate plans for development. sr, 31AZIF If A/ t .Nk SITE # 11 CALTRANS EAST General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified 3. Site Area: 22 Acres -4. - Allowable Uses: Parking, puSlic recreational and visual - environmental purposes. I 5. Timing: Hoag Hospital is negotiating with the State to purchase this parcel for expansion of hospital facilities. If the purchase occurs, it is anticipated that the General Plan would be amended to accommodate this expansion. Ot \6 IV �7 U . aALZZ-�- �_ SITE #12 BEECO General'Pl . an Designation: Low Density Residential/Spqcific Area Plan. 2. Existing Zoning: P-C 3. Site Area So Acres 4. 'Allowable Uses: Residential at-4 DU s per buildable acre. It is estimated that 150 dwelling units could be built on the 'site. 5. Ti mi n g: The property owner is considering a request to change the designation of this site to allow for a mixture of Industrial and office Uses. There are no immediate plaqs for development. op� V%& ql-o - M iA§U SITE, #13 ..AERONUTROWIC FORD General Plan Designation: General Industry, Admini-strative, Professional and Financial Com- mercial, and Residential 2. Existing Zoning: P-C 3. Site Area: 102 Acres (Undeveloped) 4. Allowable.Uses: Additional d evelopment is limited to: Office and Industrial 360,000 Residential 300 units 5. Ti mi n g: Residential 300 Units 1981 Office and Industrial 64,000 sq.ft. 1981 123,000 sq.ft. 1983 123,000 sq.ft. 1986 25,000 sq.ft. 19 90 25,000 sq.ft. 1992 'Fr.V-V Kr". Q_b SITE #14 HARBOR POINT I . GL-neral Plan Designation: Low -Density Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: R-l-B 3. Site Area: .10.6 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Low -Density Residential 5. Timing: The City is currently processing a Final Tract Map for twenty-one lots. Construction should begin in the spring of 1981. I SITE #15 BAYVIEW LANDING General Plan' Designation: Recreation . and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) 3. Site Area: 19 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Recreation and Environmental Open Space for public recreation uses with a view park and bike path on upper portion and R-V camping on the lower portion, or similar recreational uses of no greater intensity. As an alternate, use, Low. Density Residential development at a maximum of 4 DU's per buildable acre may be located on the lower portion.of the site only to preserve existing public views. 5. Timing No immediate plans for development. P'AC-IFIr- SITE #16 MOUTH OF BIG CA14YO14 General Plan Designation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space. 2. Existing Zoning: -Unclassified (U) 3. Site'Area: 48.5 Acres 4.* Allowable Uses: Open Space. Two relocatable ten-foo,t Wide pedestrian and bike trail easements have been granted on this site. One trail is )n the north side of tbe si te, the other on the south -side; both trails extend from Jamboree Road to Back Bay Drive. 5. . Timing: No plan for site improvement is being considered. AWA AdM SITE #17 General Plan Designation KOLL CENTER Go ve rnmen t, Educa ti ona I and Ins ti tu- tional Facilities; Administrative, Professional and Financial Com- mercial; Retail and Service Com- mercial ; and General Industry. 2. Existing Zoning: P-C (with adopted development text). .3. Site Area: 159 Acres, approximately 34.7 acres vacant (excluding cou.r'thouse site). 4. Allowable Uses: Office Site A Office Restaurant Re tai I Hotel Office Site 8 Office, Restaurant Office Site C Office Office SAte D Office Office Site E Office Future 'development is limited as follows: 10,198 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 440 rooms (subject to Use Permit) 200,685 sq.ft. 7,000 sq.ft. 358,200 scl.ft. 93,051 sq.ft. 5,725 sq.ft. I SITE #17 KOLL CE14TER (Cont. Page 2) Office Site F -0- Office Site G ._O_ Retail Site. 1 Office 20,000 sq.ft. Retail 60,120 sq.ft. industrial Sites 1 & 2 Industrial 31,775 sq.ft. Orange Count� Courthouse 25,625'sq.ft. Koll Center Total Office 687,859 sq.ft. Restaurant 12,000 sq.ft. Retail 60,120 sq.ft. Industrial 31,775 sq.ft. Courthouse 25,625 sq.ft. ... 817,379 sq.ft. Hotel :E440 rooms (subject to Use Permit) 5. Timing: A Development Phasing Plan has been adopted for �Office Site C allowing 100,'000 sq.ft. in 1981 and 132,830 sq.ft. in 1982. A Phasing Plan is currently under consideration for the remaining Kol I /Aetna -owned property and to revise The I-rvi.ne Company -owned Block C. I 0 4 - . SITE #18-- EMKAY - EWPORT PLACE General Plan Designation: Administrative, P-rofessional and Financial Commercial , General Industry, and Retail and Service Commercial. 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - with adopted development text. '3. Si I te Area: 145 Acres, approximately 20 acres vacant. 4. Allowable Uses: IndUSLrial, Commercial and Office uses. Remaining development is . limited to 503,924 sq.ft. 5.. Timing: The approved Traffic Phasing Plan a.11o-ws 247,220 sq.ft. in. 1980 and 78,442 sq.ft. in 1981. An additional 178,262 s . q.ft. is subject to a future phasing plan. SITE 11*9 -JAMBOREE and MacART11UR General Plan Designation: Government�l , Education'al , and Institutional Fa6ilities with a secondary alternate designation of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2.. Existing Zoning: 'Unclassified (U) 3. Site Area: 2 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Freeway loop ramp and/or "Park and Ride" Facility, or as a secondary alternate a mixture of Retail, Service, Administrafive, Professional and Financial Commercial uses with density limitations to be established in the P-C Developmen.t Plan.. 5. Timing; There are no immediate plans for development. I 1 4 SITE #20 SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH General PI an Des i gna ti on: Governmental, Educational and Ins ti tuti on a I Faci 1 i ties, wi th a Secondary alternate designation of Retail and Service Commercial. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) 3. Site Area: 12 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: (Park and Ride" Facility or secondary alternate use of Retail and Service Com- mercial uses not to exceed 52,727 square feet. S. Timin 9: There are no immediate plans -for development. L L t. AQ:%T27t :rr I nm SITE #21 SAN'DIEGO CREEK SOUTH Gene ral Plan Designation: Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities with a secondary alternate use of General Indus.try. 2. E�isting Zoning: Unclassified (U) 3. Si'te Area: 47 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: A desilting basin,or as a secondary alternate, General Industrial development not to exceed 204,732 square feet. 5.. Timing: No immediate plans for devel'opment. I I U SITE #22 NORTH FORD General Plan Designation: General Industrial, Residential, Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial, Retail and Service Commercial, and Govern- mental, Educational and Institu- tional Facilities. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) �3.. Site Area: 68.0 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Commercial, Office, Residential, Institutional and Industrial Residential 120 un i ts Industrial 295,000 sq.ft. Retail 28,500 (subject to Traffic Phasing P)an-TPP) 5. Ti mi ng: Industrial 1981 Residential 1983 Retail After TPP SITE #23 NEWPORT-DUNES 1. General Plan Designation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space. 2. Exist'ing Zoning: Unclassified 3.- Site.Area: 70 Acres Land +26 Acres Water 4. Allowable Uses: Public, Marine -oriented Park, and related facilities would be permitted under Newport Beach planning programs. However, under Orange County's proposed Local Coastal Program, uses permitted would include marine uses -includ- ing an additional.70 to 100 boat slips, 50 to 100 new dry boat storage spaces, and -marina amenities, as well as non -marine facilities such as a campground, a 250 to 300 room hotel, an additional resta-urant, and full hookups and support for an expanded RY park accom- modating up to 440 vehicles. 5. Timing: Newport Dunes, Inc. has applied to Orange County for amendment of the.Newport Dunes' lease to allow redevelopment of the site. When and if -necessary approvals are obtained, the Lessee will commence with redevelopment. C A, BA4-Y- SITE #24 BUCK GULLY General -Plan Designation: Recreation and Environme"ntal Open Space with an alternate use of Low *Density Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: R-l-B 3. Site Area: 57.6 Acres 4. Allowable Uses:' open Space or Low Density 'Residential uses Since a substantial portion of the site has slope areas greater than 2:1, and other environmental constraints, residential development is not likely. 5.- Timing: No immediate plans for development. L SITE 1#2 5 DEAN PROPERTY General Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial with an alternate of Multi -Family Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: AP (Administrative Professional) 3. Site Area: 4.5 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Office uses. A 69,7-20 sq.ft. project has been approved. 5. Timing: Spring 1981 L U,Y I ,Ofw i mwa -,)k _., go General Plan Designation I SITE #26 NEWPORT CENTER Retail and Service Commercial ; Administrative, Professional and T Financial Commercial; Residential; and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 2'. Existing Zorring: Mixed - Total development limited by 'General Plan Amendment 79-1. 3. Site Area: 330 Acres (122 vifc'ant) on Al 1 owabl e Us es : a) Existing development includes the following: Office &- Medical .1,844,001 sq.ft. Commercial 1,181,000 sq.ft. Thea , ter 1,750 seats Hotel 377 rooms Residential 199 DU's Civic 82,000 sq.ft. Aiutomobile 5 acres Golf Course holes Tennis Club L18 24 courts b) Future additional includes: -Office & Medical 896,342 sq.ft. Commercial Retail 87,000 sq.,ft. Theater 2,000 seats. Hotel -0- rooms Residential 637 DU's Civic 2,400 sq.ft. SITE #26 NEWPORT CENTER (Cont. - Page 2) 5. Ph�sing of Committed Development: Following is a phasing schedule for the remaining committed development in Newport Center. a) 1980 Sea Island Residential' 132 Units Pacific Mutual Office 245,000 sq.ft. Restaurant 10,000 sq.ft. Civic Plaza Office 81 812 s q . f t . Library 14,000 sq.ft. b) 1981 Corprorate Plaza Office 248,850 sq.ft. Civic Plaza Office 152,894 sq.ft. Theater 1 350 seats Restaurant 8,000 sq.ft. Ar-t Museum 10,000 sq.ft. C) 1982 Corporate Plaza Office 101,150 sq.-;-t. Non -Committed Developmen't: Following is the remainin-g develop- ment in Newport'Center for which no phasing schedule has been -developed: 'S I TE h6 NEWPORT CENTER (Cont. Page 3) Office -and Medical 66,636 sq.ft. Commercial Retail 69,000 sq.ft. Theater 650 seats Residential 505 DU' s It is doubtful that any of the non -committed development would be constructed prior to 1982. 7. Developmen't proposed in General Plan Amendment 80-3: Office and Medical 880,000 sq.ft. Commercial Retail 20,000 sq.ft. Hotel 700 rooms A phasing schedule will be developed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. L I t , W.3, 2. 3. 5. SITE #27 NORTH BAY General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential on most of the site. Existing Zoning: City of Newport Beach Zoning - Unclassified (U) County of Orange Zoning - General Agriculture (Ar I ) Site Area: Approximately 80.93 acres, including the 11.0 acre Bay View School site. Allowable Uses - The Newport Beach General Plan permits Reci�ea- tion and Environmental Open Space uses directed. towards the development of a regional park. The alternate use would be Residential Develop-: ment at 4 dwelling units per buildable a ' cre. This site is impacted'by several site considera- tions which would limit development to less than 200 units. The County's "draft" Local Coastal Plan proposes a combination of Open Space and L Residential Devel- opment between 3.E and 18 DU's per acre. Low,and moderate income housing is be'ing proposed for the -residential de- velopment. Ti mi ng No immediate plans for development.- - . -A SITE #28 IR�INE COASTAL AREA Most of the development will Occur General Plan Designation: within the Cityts "Sphere of -Influ- ence." The Newport Beach General contain proposed Plan does not uses for this area. 2. Existing Zoning,: A-1 "General Agriculture" (County of Orange zoning) 3. Site Area: 9$370 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Following are the uses proposed in the Orange County LCP for this area: Residential 1785-2000 DU's (depending on outcome of public purchase efforts) Hote 2,000 rooms Tourist Commercial . 250,000 sq-ft- 5. Timin . g: Beginning in 1982: ultiinate development within ten to twenty years. 'N';;�,Sanla Maio N —0 6 &140 WR IRVINE' 00AbT- �nc Ra SITE #29 BEECO (UNICORPORAT ED ) 1. General Plan Designation I 2. Existing Zoning: Specific Area Plan directed towards the development of a harbor with marine service and commercial, re- creational and open space uses and associated neighborhood "Retail & Service Commercial." 'As an alter- nate use, -without a harbor, resi- dential and associated Retail and Service Commercial. County of Orange Zoning: Mul ti pl e-Fami ly Resi denti al/"Oi I Overlay" - R-4/"O" Light Industrial/"Oil Overlay" - MIP1011 General Commercial/"Ofl Overlay" - Multiple -Family Residential - R-4 3. Site Area: Approximately 450.0 acres of unin- corporated territory. 4. Allowable Uses: On 350 acres the City's General Plan permits the construction of a harbor with boat slips, marine service and commercial uses, and recreation'al, and open space uses. Also permitted are 2108 residential units with asso- ciated Retail & Service commercial -Ale \6 L ric $ 1 TE. #29 Timing: BEECO (UNINCORPORATED) (Con't. - Page 2) uses to provide necessary neighborhood commercial. On the remaining 100 acres the General Plan permits residential development at four dwelling units per buildable acre. This allows an estT- * mated total development of approximatel 2,408 dwelling units. Residential de- velopment could be -clustered; however, no individual development would be per- mitted to exceed fifteen dwelling units per buildable acre. If the proposed West Newport Harbor proves to be infeasible, the 2108 re- sidential dwelling units will be per- mitted on 350 acres of the site. Associated Retail and Service Commercia uses to provide necessary n'bighborhood commerci.al will also be permitted. On - the remaining 10,0 acres the General Plai permits residential development at four dwelling units per buildable acre. Thi! allows for the same estimated total de- velopment of approximately 2,408 dwe.11ii units. This residential development could be clustered; however, no indivi- dual developmentwould be permitted to exceed fifteen dwelling units per build- able acre. There are no immediate plans for development of this area. I Si te UNDEVELOPED PARCELS STATISTICAL SUMMARY 1980 1981 1982 1983 or Later Undetermined 1. Westbay 40 DU's 2. Eastbluff Remnant 0 3. Newporter No rth 212 BU's 4. Big Canyon Area'10 80 DU's 5. Castaways 151 BU'S 40,000 sq.ft. 6. Fifth Avenue Parcels 7. Fwy. Reservation -West B. FWY. Reservation -East 9. Saywood Expansion 10. CALTRANS-West 11. CALTRANS-East 12. BEECO 13. Aeronutronir Ford 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2 *1 . 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29 Harbor Point Bayview Landing& Mouth of Big Canyon Koll Center Emkay-Newport Place 247,220 sq.ft Jamboree & McArthur 3- San Diego Cre : k-North 3. San Diego C re k-South 3. North Ford Newport Dunes Buck Gully 68 DU's 300 DU's 64,000 sq.ft. 21 OU's 100,00 sq.ft. 78,442 sq.ft. 295,000 sq.ft. Dean Property 69,720 sq.ft. Newport Center 132 OU'� 350,812 sq.ft 439,744 sq.ft. North Bay (unincorporated) 2- Irvine Coastal Area (unincorporated) 5- BEECO (unincorporated) 2- V32,830 sq.ft. I 296.000 sq.ft 120 OU's 101,150 sq.ft. 200 DU's 200 OU's 108 DU's 100 OU's I- 76 DU's 150 DU's2- t440 rooms 584 * 549 sq.ft. 178.262 sq.ft. 28,500 sq.ft 25,000 sq.ft: 9. t300 rooms 505 BU,s 4- 145,636'sq.ft. 200 OU's 1,600 DU's 2,000 rooms 250,000 sq.ft.. 2,500 DU , s TOTALS 132 DU's 620 DU's 200 DU,s 6. 320 OU-s 7. 2.740 rooms 10- 5,491 DUIS B. 598,032 sq.ft. 1,086.906 sq.ft. 233,980 sq.ft. 296.000 sq.ft. 1,211,947 sq.ftll. 1. SubJect to Land Use flap Amendment. 7. Includes 200 DU's in unincorporated areas, 2. Under City's General Plan. 8. Includes 4300 DU's in unincorporated areas. 3. Assumes primary use. 9. Under Orange County's Plen. 4. Includes units transferred from sites 1 and 2. 10. Includes 2000 rooms in unincorporated areas. 5. Under Orange County's General Plan. 11. Includes 250,00 sq.ft. In unincorporaLed areas. 6. Includes 200 DU's in uninco.rporated areas. February 1), 19-Eil mr. ' nobart L. City !Ianacv�r city of :,awport Beach Attentiong kin. Pat Te:!:p.1c 3300 'Hewport Uoulevw:d Neumort Boach,. Dear :*.r. Tv.-ynn: 3,.ibject: Coi,.%munity vrant ?'0. 11uport OE Vi:Ut 0:1 p�,liru*,lyy 13, IVA., :'s. :'��bt�cca nnO corducto.-.1 r1l" ok tho City of :4:t.,�Iort I.Icay.Wo 1,10C!'. Pro- Lvnitt!r, wnt %-Ath or Llw� to tho pro :"ro noll'.ation. '1:16 citinon Ptir-cif-Ur.n."iO. P", su -.::! --ry r"7 il. . :q An of 50-phembpr 2, uifi City brm Lotter oZ Crd,--lit of Sin= zill "utsdf. havo bonn (.'ityls ha.; ho-on 0,.�t -iary 12, 19.'0 Prolrou Tfoncffit Thic itm:, W1,113 I.-,omitorcd tho last, ye"Irr, an'.1 if; if-, c:CV.-nliew.c.� with I Z �:,i tht., roejolations in nffcc' at t-110 til."! 610 It 1113pearn - fro:;1 I ;itf, Visit tc? 0,ju Swiioi. ;NinLor thi�J NI.t."AtY carriol o%it nub,%tantially wirw ?J., i;) This itv-,.i was til:-,o Ycar wiLh i-,o nuhr.tantial ChiLl"I'a as o: the date of thic moniLorinq. As Lndiantod if; la--t o,.rurrj,-,rvoL1 the alclarly uith provl,lo-.� for 67 Al;k 2 the 1977 DAP, the City Proposca to use the Sbction'C xxisLinu program to r,- lowever, the lack of perfor- ,Oct all of its fzk,.itily houring needr. 1. Malica in meeting those necdo indicat'�z that the low ancancy rates and high rates in the City maku it infeasible to tobUly dopand on this program, if in the future, the City decider, to partic�ipsta in the Dr-ach Grant Program, a plan to meet its ie'Lntified fanaily houcln�: .1-,0005 will have to be sulw;itted. citizon Iarticiortion Previour �,.ionitorin(j and review of file ijoc.umontation indicated that the city complierl vith thr, jpplicablc citizoll partic,-'pation requirolnenta. In the futuro, the city will be ro.quircd to conply with s,.,ction 570.301 "Citincii Participation of the current ru�u g lations. lie thank you for your cooporation and will contLate to be available for .technical anr�,;otanca, as needed. If you have c;:*..y qucz;tiorls, pleaso cork - tact Ms. RcbeLca Beilitao your Cozymunity planning and Tcvnlopmont 11,10-pre- sentative at: (213)GW'-jr'3G0- Sincerely, Coi;-M-iunity Plnnning and Developi-tont I 9.2CMF:J3Vt'1T1:S:rpt X5060 C.: onites, 9.20-11.1 Crisp, 9.2C4F Roberts, 9.2C 3. RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD HAMPEL 2 JEFFREY M- ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERQ 3 Attorneys at Law 611 Anton Boulevard 4 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 5 MICHAEL MILLER City Attorney r/ City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard .8 Newport Beach, CA 92660 10 ROBERT K. BREAK WILLIAM M. WYNDER 3.1 LATHAM & WATKINS 660 Newport Beach Center Drive, 12 Suite 1400 Newport Beachr CA 92660 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 3 I (VERIFICATION — 446. 2015.5 C. C. P., STATE'OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF I aill fit fill, above entitled action or proceeding; I haie read the foregoing 6 and know the conleniv thereof- and / certit'r that the finite is true ofnry mvit knowlealge. except as to those matters which are therein 7 maned up ... i till- in./brinafilin or belief. and av to those inattert I believe it to be trite. 8 9 10 1 deelare. touter penaliv of perfiny. ilia/ the foregoing is true and correct. E.%ecurrd ,it idatei at (place) California 12 13 Signature 14 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013a, 2015.5 C. C. P.) 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I ain a resident ol the count), aforesaid. I ain over the age of eighteen.vears and nor a par�v (a the within entitled action: 111.1. business 16 address is., 17 3535 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90020 SelPtember 10 82 PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED 1.8 On 19— 1 served the iviihin 29 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS 'interested narties 20 onthe misaidarijon, ki-placing a trite copi- thereof enclavedin a scaledenvelope with postage thereonjully prepaid, in the United Slates mall 21 of Los Angeles; California addresved as Jolla mv. 22 23 See attached. 24 25 26 27 1 di7clare; under penally of perfivy. that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed an 28 St�nt�pmhlmr Q F I C) 9 2 at T.r) q 7� n �p 1 P q California idatel M. H. PECK gnalm 10 SOCIETY Of ORANGE COUNTY io North Main, 11th Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701 (71�) 835-8806 July 26, 1982 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Attention: Dear Craig: Craig Bluell Pursuant to the City policy for requesting inspection of public documents, please be advised that this office will listen to and copy the following tapes of public hearings. City Council Meetings August 27f 1979 July 10, 1979 June 11, 1979 Planning Commission Meetings August 9, 1979 May 10, 1979 Copying will occur during the first two weeks in August of 1982. Sincerely, RICHARD L. SPIX Law Clerk for Nit ro) CRYSTAL C. SIMS RLS/las 0 0 RUTAN & TuCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW W RUTANO ..;DI.) A PARTNERSHHP CONSISTING OF P , OFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS S B, TOCKCP. I ....I SUITE 1400 MILFORD W. DAHL' ROBERT 5 BOWER AMERICAN CITY BANK TOWER, M QOCR OWCLL' MARCIA A 10"SYTM OARVIN F H�LLCHO WILLIAM M. MARTICORENA SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER JAMES R. No ORC* LAWRENCE J. DREYFUSS P.00RT L. RISLCY* ANNE NELSON LANPHAR 611 ANTON BOULEVARD M. L. IMIKCI MCCORMICK' PATRICIA L. STEARNS WILLIAM R. 81 CL* RENA C. STONC POST OFFICE BOX 1950 RICHARD A. BORNUTT' WILLIAM J CAPLAN LEONARD A. HAMPEL' GARY M. LAPC COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 JOHN B. HURLBUT. JR.- RANDALL S. WAIER MICHAEL W. I MMELL' MICHACL T. HORNAK MILFORD W. DAHL. JR JANICC L. CELOTTI THEODORE 1. WALLACC. JR.- R CHARD P. SIMS' PHILIP 0. KOHN JOEL 0. KUPERBERG July 21, 1982 MARSHALL M PEARLMAN' ELIZABETH A. NEALE ROBERT C. BRAUN' SCOTT R HOYT ROGER A. GRABLE' MARY 8 MC14LECC C OWARD 0. SYDCSMA. JR KATHRYN L. TOBIN THO HAS S. SALINGER' PHILIP C. MAYNARD BARRY R. LAUBSCHCR' NMILA R SCRNSTCIN DAVID C LARSEN' DONNA SNOW WOLF CLIFFORD C. FRICID.N. DeORAJ.OUNN ARTHUR 0, KIDMAN' CVRIDIKI IVICKII DALLAS MICHAEL 0. RUBIN' STEVEN A NICHOLS MARC WINTHROP' DAVID M ORCY IRA 0 RIVIN' HARVEY . MOORE JEFFREY M. 0 BERMAN' MA.RICC SANCHEZ RUDOLPH C.SHCPARD' BRUCC HALLETT C. S. WOLCOTT. III- WILLIAM T. CLIOPOLLOS AODEMLPIKC' ERIC R. NEWMAN LAWRENCE It. CMINO. RANDALL M. BASBUSH Mr. Craig Bluell Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Davis vs. City of Newport Beach Dear Craig: TELEPHONE (7141 64t-5100 (213) 625-7586 TELECOPICA (714) 546-9035 TWX 910 596-1683 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA (HAND DELIVERED) IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Enclosed please find a request for production of documents filed by the plaintiffs. Please segregate the items which they request and make two photocopies of each requested item. It is my intention to mail them the requested information rather than deliver originals to their office on the date requested. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. JDK:bc Enclosure Ver truly yours, AN & N & J Pel D . .1 .' , I .. Is ._7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CRYSTAL C. SIMS LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 2700 North Main Street, 11th Floor Santa Ana, California 92701 Telephone: (714) 835-8806 RONALD L. ROUDA LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF.LOS ANGELES 1544 West 8th Street Los Angeies? California 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-2131; 385-9691 TOBY J. ROTHSCHILD LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LONG BEACH 205 East Broadway Long Beach, California 90802 Telephone; (213) 434-7421 GREGORY VEACH LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO 429 Third Avenue Chuia Vista, California 90210 Telephone: (714) 722-1935 JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER RICHARD A. ROTHSCHILD WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, INC. 3535 West Sixth Street Los Angeles, California 90020 Telephone: (213) 487-7211 Attorneys fo- Plaintiffs/Petitioners OLIVE DAVISr ALFREDO ORTIZ, MARIA ORTIZe SHARION GARRISON, DOROTHY McALEAVEY, ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION RICHARD W. PETHERBRIDGE 1722 North Broadway Santa Anar California 92706 Telephone: (714) 835-0935 Attorney for Plaintiffs/Petitioners FRANK H. BARNESr MARION S. BARNES, JOSEPH P. BOYLE, and ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL CASE NO. 32-95-85 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 11 OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARION GARRISON; DOROTHY M. 12 McALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; JOSEPH P. BOYLE: ORANGE 13 COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORA- TION; a non-profit corportion; 14 ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, 15 1 a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, 161 171 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VS. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE COMPANYp a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusiver Defendants/Respondents. CASE NO. 32-95-85 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER TANGIBLE THINGS (CCP � 2031) TO: DEFENDANTS, CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC14 CITY; COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORTBEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2611Plaintiffs request that you produce and permit the inspebtion and 271copying or photographing, by or on behalf of themselves, of the 28 fo'llowing documents, papers, booksaccounts, letters, photographs, I object- or other tangible things: 2 1. GPA 81-1 Documents: 3 Staff reports dated June 4 and June 18, 1981,r 4 September 28, 1981 and October 13, 1981. 3 4 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations dated 6 6 981. k40 not bd w IAugust 24, 1 7 Draft EIR, pages;� title page to 11, 20 to 27, 8 62 to 66, 85 to 92fand 148 to 157. 5 ­6PA -81-2 Documents: 10 00FLIJ Staff report for planning commission meeting 11 dated June 4, 1981. 1 12 Staff report planning commission meeting dated May 13 110 r 1979. 14 Letter from Planning Department dated September 15 24, 1981 containing a time table on GPA-81-2. 16 3.- Big Canyon Area 10; 17 Minutes of January 26, 1981. 18 Staff report for meetings of December.18, 1980 19 and Januarvy 2., 1981. 20 EVftibit A to Resolution 9961.1 L 21 Q,�J�.Staff report to Commission dated May 101 1979. 22 GPA No. 26, Resolution No. 8630, November 10.0 1975 and 23 staff reports. GPA No. 77-3-C, Resolution No. 9231, Docembet. 120 1977 25 and staff reports. 26 The Trend -Growth Projections made by Newport Beach's 27 FEconomic Consultants$ Development Research AssociatOS.�, These 28 projections are mentioned at page i of the Residential Growth -2- I j " , I ; 0 0 1 2 3 4 ki H 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 &I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 '�k. Report by Alan M. Voorh ees, Transportation Planning tant, referred to at page ii of the Residential Growth ment. Resolution No. 9542 which previously established the \---r lieu park dedication fees.' The documents in the Baywood Apartments file showing t the Irvine Company' s original proposal. ��GPA 81-1: h7m a. Letter Eo77M E. Clement Shute to Louise Greeley, ted August 14f 1981, mentioned in West Newport Legislative liance letter of January 25, '1982 to City Council. 07 GPA 79-1: a.. Council minutes dated -November 27, 1978 regarding rculation ilemen't Review. Plaintiffs request that the above -listed items be produced August 191.1982, at 10:00 A.M., at the Legal Aid Society of ange County located at 2700 North Main Street, llth Floor, nta Ana, California,for the purpose of inspection and photo- : July 20, 1982. -3- CR)(STAL SIMS ' Attorney for Plaintiffs e 0 J. y 2 3 4 6 71 a,, 9 10 11 12 13 24 15 16 17 is � 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (VERIFICATION - 446 and 2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County qf� 1, the undersigned, say:fam the in the abo I ve entitled action; I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof, and that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to the matters which we therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters that I believe it lobe true. '�Icertifr (or declare) under penalty ofperiwy, that thelbregaing is true "d 0001 VCL Executed on (date) at rAlifiDrWill (Sipature) (PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL - 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE In. I Am a resident of/emploved In the county aforesaid, I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action, my business addrealresidence address is: 2700 North Main Street, llth Floor, Santa Ant, CA 92701 On July 20, .19 82 , Iserved the within REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AMD OTHER TANGIBLE THINGS (CCP q 2031) on the Attarn . fn�r�q in mid actiOnt'i bY Placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a seated envelope with postage thereon fuRy prepaid, in the "I (W"Statessasilet Ana, Ca-lifornia SEE ATTACHED LIST I certify (or declare), under PenaltY of Perjury,* that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 1982 at Santa Ana California I (Place). *Vmture *Both the veHfination and proof of service by nonfarm*, be irg!6WunJ!r0PS8ZtY0oT�dury, do not req a kv notedwrion. WOLCZ-11 :LEONARD A. HAMPEL* ZS0. 'JEFFREY M. ODERKhN, ZSO. JOEL KUPERSERG* ESO. RUTAN AND TUCKER American City Bank Tower, Suits 1400 South Coast Plaza, Town Center 611 Anton Boulevard P.0 Box 1950 ,Costa Mesa, CA 92626 MICHAEL MILLER CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 330 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach* CA 92260 ROBERT K. BREAK, ESQ. WILLIAM M. WYNDER, ESQ. LATHAM & WATKINS 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400- Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ll RUTAN & TuCKER JOHN in At ATTORNEYS AT LAW AA W RUTANI I act A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF PROFCSSIONAL CORPORATIONS ,A.0 S 13. TUCKCIL MILFORD W. DAHL' MARCIA A. FORSYTH AMERICAN CITY BANK TOWER. SUITE 1400 H RODGER HOWCIL' WIL41AM M MARTICORENA O�WIN r. SHALLCNO CnGCn, LAWRCNCC J. OnCYrUSS SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER JALES "L MOORE' AHNC NCLSON LANPHAR ROBERT L, RISLCY' PATRICIA L STEARNS 611 ANTON BOULEVARD . 4� I.I.V, ..COR.IC.- RCHA C. STONC WILLIAM R. OtELI WILLIAM J. CAPLAN POST OFFICE sox t9so RICHARD A CURNUTT GARY M. LAPE LCONARD A , HAMPEL' RANDALL S. WAIER ..0 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 0. HURLOUT. M LT. HORNA MICHACL W, IMMCLL' JA.ICC L CCL.IT. MILFORD W. DAHL. In - PHILIP 0. KOHN THCOPORC I . WALLACC. JR.- JOEL 0. KUPERBCnO RICHARD R 5'M5' ELIZABETH A. NCALC August 5, 1982 MARSHALL M PEARLMAN' SCOTT R. HOYT ROOCRT C ' 0 RA"N* GCBORAH H. AILCY .oacn A. OnADLE' MARY U. MC14LCCC COWAR. 0 1111*1A. In.' KATHRYN 1. 1001" 1 ... AS .: 5ALING Cn' PHILIP C. MAYNARD n1 R. L"OSCHCR. C.L. ". . ... SIC'. .A�.. .. LA"SCH' OHNA SNOW WOLF CLIFFORD C, FRICOCN. OCBRAJ.DUNN ARTHUR a KIOMAN' CVRIOIKI WICKI) DALLAS M.CHACI 6 nUON* STCVCN A NICHOLS MARC WINTHROP- DAVID M. OnCY IRA 0. IW.- HARVCY M. IIOORC JCrFRCY M. OOC"MAN' MAURICE SANCHEZ RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD' ORUCC HALLCTT E B. WOLCOTT, III' WILLIAM I CUOPOULOS ROBERT L PIKC' C... . ..Y,MAN ROD C III S� DOWCR' RANDALL M UABSUSM LAWRCNCC C. MCRTINO' Mr. Ward Connerly Connerly & Associates, Inc. 2215 21st Street Sacrai�ento, California 95818 11*2 AIN , TELEPHONE 1714) 64t-SIOO (2131 625-7586 TELECOPIER (714) S46-9035 TWX SIM S96-1083 CABLC ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASE RCIER TO Re: Davis, et al. vs. City of Newport Beach, et al. Dear Ward: As you may recall, we agreed to provide Jonathan Lehrer- Graiwer with certain documents prior to the continuation of your deposition in Sacramento on August 23, 1982. The documents which.we agreed to provide him are as follows: 1. A resume of either yourself or Connerly & Associates, Inc., which lists or describes your educational back- ground, employment history, and types of matters and clients. 2. The study which Connerly & Associates prepared for the City of Santa Rosa with respect to density design criteria. 3. The written proposal submitted to Newport Beach by Connerly & Associates as part of the selection process which the City engaged in to hire a consultant for its 1981 Housing Element (I assume that this would consti- tute your response to the City's RFP). I RUTAN & T,ucp�ER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTHCRSHIP CONSIST6NG OF PROFC551ONAL CORPORATIONS Mr. Ward Connerly August 5, 1982 Page Two 4. Any calculations which you have regarding the 25% density increase which is reflected in Performance objective 2 of the Housing Element, at page 116. 5. Any notes or documents with respect to site analysis (presumably relating to the identification of sites at pages 49-50 of the Housing Element) that may exist. Please forward this material to me by mail, and I will make sure that it is transmitted to Mr. Lehrer-Graiwer. During the course of your deposition, Mr. Lehrer-Graiwer questioned you regarding two studies prepared by Connerly & Associates with respect to density bonus and inclusionary housing. it is my recollection that you showed me these docu- ments while I was at your office a few weeks ago, but I inadv6rtently failed to bring copies of these documents back with ifie to Orange County. I would appreciate it if you could include with the documents requested by Mr. Lehrer-Graiwer copies of these studies, as well as the third study which Connerly & Associates prepared regarding the subject of inclu- sionary housing. Within the next few days (as soon as a draft version is available), I will be transmitting to you a draft declaration for y6ur signature. This draft declaration, which will be submitted to the Court at the writ of mandate hearing on the validity of the Housing Element program section, represents a distillation of our discussion regarding the Housing Element and the commentary which your office prepared of the Griselle "analysis." Please review this draft so that we may discuss any changes, deletions or additions to it over the telephone. it is my hope that we can complete this process in sufficient time so that I can bring a final version of this declaration with me to Sacramento on August 23rd for your review and execution. Inasmuch as we are now required to produce certain documents at the August 2 3rd deposition, it would be most helpful if we could meet at your office prior to the 9:30 a.m. deposition time to review the documents which will ultimately be produced for inspection. As I indicated to you following the deposition on August 4th, I thought your deposition went exceedingly well. By this, I mean that Mr. Lehrer-Graiwer obtained virtually no information RUTAN & TuCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNCASHIP CONSISTING Of PROMSSION&L COGTP.IIXN1.S Mr. Ward Connerly August 5, 1982 Page Two helpful to his case, while you built a very credible and convincing case analysis in support of the City. I am con- fident that we will enjoy equal success in the next deposition. Again, thank you for all of your help in this endeavor. I hope that you and your family had an enjoyable stay in Orange County. Very truly yours, R TUC"ER Is D. Yuperberg JDK:bd V cc: Robert H. Burnham, Asst. City Atty. 1�601� ;Iwle h ILA P1 NEED CERTIFIED COPIES OF FOLLOWING FROM NEWPORT BEACH 1. Resolution No. 11051, 9/28/81, adopting G.P.A. 81-1(H); 2. G.P.A. 81-1(H) ; 3. Resolution No. 11/22/82, adopting G.P.A. 82-1(H); A. C.C. minutes of 7/26/82, initiating G.P.A. 82-1(H); B. Staff report re G.P.A. 82-1(H), 7/16/82 CC meeting; C. P.C. minutes of 8/12/82, re G.P.A. 82-1(H); D. C.C. minutes of 11/22/82, adopting G.P.A. 82-1(H); E. C.C. minutes of 7/14/81, re G.P.A. 81-2 (initiating); F. Initial staff report re G.P.A. 81-2, 7/14/81; G. Staff report re G.P.A. 81-2, 6/4/81; H EIR on GPA 81-2; J. P.C. minutes of 5/6/82 re G.P.A. 82-1; K. Staff report re GPA 82-11 5/6/82; L. C.C. minutes of 5/24/82, re G.b.A. 82-1; M. Staff report re G.P.A. 82-1, 5/24/82; N. Staff report re G.P.A. 82-1,'9/9/82; 0. C.C. minutes of 1/11/82 re Mobile Home Park Zone Ord.; P. Ordinance 1894 (MHP); Q. C.C. minutes of 7/12/82, re De Anza rezoning to MHP; R. Ordinance No, 82-15 (De Anza); S. Ordinance No. 1817 (Condo Conversion); T. C.C. minutes of 8/9/82 re Council Policy P-1; U. Council Policy P-1; V. Chapter 20.33 - Commercial -Residential Zone; W. Chapter 20.51 - P.C. Zone; X. C.C. minutes of 7/23/82 re CDBG; Y. H.A.P., application and cover letter re CDBG; Z. H.U.D. acceptance of CDBG application. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RUTAN & TUCKER 0� LEONARD A. HAMPZ1%. JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG Attorneys At Law 611 Anton Boulevard P. 0. Box 1950 Costa Mesa, -California 92626 (714) 641-5100 ROBERT BURNHAM Acting City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640-2201 Attorneys for Defendants City of Newport Beachr City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARON GARRISON; DOROTHY M. McALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, a non-profit corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a non-profit corporationt Plaintiffs/Petitionerst VS. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE COMPANY, a corporation; DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants/Respondents, and DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTr Real Party in Interest. -1 — NO. 32 95 85 RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOPPDED UPOP DEFENDANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (Interrogatories 1-26) I ( .11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants City of Newport Beach, City Council of the ' I City of Newport Beach and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the City") respond to Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 26r inclusivet of Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories propounded upon I the Cityr as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The City makes the following responses subject to all pertinent objections regarding admissibility and relevancy that may be interposed at trial. Initiallyr it should be noted that the City has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not completed its discovery in this action, and has not completed its preparation for trial. The following responses therefore are given without prejudice to the City's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts. Some interrogatories seek to ascertain information which may or may not exist in City files. In the course of preparing its responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, the staff employees of the City most,knowledgeable concerning the subject matter of the interrogatories have been questioned regarding the existence of the information requested in the City documents. Where the existence and location of such documents are known or are readily available, those documents have been identified. However, thi City has not conducted an exhaustive search of all of its own files for purposes of uncovering such documents which may contain information falling within the scope of the interrogatories. Such a search could -2- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 take literally years to accomplish. Notwithstanding the ob- jections interposed by the City to specific interrogatories, the City is willing to make its files available to Plaintiff upon reasonable notice for examination? inspection or copying, all in accordance with applicable discovery laws. objection to the production of specific documents on the grounds of privilege or otherwise is deferred until a proper discovery demand is made therefor. In this regardt and not by way of limitation of any of the foregoing, the City would point out that in the course of preparing its defense in this action, it has analyzed its own filest prepared compila- tions, abstracts and summaries therefrom, and has prepared documentary material for the purpose'of aiding its attorneys in preparation for trial. The City claims the attorney -client and work product privileges with respect to said documents. Many of the interrogatories go far beyond any appropriate subject matter of this action, and tend to oppressr burdent annoy and harass the City. Specificallyr many of the inter- rogatories request information which seemingly relates to legislative enactments and subdivision approvals which were enacted or approved subsequent to the filing of this action. Given that this action seeks to challenge specific actions and enactments adopted by the Cityr information relating to approvals and legislative enactments adopted subsequent to the filing of this action, and which were not referred to in the Complaint on file herein, are irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the production of relevant evidence. Furthermore, Statement No. 8 in the "Instructions" to Plaintiffs' -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 First Set of Interrogatories implies that the interrogatories are continuing in nature. The City objects to Statement No. 8 because "continuing" discovery requests are impermissible under California discovery law. See, Smith v. Superior Court, 189 Cal. App. 2d 6, 11 Cal. Rptr. 165 (1961); Kenney v. Superior Courtr 225 Cal. App. 2d 106, 112, fn. 5. 63 Cal. Rptr. 84 (1967). Most of the objections interposed herein are common to many of the interrogatories. Therefore, in order to avoid the extreme burden of being forced to repeat identical objections numerous times, the City objects generally to the "Definitions and Instructions" and to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, as follows: 1. The interrogatories are irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 2. The interrogatories request information regarding matters of little or no practical value to Plaintiff? and less burdensome means of discovery could produce the desired infor- mation. 3. The interrogatories require disclosure of irrelevant as well as relevant matters, and thus are overly broad. 4. The interrogatories are burdensomer oppressiver harassingr and/or annoying to the City, such that requiring answers results in injustice to the City. 5. Answering the interrogatories places a burden and expense on the answering party that should equitably be borne by the propounder. -4- 2 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 M 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. Much of the information sought by the interrogatories is equally available to Plaintiff, such that the interrogatories essentially require the City to prepare Plaintiffs' case for it. 7. The interrogatories and their "Definitions and Instructions" are impermissibly "boilerplatell and "shotgun" in nature. 8. The interrogatories and their "Definitions and Instruc- tions" are vague, uncertaint and ambiguous. 9. The interrogatories impermissibly seek to probe into the motives of the legislators who enacted the legislation which is the subject of these interrogatories. 10. The information requested by the interrogatories is protected by the attorney -work product privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify each amendment of or revision to the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan which was adopted by the City Council on February 11, 1974. Include in your answer an identification of revisions or amendments which were either adopted, prepared or in any way considered by the City, includ- ing, inter alia, the proposed new housing element of the Newport Beach General Plan which was prepared by Ward Connelly. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the ground that it seeks information relating to amendments of the City's Housing Element which did not exist at the time that Plaintiffs' Complaint in this matter was filed, and thus the information is irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter of Plaintiffs' action. -5- (j 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 251 26 11 Furthermore, many of the revisions or amendments "in any way considered by the City" constitute internal working draftsp the unwritten products of discussions among staff personnell and the uncodified products of "brain -storming" by staff personnel. To require the City to produce these "drafts" is not only impossible as a practical matter, but also violates California discovery rules. Nonetheless, to the extent that the City is currently capable of determining the existence of written draft versions of its Housing Elementr the City answers Interrogatory No. I as follows: (a) Amendment 81-1 (H) of the Housing Element? as revised, adopted by the City Council on September 28, 1981. - Drafts of revisions and amendments to the Housing Element which were considered by the City Council, were prepared on April 15, 1981, May 11, 1981f and a revised version of the May 11, 1981 draft. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each document known to you which supports, refers, or relates to the documents identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 1. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the ground that the documents referred to therein are so numerous as to be burdensome, oppressive and harassing to the City to identify each individual document. Moreover, most of the information sought by this Interrogatory relates to a Housing Element which has not been challenged in this actiont and which is not the 1 subject of Plaintiffs' complaint, such that this information and 2 specifically correspondence and working papers pertaining thereto, 3 is neither relevant nor material to this action. 4 Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, the City responds 5 to Interrogatory No. 2 to the extent possible, as follows: 6 (a) 1976 Special Census; 7 (b) Preliminary 1980 Census Data; 8 (c) 1980 Undeveloped Parcels Report; 9 (d) Newport Beach Traffic Model Data Base; 10 (e) Newport Beach General Plan, including: 11 1. General Plan Policies; 12 2. Noise Element; 13 3. Housing Element; 14 4. Residential Growth Element; 15 5. Circulation Element; 16 6. Recreation and Open Space Element; 17 7. Conservation of Natural Resources Element; 18 8. Public Safety Element; 19 (f) Draft Local Coastal Plan; 20 (g) Newport Beach Zoning Code; 21 (h) Newport Beach Subdivision Code; 22 (i) Newport Beach Condominium Conversion Ordinance; 23 (j) Newport Beach Rental Vacancy Rate Survey; 24 (k) Newport Beach Housing Unit Summary; 25 (1) Annual Population Estimate Data, as submitted to 26 the California State Department of Finance; 27 (m) Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance; 28 (n) Tapes of Public Workshops; -7- 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 (0) First National Bank of orange County Income Projections; (p) SCAG Fair Share Housing Allocation Nodel; (q) A.B. 2853; (r) Draft EIR for the Newport Beach Housing Elementg GPA 81-1(H); (s) Final EIR for the Newport Beach Housing Element, GPA 81-1(H). INTERROGATORY NO. 3: cog Identify each document known to you which was used in the preparation of the documents identified in answer to Interroga- tory No. 1. 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 13 The City incorporates herein by reference its objection 14 and response to Interrogatory No. 2 as though set forth at 15 length. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 17 Identify each document known to you upon which the documents 18 identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 2 are based, 19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 20 The City incorporates herein by reference its objection 21 and response to Interrogatory No. 2 as though set forth at 22 length. 2.3 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 24 Identify each document which the City has adopted, prepared, 25 or in any way considered or is in the process of adopting, 26 preparing or considering, which is related in any way to 27 bringing the City's zoning or other land use ordinances in 28 compliance with Government Code Sections 65913 to 65913.4. 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 2 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the ground 3 that it assumes a fact not in evidence, i.e., that the City's 4 zoning and other land use ordinances are not currently in 5 compliance with Government Code Sections 65913 through 65913.4.f, 6 inclusive. Given that the City contends that all of its zoning- 7 and other land use ordinances comply with all provisions of the 8 State Planning and Zoning law, including Government Code Section 9 65913, et seq., the City objects to being forced to prove the 10 existence of a negativer which is legally and logically impossible. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 12 Identify each document known to you which supports, refers 13 or relates to the documents identified in answer to Interroga- 14 tory No. 5. 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 16 Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory No. 5. 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 18 Identify each document known to you which was used in 19 the preparation of documents identified in answer to Interroga- 20 tory No. 5. 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 22 Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory No. 5. 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 24 Identify each document known to you upon which the documents 25 identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 are based. 26 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 27 Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory No. 5. 28 1 // -9- 19 2 3 4 5 6 7 A a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify each amendment to any of the elements of the Newport Beach General Plan which were adopted by the City Council since Januaryt 1970, which in any way had any of the following effects: (a) Decreased or limited the total number of density of dwelling units permitted to be developed in the City, or any portion thereof; (b) Set standards for or increased the minimum building lot sizes for commercial or housing developments permitted to be built in the City or any portion thereof; (c) Set standards for or increased the minimum size of dwelling units permitted to be developed in the City or any portion thereof; (d) Decreased or limited the total number on density of multi -family attached dwelling units permitted to be developed in the City or any portion thereof; (e) Limited or decreased the total number on density of mobile homes permitted in the City or any portion thereof; (f) Increased the cost of developing dwelling units by changing housing development standards to include additional cost generating requirements; (g) Increased any city taxes or fees which are levied upon the development of housing, includingl but not limited to, land dedication or in lieu of fees for parks, open space, and schools and processing fees for subdivision applications, building permit _10- f.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 �rj 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 231 24 25 26 27 28 fees, sewerage hook-up fees, electrical permit fees, plumbing fees, grading inspection fees, annexation fees, etc. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the ground that it surreptitiously and indirectly seeks legal conclusions relating to the effect of City legislative enactments, and thus impermissibly calls for the attorneys' work productr which is privileged from disclosure under California law. Interrogatory No. 9 essentially demands that the City prepare Plaintiffs' case for Plaintiff; such a demand finds no authorization or justifi- cation in the statutes or case law of this StaEe. TNTrPPVDnnATnDV Identify all sources of federal, stater county and local fund- ing which the City has utilized for the purpose of encouraging or developing any low or moderate income housing since January 1970. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Interrogatory No. 10 cannot fully be answered, because the City is not a developer and thus has not itself developed or con- structed any housing. Within the Cityt howevert "Section 8", funds are used for rental subsidies. The Lutheran Church of the Master is developing senior citizen housing under a "Section 202" grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: How many acres of land are currently undeveloped in City. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Gross vacant acreage comprises some 952.5 acres. Eighty 10 L, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 171 181 191 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ,271 28 acres are under construction, and some 294 are committed to specific projects, thus leaving approximately 578 net acres /i-::� of undeveloped land. Some� �11 acres are in the review process for some type of development, leaving 440 acres, of which only — a portion is suitable for development (i.e., no sensitive habitat? no bluff face problems, etc.). In addition, some 534.7 acres are designated as Open Space, most of which is in public ownership, with title held by either the State or local public entities. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: identify each document upon which the answer to Interroga- tory No. 11 is based. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: (a) Newport Beach Housing Element; (b) Traffic Model Data Base; (c) Newport Beach Planned Community texts. INTERI;COGAT'V�R'Y�N*Orl3�:30"'A� \q-4A Specify the amount of undeveloped land within each land use and zoning category of the City. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: There are 325.6 total vacant acres designated for residen- tial use. Of this, an estimated 224�acres are buildable. Vacant land quantities for each land use and zoning category are not maintained by the City. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: List all actions taken by the City since 1970 which the City contends are in compliance with the requirements of Govern- ment Code §65362.(a) and (c), Government Code §§65913 to 65913.4t , ' - I -12- 1 and Government Code §§65915-65918. 2 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 3 The City contends that each and every action taken by it i.s. 4 in compliance with the requirements of Government Code SectiorlT­ 5 65302(a) and 65302(c), Government Code Section 65913, et seq.8 and 6 Government Code Section 65915y et seq. 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 8 Identify each amendment of or revision to Ordinances 9 Number 1765 and 1777. Include in your answer an identification- 10 of revisions or amendments which were either adopted, prepared 11 or in any way considered by the City, or which are in the pro- 12 cess of being adopted, prepared, or considered, relating in 13 any way to Ordinances Number 1765 and 1777. 14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 15 Ordinance No. 1787. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 17 Identify each document known to you which supportst referst 18 or relates to the document identified in answer to Interrogatory 19 No. 15. 20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 21 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 16 on the ground 22 that it is impossible to determine each and every document 23 which "supports", refers or relates to Ordinance No. 1787. 24 Notwithstanding this objection, the City responds to the extent 25 practicable, as follows: 26 (a) Newport Beach Circulation System Study; 27 (b) Newport Beach Circulation Element; 28 (c) Newport Beach Traffic Model; -13- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 171 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (d) Traffic Generation Study for Pacific Coast Highway/ Jamboree Road/McArthur Boulevard are; (e) South East Orange County Circulation Study; (f) Central Orange County Circulation Study. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify each document known to you which was used in the preparation of the documents identified in answer to Interroga- tory No. 15. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: The City incorporates by reference herein its objection and response to Interrogatory No. 16 as though set forth at length. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Identify each document known to you upon which the documents identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 15 are based. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: The City incorporates herein by reference its objection and response to Interrogatory No. 16 as though set forth at length. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify any actions taken by the City which have a discriminatory effect against any ethnic or racial groups living within the orange County region. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: The City contends that none of the actions taken by it have a discriminatory effect against any ethnic or racial groups living within the Orange County region. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify each document which supports, refers, or relates to your answer in Interrogatory No. 19. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Not applicable; the City's actionsr as codified in its ordinances and Resolutions, speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of their content and meaning. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify each document known to you upon which your answer to Interrogatory No. 20 was based. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Not applicable; see response to Interrogatories No. 19 and 20. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Identify any actions by City since January 1970 which were intended to provide for or encourage in any way the devel- opment of low or moderate income housing in the City. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 22 on the ground that it implicitly calls for a legal conclusionj thereby demanding that the City respond to Interrogatory No. 22 by divulging attorney work product, which is privileged from disclosure under California Discovery law. The City further objects to Interrogatory No. 22 on the ground that it forces the City to prepare Plaintiffs' case for Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, the City responds to Interrogatory No. 22 as follows: (a) Newport Beach Condominium Conversion Ordinance; -15- J 1 (b) Newport Beach Mobile Home Ordinance (currently in 2 public review); j, A all eAkwir\ 3 (c) City policy of permitting 013.(e aboards" in the 4 Newport Harborp including provision of a pump out 5 station; 6 (d) Timely adoption of a revised Housing Element 7 pursuant to Government Code Section 65580, et 8 All seq 9 (e) City encouragement of "Section 8" funding; 10 (f) City encouragement of Lutheran Church project utilizing 11 HUD funding. t&_aP#,Aa 61 684A 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 23: �rts, re s 13 Identify each document Known to you W111'su-pipo 14 or relates to the actions identified in your answer to Inter- 15 rogatory No. 22. 16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: 17 The City incorporates herein by this reference its ob- 18 jection to Interrogatory No. 22 as though set forth at length. 19 Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, the City responds to 20 Interrogatory No. 23 as follows: 21 (a) Development Regulations for Condominium Conversions, 22 (b) Condominium Conversion Ordinance; 23 (c) City "HUD Block Grant" files; 24 (d) Draft Local Coastal Plan; 25 (e) frepes-ed Mobile Home Ordinance; 26 (f) Planning Department Staff Report on Mobile Homes 27 dated October 8, 1981; 28 (g) Staff Reports and City Council and City Planning _16- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 271 28 Commission minutes related to the above documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Identify each documentknown to you upon which your answer to Interrogatory No. 22 is based. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: See response to Interrogatory No. 23. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Identify each tentative tract map and final subdivision map which was approved by the City Council between August 29r 1979 and the present. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the ground that it seeks information relating to subdivision approvals granted subsequent to the filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint in this action, which thereby renders the information irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Notwith- standing this objectiont however, the City responds, to Inter- rogatory No. 25 as follows: (a) Tentative Maps 1. 10391 (amended) 2.J 10814 3.J 11377 4.4 11064 5 q /I 5.V 11065 16 (b) Final Maps 1. 9676 2. 10625 3. 10986 -17- Cl It C�� 0 1 L1 S I � _'J 1 4. 10987 2 5. 11018 3 6. 11041 4 7. 11042 5 S. 11043 6 9. 11044 7 10. 11045 8 11. 11046 9 12. 11047 10 13. 11048 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 12 Identify each tentative tract map and final subdivision 13 map which was submitted to the City for approval between August 14 29t 1979 and the present. 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 16 The City incorporates herein by this reference its objection 17 to Interrogatory No. 26 as though set forth at length. 18 Notwithstanding this objection, the City responds to 19 Interrogatory No. 26 as follows: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -18- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 221 231 24 25 26 27 28 All of the tentative and final maps enumerated in the City's response to Interrogatory No. 25t with the addition of Final Maps Nos. 11449, 11450, and 11451. DATED: October 20, 1981. RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPER13ERG ROBERT, BURNHAMo ESQ. B Joel 45/j/ d—perbe-4/ /)-A'/( Attorneys for Defendants t ty of Newport Bea—, i it ty Council of the City of Newport Beach, and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach -19- 'JW U (CORPORATE VERIFICATION — 446,2015.5 C. Q P.) STATE OF CALTFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE I am Advance Planning A&dnistrator in the Planning DepartnMt'pf the City of Newport Beach, one of the Defendants/Respondents in the above entitled action; I have read the foregoing_ —MESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF = UYIS thereof; I am informed and believe the matters stated therein are true, and on that ground allege that the matters stated therein are true - I certify (or declare), under penalty of perfurn* that the foregoing is true and conva Executed (PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAM — 1013a, 2015.5. Q Q P.) STATE OF CALIFORNUL COUNTY or ORANGE f I am a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within above entitled action; MY 611 Anton BlA. Suite 1400, P. 0. Box 1950, Costa Masa, CA 92626 business address is: — ----- I on$ e 20th of October 19-11, 1 served the ' hin TZF.SPCNqFq rTn PTR-(;T qFT, OP TMERROGATORM' PROPO=D WE DEMMANT CITY OF MINIPORr BEACH (Interrogatories 1-26) on 9 1 parties — — — — — — in said action, by placing a am copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States post offlce mail box aL Costa Mesa, California addressed as follows: see attachea list I certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury,* that do foregoing is true and corma I Executed Costa Mesa Barbara Caradies *Both the verification and proof of service by mail forms, being signed under penalty of perfum do not require notariw*n- 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 VA ri RE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Katherine R. Wblff, Esq- orange County Fair Housing Council 1525 Fast 17th Street Santa Ana, CA Richard W. Petherbridge, Esq. 1722 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 George Deukrrejian, Attorney General R. H. Comett, Assistant Attorney General Dixie Moe, Deputy Attorney General 3580 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 John E. McDernotte Esq- Jonathan Lehrer-Graiumrl' Esq. Richard A. Rothchild, Esq. 3535 West Sixth Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 crystal c. Sims, Esq. legal Aid society of orange County 2700 N. Main Street llth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 -and- Robert K. Break, Esq. William W. Vqynderj Esq. latharn and Watkins 660 Newport center Drive, suite 1400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 a 1 RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL 2 JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG 3 Attorneys at Law 611 Anton Boulevard 4 P.O. Box 1950 Costa Mesa, California 92626 5 (714) 641-5100 6 ROBERT BURNHAM Acting City Attorney 7 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard 8 Newport Beachr California 92660 (714) 640-2201 9 Attorneys for Defendants City of Newport 10 Beach, City Council of the City of Newport Beacht and Planning Commission of the 11 City of Newport Beach 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 1 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 14 OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARON GARRISON; 15 DOROTHY M. McALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; JOSEPH 16 P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, a non-profit 17 corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR 1HOUSING COUNCIL, a non-profit 181corportion, 1911 Plaintiffs/Petitioners, 20 11vs. 2111C;TYT OFCNEWPORT BEACH; CITY COUNCIL 0 HE ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLAN- 221INING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT .11B�ACH; THE IRVINE COMPANYj a corpora- 2311tion; DOES 1 through 100r Inclusive, 2411 Defendants/Respondents, 25 261DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 27 Real Party in Interest. 28 NO. 32 95 85 RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (Interrogatories 27-101) 1 Defendants City of Newport Beach, City Council of the 2 City of Newport Beach and Planning Commission of the City of 3 Newport Beach (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the 4 City") respond to Interrogatories Nos. 27 through 101, inclusiver B of Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories propounded upon 6 the Cityr as follows: 7 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 8 The City makes the following responses subject to all 9 pertinent objections regarding admissibility and relevancy 10 that may be interposed at trial. Initially, it should be noted 11 that the City has not completed its investigation of the facts 12 relating to this case, has not completed its discovery in this 13 action, and has not completed its preparation for trial. The 14 following responses therefore are given without prejudice 15 to the City's right to produce evidence of any subsequently 16 discovered facts. 17 Some interrogatories seek to ascertain information which 18 may or may not exist in City files. In the course of preparing 19 its responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, the 20 staff employees of the City most knowledgeable concerning the 21 subject matter of the interrogatories have been questioned 22 regarding the existence of the information requested in the 23 City documents. Where the existence and location of such 24 documents are known or are readily availabler those documents 25 have been identified. However, the City has not conducted 26 an exhaustive search of all of its own files for purposes of 27 uncovering such documents which may contain information falling 28 within the scope of the interrogatories. Such a search could -2- I A 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 271 28 1 take literally years to accomplish. Notwithstanding the ob- jections interposed by the City to specific interrogatories, the City has already made its files available to Plaintiff for examination, inspection and copying. in this regardl and not by way of limitation of any of the foregoing, the city would point out that in the course of preparing its defense in this action, it has analyzed its own files, prepared compilationsr abstracts and summaries therefrom, and has prepared documentary material for the purpose of aiding its attorneys in preparation for trial. The City claims the attorney -client and work product privileges with respect to these documents. many of the interrogatories go far beyond any appropriate subject matter of this action, and tend to oppress, burden, annoy and harass the City. Specificallyr many of the inter- rogatories request information which seemingly relates to legislative enactments and subdivision approvals which were enacted or approved subsequent to the filing of this action. Given that this action seeks to challenge specific actions and enactments adopted by the City, information relating to approvals and legislative enactments adopted subsequent to the filing of this action, and which were not referred to in the Complaint on file herein, are irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the production of relevant evidence. Furthermore, Statement No. 8 in the "Instructions" to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories implies that the interrogatories are continuing in nature. The City objects to Statement No. 8 because "continuing" discovery requests are impermissible under California discovery law. See, Smith v. Superior Court, -3- I 1 189 Cal. App. 2d 6, 11 Cal. Rptr. 165 (1961); Kenney v. 2 Superior Court, 225 Cal. App. 2d 106, 112, fn. 5r 63 Cal. 3 Rptr. 84 (1967). 4 Most of the objections interposed herein are common to many 5 of the interrogatories. Thereforer in order to avoid the extreme 6 burden of being forced to repeat identical objections numerous 7 times, the City objects generally to the "Definitions and 8 Instructions" and to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, 9 as follows: 10 1. The interrogatories are irrelevant to the subject 11 matter of this action and are not calculated to lead to the 12 discovery of admissible evidence; 13 2. The interrogatories request information regarding 14 matters of little or no practical value to Plaintiff, and less 15 burdensome means of discovery could produce the desired infor- 16 mation. 17 3. The interrogatories require disclosure of irrelevant 18 as well as relevant matterst and thus are overly broad. 19 4. -The interrogatories are burdensome, oppressiver 2o harassing, and/or annoying to the City, such that requiring 21 answers results in injustice to the City. 22 5. Answering the interrogatories places a burden and 23 expense on the answering party that should equitably be borne 24 by the propounder. 25 6. Much of the information sought by the interrogatories is 26 equally available to Plaintiffst such that the interrogatories 27 essentially require the City to prepare Plaintiffs' case for them. 28 7. The interrogatories and their "Definitions and Instruc- -4- 0 5 6 VA F-3 4A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 tions" are impermissibly "boilerplate" and "shotgun" in nature. 8. The interrogatories and their Definitions and Instruc- tions are vague, uncertain and ambiguous. 9. The interrogatories impermissibly seek to probe into the motives of the legislators who enacted the legislation which is the subject of these interrogatories. 10. The information requested by the interrogatories is protected by the attorney -work product privilege. 111INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 2 Identify each document which supports each allegation of 3 the Second Affirmative Defense to your "Answer to Second Amended 4 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to Enjoin Exclu- 5 sionary Land Use Practices and Second Amended Petition For Writ of 6 Mandate" (hereinafter "Answer"). 7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 8 1. Charter of the City of Newport Beach; 9 2. Newport Beach City Code; 10 3. General Plan of the City of Newport Beach; 11 4. subdivision ordinances of the City of Newport Beach; 12 5. Constitution of the United States; 13 6. The United States Code (-Titles 1 through 50); 14 7. The Constitution of the State of California; 15 8. The Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code 16 Section 63000f et seq; 17 9. The Subdivision Map Actl Government Code Section 18 66410f et seq; 19 10. All other applicable provisions of the California Codes. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 28: 21 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 22 conflict with any allegation of the Second Affirmative Defense to 23 your Answer. 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28: 25 1 The City is unaware of any document which is contrary to or in 26 conflict with any of the allegations of the Second Affirmative 271 28 Defense. t 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 VAI 11 INTERRUGATURY NU. Z9: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Second Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO -INTERROGATORY NO. 29: The City's land user General Plan? zoningr subdivision, environmental and housing development policies and procedures are presumed as a matter of law to be valid and in compliance with all lawst and the City is unaware of any facts which might indicate the contrary. 1011INTERROGATORY NO. 30: 11 identify each document which supports each allegation of the 12 Third Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 13 141 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30: 1. Charter of the City of Newport Beach; 2. Newport Beach City Code; 3. General Plan of the City of Newport Beach; 4. Subdivision ordinances of the City of Newport Beach. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Third Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31: The City is unaware of any document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Third Affirmative Defense. Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Third Affirmative Defense to your Answer. -7- RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 2 The actions of the City in establishing and implementing its 3 land use and housing development policies and procedures are 4 presumed as a matter of law to be supported by and in furtherance 5 of legitimate governmental interestsr and the City is unaware of 6 any facts which might indicate the contrary. 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 33: 8 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 9 Fourth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33: 11 1. The Charter of the City of Newport Beach; 12 2. Newport Beach City Code; 13 3. General Plan of the City of Newport Beach; 14 4. Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Newport Beach; 15 5. Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims, entered into 16 by and between Daon Corporationj Eagle Development 17 Corporationt Ford Aerospace and Communications Corpora- 18 tion, and Plaintiffs herein, Olive Davis, et al. �M 20 Identify each document which.is in any way contrary to or in 21 conflict with any allegation of the Fourth Affirmative Defense to 22 your Answer. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34: 24 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 25 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Fourth 26 Affirmative Defense. 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 35: 2 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Fourth 3 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35: 5 As a matter of lawr it is presumed that low and moderate 6 income housing is not and has not been excluded from the boundaries 7 of the Cityr and that the City, by its policies and procedures, 8 has not excluded or intended to exclude low and moderate income 9 housing. The City knows of no facts which might indicate the 10 contrary. The document entitled "Settlement Agreement and Release 3.1 of Claimst" referred to in the Response to Interrogatory No. 33 12 herein, speaks for itself and is the best evidence of the facts 13 therein. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 15 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 16 Eighth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 18 1. The Complaint in this action. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 37: 20 Identify each document which.is in any way contrary to or in 21,conflict with any allegation of the Eighth Affirmative Defense to 22 your Answer. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37: 24 The City is unaware of any documents which are in any way 25 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Eighth 26 Affirmative Defense. 27 28 K 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 38: 2 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Eighth 3 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38: 5 Based on the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint (at para- 6 graphs 3(a) through 3(h))l none of the Plaintiffs have sufficient 7 personal interest in the matters alleged in the Complaint to 8 establish their standing to sue in this action. The City is 9 unaware of any facts to the contrary. 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 39: 11 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 12 Ninth Affirmative Defense to your Angwer. 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39: 14 1. The Complaint in this action; 15 2. Tentative Tracts 10391t 10019, 10814f 11379, 11064, 11065; 16 3. Final Tracts 10587, 10151, 10986, 10987, 11041, 11042, 17 11043, 11044r 11045, 11046, 11047, 11048, 10987, 9676, 18 10625, 11018; 19 4. Proposals and applications from all persons proposing to 20 subdivide or seek other land use approvals for their 21 property located within the boundaries of the City. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 40: 23 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 24 conflict with any allegation of the Ninth Affirmative Defense to 25 your Answer. 26 27 28 2 3 4 5 6 A RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40: The City is unaware of any document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Ninth Affirmative Defense. Mn Al - Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Ninth firmative Defense to your Answer. 811RESPONSE TO 9 Plaintiffs seek by their Complaint to enjoin all subdivisions 10 proposed within 180 days of the filing of their Complaint, and 11 thereafter. Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin and invalidate other 12 land use approvals granted by the City. Should Plaintiffs succeed 13 in this relief, certain persons and firms who have, or may haver 14 substantial vested rights in property located within the City will 15 lose or suffer impairment of these rights. These persons and firms 16 thus are necessary and indispensible parties within the meaning of 17 Code of Civil Procedure Section 389. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 42: 19 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 20 Tenth Affirmative Defense to your -Answer. 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42: 22 1. The unverified Complaint in this action. 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 43: 24 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 25 conflict with any allegation of the Tenth Affirmative Defense to 26 your Answer. 27 28 -11- Ct 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43: 2 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 3 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Tenth 4 Affirmative Defense. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 44: 6 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Tenth 7 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44: 9 The Complaint in this action is unverified, indicating that 10 no Plaintiff has attested to the truth or correctness of the 11 allegations therein. The authorization of Plaintiffs to file this 12 action must be established by Plaintiffs themselves; no such 13 evidence of this exists, and the City is unaware of any facts 14 indicating such authorization. 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 45: 16 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 17 Eleventh Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45: 19 1. The Complaint in this action. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 46: 21 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 22 conflict with any allegation of the Eleventh Affirmative Defense to 23 your Answer. 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46: 25 The city is unaware of any document which is in any way 26 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Eleventh 27 Affirmative Defense. 28 / / / -12- INTERROGATORY NO. 47: 2 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Eleventh 3 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47: 51 By the relief requested in Plaintiff's Complaintl which is 6 unsupported by any statute or court decision, Plaintiffs seek to VAI I 10 12 13 14 15 16 block all development within the City until Plaintiffs' demands are met. As a logical consequence thereof, no employment centers or housing would be constructed within the City until Plaintiffs' unwarranted demands are satisfied. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Identify each document which supports each allegation of the Ifth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48: 1. The Complaint in this action; 2. The document entitled "Settlement Agreement and Release of 17 Claims," referred to in the Response to Interrogatory 18 No. 33 herein. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 49: 20 Identify each document which -is in any way contrary to or in 21 conflict with any allegation of the Twelfth Affirmative Defense to 22 your Answer. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 49: 24 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 25 contrary to or inconsistent with any allegation of the Twelfth 26 Affirmative Defense. 27 28 -13- 4 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 50: 2 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twelfth 3 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 50: 5 See paragraphs 16 through 22, inclusiver of the City's Answer. 6 The document entitled "Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims," 7 referred to in the Response to Interrogatory No. 33 herein, speaks 8 for itself and provides the best evidence of the contents thereof. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 51: 10 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 11 Thirteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 51: 13 1. The Complaint in this action; 14 2. The minutes of the deliberations of the Newport Beach City 15 Council and Planning Commission with respect to all 16 amendments to the City's General Plan; 17 3. The minutes of the deliberations of the Newport Beach City 18 Council and Planning Commission with respect to all 19 amendments to the City's zoning ordinance; 20 4. The minutes of the deliberations of the Newport Beach City 21 Council and Planning Commission with respect to all 22 amendments to the City's subdivision ordinance; 23 5. The minutes of the deliberations of the Newport Beach City 24 Council and Planning Commission with respect to all 25 subdivisions, variances, use permits, rezonings, general 26 plan amendments, and other land use entitlements request- 27 ed by owners of land within the City from and after 28 August, 1979. -14- 2 3 4 5 6 (A INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Thirteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 52: The City is unaware of any document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Thirteenth 8 Affirmative Defense. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 10 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the 11 Thirteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 13 As the documents described in Interrogatory No. 51 indicate? 14 Plaintiffs failed to object to the City's policies, legislative 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 actions and administrative actions at the numerous public hearings conducted by the City Council and Planning Commission with respect to these policies, enactments and actions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to them. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have never applied to the City for the construction of any low income housing projects, have never inquired of the City regarding the availability of low cost housing in the area, and have never communicated with the City with respect to the subject of housing prior to the filing of their action. NO. 54: Identify each document which supports each allegation of the Fourteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. -15- 111RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 54: 2 1. The Complaint in this action; 3 2. The General Plan of the City of Newport Beach; 4 3. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach; 5 4. The Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach. 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 55: 7 Identify eachAocument which is in any way contrary to or in 8 conflict with any allegation of the Fourteenth Affirmative Defense 9 Ito your Answer. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 55: 11 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 12 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Fourteenth 13 Affirmative Defense. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 56: 15 , Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the 16 Fourteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 17 18 19 20 21 22 231 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Virtually all of the policies, ordinancesr and practices referred to in Plaintiffs' Complaint were adopted years prior to the filing of this action in Februaryr 1980. Plaintiffs' delay has caused the City extreme prejudice, in that the City has devoted much time, planning and expense to projects consistent with its land use ordinances and regulations and in reliance upon their effectiveness and validity. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 57: 26 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 27 Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 28 / / / 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 57: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 57 because it requires the City to identify documents which do not exist, given that the City maintains that Plaintiffs have failed to process any low or moderate income projects within the City. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 58: The City is unaware of any document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Fifteenth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 59: The City realleges and incorporates herein by this reference its objection to Interrogatory No. 57. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Identify each document which supports each allegation of the Eighteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 60: 1. The Budget of the City of Newport Beach; I / / / 2. Cal. Const.r Art. XIII A; 3. The Complaint in this action. -17- N t 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 61: 2 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in ,3 conflict with any allegation of the Eighteenth Affirmative Defense 4 to your Answer. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 61: 6 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 7 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Eighteenth 8 Affirmative Defense. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 62: 10 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the 11 'Eighteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYVO. 62: 13 The City's land use policies conform to the limits of the 14 City's spending ability, and the relief sought by Plaintiffs, 15 Complaint would force the City to forego needed public services, 16 and, indeed, to bankrupt itselff to satisfy demands made by 17 Plaintiffs which find no support in the statutory or decisional 18 law of this State. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 63: 20 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 21 Nineteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 63: 23 i. Environmental Impact Reports accompanying the City's 24 General Plan and other land use policies; 25 2. City Traffic Model Base Data. 26 27 28 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 410 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 64: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Nineteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY'NO. 64: The City is unaware of any document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Nineteenth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO. 65: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Nineteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 65: The City's land use policies have been developed to be consistent with the coastal character of the City, which originally existed as a summer home community. Plaintiffs' requested relief would result in inadequate access to recreational areas, clogged streetst and the conversion of a small municipality into a crowded and congested metropolis. INTERROGATORY NO. 66: Identify each document which supports each allegation of the Twentieth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 66: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 66 on the grounds that it seeks attorneys' work product, which is privileged from disclosure under California law. -19- INTERROGATORY NO. 67: 2 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 3 conflict with any allegation of the Twentieth Affirmative Defense 4 to your Answer. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 67: 6 Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory No. 66. 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 68: 8 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the 9 Twentieth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 68: 11 Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory No. 66. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 69: 13 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 14 Twenty-first Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 69: 16 1. Newport Beach General Plan; 17 2. Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance; 3. Newport Beach Subdivision Ordinance; 1198� 4. Settlement Agreement and Release of Claimsr entered into 20 21 22 23 �zl I 25 26 27 28 between Daon Corporationt Eagle Development Companyr Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation, and Plaintiffs. INTERROGATORY NO. 70: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-first Affirmative Defense to your Answer. -20- 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 70: 2 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 3 contrary to or in,,conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-first 4 Affirmative Defense. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 71: 6 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- 7 first Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 71: 9 California law presumes that the City has not discriminated 10 against the development of low and moderate income housing through 11 its land use regulation system; the Settlement Agreement referred 12 to in the Response to Interrogatory No. 69 confirms this, and the 13 City is unaware of any information to the contrary. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 72: 15 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 16 Twenty-second Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 72: 18 See re sponse to Interrogatory Nos. 60 through 62. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 73: 20 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 21 conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-second Affirmative 22 Defense to your Answer. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 73: 24 See response to Interrogatory Nos. 60 through 62. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 74: 26 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- 27 second Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 28 _21- r 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 74: �2 See response to Interrogatory Nos. 60 through 62: 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 75: 4 Identify each document which supports each allegation of 5 the Twenty-third Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 6 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 75: 7 1. Newport Beach General Plan; 8 2. Newport Beach Subdivision ordinance; 9 3. Newport Beach Zoning ordinance; 10 4. U.S. Constitution, Amend. 10; 11 5. Cal. Const., Art. XI, Secs. 3, 5 and 7. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 76: 13 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 14 conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-third Affirmative 15 Defense to your Answer. 16 RESPONSE TO -INTERROGATORY NO. 76: 17 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 18 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-third 19 Affirmative Defense. 201INTERROGATORY NO. 77: 21 identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- 22 third Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 77: 24 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 77 on the ground that it 25 requires the City to divulge attorneys' work producty which is 26 privileged from disclosure under California law. 27 28 -22- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141 INTERROGATORY NO. 78: Identify each document which supports each allegation of the Twenty-fourth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 78: 1. Newport Beach General Plan; 2. Local Coastal Plan of the City of Newport Beach. INTERROGATORY NO. 79: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-fourth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 79: The City is unaware of any document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-fourth Affirmative Defense. 15 INTERRUUATURY NU. bu: 16 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- 17 fourth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 80: 19 The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that housing 20 prices, construction costs, and the costs of borrowing money for 21 construction and residential purposes has increased significantly 22 during the past 10 years. These increases preclude the development 23 of low and moderate income housing, absent massive state and/or 24 Federal subsidy programst neither of which currently exist. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 81: 26 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 27 Twenty-fifth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 28 -23- 1. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 81: 2 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 81 because it raises 3 essentially legal issues, and thus seeks to acquire attorneys, work 4 product, which is privileged from discovery under California law. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 82: 6 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 7 conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-fifth Affirmative 8 Defense to your Answer. 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 82: 10 See response to Interrogatory No. 81. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 83: 12 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- 1,3 fifth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 83: 15 See response to Interrogatory No. 81. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 84: 17' Identify each document which supports each of the allegations .18 in the four subsections of the Twenty-sixth 19 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 84: 21 1. Newport Beach General Plan; 22 2. Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan; 23 3. Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance; 24 4. Newport Beach Subdivision Ordinance; 25 5. Environmental Impact Reports prepared in connection with 26 the Newport Beach General Plan and its amendments, on the 27 City's zoning ordinances and the City's subdivision 28 ordinances. -24- 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 85: 2 Identify each document which is in any way contrary or in 3 conflict with any of the allegations in the four subsections of 4 the Twenty-sixth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 85: 6 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 7 contrary to or in conflict with any of the allegations in the four 8 subsections of the Twenty-sixth Affirmative Defense. 91INTERROGATORY NO. 86: 10 identify the factual bases for each allegation in the four 11 subsections of the Twenty-sixth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 86: 13 The documents referred to in Interrogatory No. 84 speak for 14 themselves and demonstrate that any restrictions imposed by the 15 City in its land use regulations are solely for environmental, 16 health, safety and aesthetic purposes. 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 87: 18 identify each document which supports each allegation of the 19 Twenty-seventh Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 87:- 1. California Planning and Zoning nawr Government Code Section 63000, et seq.; 2. California Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq. INTERROGATORY NO. 88: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-seventh Affirmative Defense to your Answer. -25- I 1 2 3 4 5 6 VA H INTERROGATORY NO. 88: The City is unaware of any document which is in any way trary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Twenty- enth Affirmative Defense to its Answer. . 89: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- th Affirmative Defense to your Answer. NSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 89: 9 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 89 on the ground that lo the Thirty -Seventh Affirmative Defense in the City's Answer is 11 essentially legal in naturep such that answering Interrogatory No. 12 89 would require the City to divulge privileged attorneys' work 13 product. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 90: 15 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 16 Thirty-sixth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 90: 18 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 9 because the informa- 19 tion requested is essentially legal in nature, such that any 20 response by the City would divulge attorneys' work product, which 21 is privileged from disclosure under California law. Furthermore, 22 the City's actions and policies are presumed to be valid and 23 lawful, and the City is unaware of any facts or documents to the 24 contrary. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 91: 26 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 27 conflict with any allegation of the Thirty-sixth Affirmative 28 Defense to your Answer. -26- a 4 7 ic 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cl RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 91 Not applicable; see Respons INTERROGATORY NO. 92: Identify the factual bases Thirty-sixth Affirmative Defense RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 92 Not applicable; see respons INTERROGATORY NO. 93: Identify each document whic Fortieth Affirmative Defense to RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 93 The City restates and incor: its response to Interrogatory No INTERROGATORY NO. 94: Identify each document whic: conflict with any allegation of your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 94 Not applicable; see responsi INTERROGATORY NO. 95: Identify the factual bases i Affirmative Defense to your Answ4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 95 Not applicable; see responsi INTERROGATORY NO. 96: identify each document whic] Forty-first Affirmative Defense I e to Interrogatory No. 90. for each allegation of the to your Answer. a to Interrogatory No. 90. ,� supports each allegation of the your Answer. porates herein by this reference . 90. i is in any way contrary to or in Lhe Fortieth Affirmative Defense to a to Interrogatory No. 93. Eor each allegation of the Fortieth to Interrogatory No. 93. i supports each allegation of the :o your Answer. !7- A e ) 16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 96 The City restates and incor its response to Interrogatory No INTERROGATORY NO. 97: Identify each document whic conflict with any allegation of Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 97 Not applicable; see respons INTERROGATORY NO. 98: Identify the factual bases first Affirmative Defense to you RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 98 Not applicable; see respons INTERROGATORY NO. 99: Identify each document whic: Forty-second Affirmative Defense RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 99 The City restates and incor] its response to Interrogatory No INTERROGATORY NO. 100: Identify each document whi& conflict with any allegation of Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO., 10 Not applicable; see respons, ?orates hereinby this reference . 90. i is in any way contrary to or in :he Forty-first Affirmative to Interrogatory No. 96. Eor each allegation of the Forty- : Answer. to Interrogatory No. 96. i supports each allegation of the to your Answer. ?orates herein by this reference I go. 1 is in any way contrary to or in :he Forty-second Affirmative to Interrogatory No. 99. ?8- I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 101: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Forty- second Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 101: Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory No. 99. DATED: November 12, 1981 RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG ROBERT BURNHAM, Esq. CVty of Newport Beach,lCity Council of the City of Newport Beach, and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach -29- ( I (VERIFICATION-446,20I5.5C.C.P.) -- STATE'OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE I am the Advance Planning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach, Defendant and Respondent DGATORIES in the above entitled action, I have read the foregain RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERR PROPOUNDED LIpON DEFENDANT CITZ OF M�pORT BEACH (Interrogatories 27-101) and know the contents thereof, and I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury,* that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed TjnN�Tnl-k�r 17. 1921 NewDort Beach (PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL — 1013a, 2015.5, C. C. P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE f I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid, I mn over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the 611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400, P.O. Box 1950, Costa Mesar CA 92666 withia above entitled action; my business address is: ---' lbft 0 beetief --Ra ; , ; . . , . 99P49 On th 17th of November 1 81 1 served the within RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF IN92RROGATORIES 9=� pRopoUMM T3pW DEFENDANT ciTy OF mwoRT BEACH (Interrogatories 27-101) on the parties in said action, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage Mereon fully prepaid, in the United States post office mail box at— costa mesa, California addressed as follows: SEE ATI!ACHED LIST I certify (or declare), under penalty of perfury,* that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed November 17. 1981 Costa Mesa. Barbara Caradies *Both the verification and proof a/ service by mail forms, being s4ped under penalty of perjury, do not require notarizatian. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Katherine R. Wolff , Esq. Crange county Fair Housing Council 1525 East 17th Street Santa Ana, CA Richard W. Petherbridge, Esq. 1722 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 George Deukmjian, Attorney General R. H. Connett, Assistant Attorney General Dixie Moe, Deputy Attorney General 3580 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 John E. McDermttj Esq. jonathan Lehrer-Graiumer, Esq. Richard A. Rothchild, Esq. 3535 West Sixth Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 Crystal C. Sims, Esq. Legal Aid Society of orange County 2700 N. Main Street 11th Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 -and- Robert K. Break, Esq. William W. W�nder, Esq. Latham anaWatkins 660 Naqport Center Drive, Suite 1400 Nwport Beach, CA 92660 I 1 RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL 2 JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG 3 Attorneys at Law 611 Anton Boulevard 4 P.O. Box 1950 51Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 641-5100 6 ROBERT BURNHAM Acting City Attorney 7 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard 8 Newport Beachr California (714) 640-2201 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 92660 Attorneys for Defendants City of Newport Beach, City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARON GARRISON; DOROTHY M. McALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, a non-profit corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCILt a non-profit corportion, 20 11vs. Plaintiffs/Petitioners, 21 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLAN- 22 NING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE COMPANY, a corpora- 23 tion; DOES 1 through 1001 Inclusive, 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants/Respondentse OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY F Real Party in Interest. NO. 32 95 85 RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (Interrogatories 27-101) 1 Defendants City of Newport Beach, City Council of the 2 City of Newport Beach and Planning Commission of the City of 3 Newport Beach (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the 4 City") respond to Interrogatories Nos. 27 through 101p inclusive, 5 of Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories propounded upon 6 the City, as follows: 7 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 8 The City makes the following responses subject to all 9 pertinent objections regarding admissibility and relevancy 10 that may be interposed at trial. Initially, it should be noted 11 that the City has not completed its investigation of the facts 12 relating to this case, has not completed its discovery in this 13 action, and has not completed its preparation for trial. The 14 following responses therefore are given without prejudice 15 to the City's right to produce evidence of any subsequently 16 discovered facts. 17 Some interrogatories seek to ascertain information which 18 may or may not exist in City files. In the course of preparing 19 its responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, the 20 staff employees of the City most knowledgeable concerning the. 21 subject matter of the interrogatories have been questioned 22 regarding the existence of the information requested in the 23 City documents. Where the existence and location of such 24 documents are known or are readily availabler those documents 25 have been identified. Howeverr the City has not conducted 26 an exhaustive search of all of its own files for purposes of 27 uncovering such documents which may contain information falling 28 within the scope of the interrogatories. Such a search could -2- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IX&I ill 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 take literally years to accomplish. Notwithstanding the ob- jections interposed by the City to specific interrogatories, the City has already made its files available to Plaintiff f6r examination, inspection and copying. In this regard, and not by way of limitation of any of the foregoing, the City would point out that in the course of preparing its defense in this action, it has analyzed its own files, prepared compilationst abstracts and summaries therefrom, and has prepared documentary material for the purpose of aiding its attorneys in preparation for trial. The City claims the attorney -client and work product privileges with respect to these documents. Many of the interroga�ories go far beyond any appropriate subject matter of this actionp and tend to oppress, burdenp annoy and harass the City. Specifically, many of the inter- rogatories request information which seemingly relates to legislative enactments and subdivision approvals which were enacted or approved subsequent to the filing of this action. Given that this action seeks to challenge specific actions and enactments adopted by the City, information relating to approvals and legislative enactments adopted subsequent to the filing of this action, and which were not referred to in the Complaint on file herein, are irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the production of relevant evidence. Furthermorer Statement No. 8 in the "Instructions" to Plaintiffs' First Set of interrogatories implies that the interrogatories are continuing in nature. The City objects to Statement No. 8 because "continuing" discovery requests are impermissible under California discovery law. -3- See, Smith v. Superior Court, 1 lsg Cal. App. 2d 6, 11 Cal. Rptr. 165 (1961); Kenney_v. 2 Superior 'Court, 225 Cal. App. 2d 106, 112, fn. 5. 63 Cal. 3 Rptr. 84 (1967). 4 most of the objections interposed herein are common to many 5 of the interrogatories. Therefore, in order to avoid the extreme 6 burden of being forced to repeat identical objections numerous 7 �imes, the City objects generally to the "Definitions and 8 Instructions" and to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, 9 as follows: 10 1. The interrogatories are irrelevant to the subject 11 matter of this action and are not calculated to lead to the 12 discovery of admissible evidence; 13 2. The interrogatories request information regarding 141matters of little or no practical value to Plaintifff and less 15 burdensome means of discovery could produce the desired infor- 16 mation. 17 3. The interrogatories require disclosure of irrelevant 18 as well as relevant matters, and thus are overly broad. 19 4. The interrogatories are burdensome, oppressive, 2o harassing, and/or annoying to the.Cityr such that requiring 21 answers results in injustice to the City. 22 5. Answering the interrogatories places a burden and 23 expense on the answering party that should equitably be borne 24 by the propounder. 25 6. much of the information sought by the interrogatories is 26 equally available to Plaintiffs, such that the interrogatories 27 essentially require the City to prepare Plaintiffs, case for'them. 28 7. The interrogatorR�§-and their "Definitions and Instruc- -4- 2 3 4 5 6 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 tions" are impermissibly "boilerplatell and "shotgun" in nature. &. The interrogatories and their Definitions and Instruc- tions are vague, uncertain and ambiguous. 9. The interrogatories impermissibly seek to probe into the motives of the legislators who enacted the legislation which is the subject of these interrogatories. 10. The information requested by the interrogatories is protected by the attorney -work product privilege. 111INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 21 3 4 5 6 7 8 "I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 221 23 24 25 26 27 28 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the Second Affirmative Defense to your "Answer to Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to Enjoin Exclu- sionary Land Use Practices and Second Amended Petition For Writ of Mandate" (hereinafter "Answer"). RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 1. Charter of the City of Newport Beach; 2. Newport Beach City Code; 3. General Plan of the City of Newport Beach; 4. Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Newport Beach; 5. Constitution of the United States; 6. The United States Code (Titles 1 through 50); 7. The Constitution of the State of California; 8. The Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code Section 63000f et seq; 9. The Subdivision Map Actp Government Code Section 66410r et seq; 10. All other applicable provisions of the California Codes. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in :onflict with any allegation of the Second Affirmative Defense to rour Answer. ZESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28: The City is unaware of any document which is contrary to or in :onflict with any of the allegations of the Second Affirmative )efense. I / / I INTERROGATORY NO. 29: 2 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Second 3 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29: 5 The City's land use, General Plan, zoning, subdivision, 6 environmental and housing development policies and procedures are 7 presumed as a matter of law to be valid and in compliance with all 81laws, and the City is unaware of any facts which might indicate the 9 contrary. 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 3G: 11 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 12 Third Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30: 14 1; Charter of the City of Newport Beach; 15 2. Newport Beach City Code; 16 3. General Plan of the City of Newport Beach; 17 4. Subdivision ordinances of the City of Newport Beach. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 31: 19 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 20 conflict with any allegation of the Third Affirmative Defense to 21 your Answer. 22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31: 23 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 24 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Third 25 Affirmative Defense. 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 27 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Third 28 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. -7- 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 2 The actions of the City in establishing and implementing its 3 land use and housing development policies and procedures are 4 presumed as a matter of law to be supported by and in furtherance 5 of legitimate governmental interests, and the City is unaware of 6 any facts which might indicate the contrary. 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 33: 8 identify each document which supports each allegation of the 9 Fourth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33: 11 1. The Charter of the City of Newport Beach; 12 2. Newport Beach City Code; 13 3. General Plan of the City of 'Newport Beach; 14 4. Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Newport Beach; 15 5. Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims, entered into 16 by and between Daon Corporation, Eagle Development 17 Corporation, Ford Aerospace and Communications Corpora- 18 tione and Plaintiffs herein, Olive Davis, et al. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 34: 20 Identify each document which.is in any way contrary to or in 211conflict with any allegation of the Fourth Affirmative Defense to 2211your Answer. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34: 24 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 2.5 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Fourth 26 Affirmative Defense. 27 28 0 10 2 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Fourth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35: 5 As a matter of lawr it is presumed that low and moderate 6 income housing is not and has not been excluded from the boundaries 7 of the City, and that the City, by its policies and procedures, 8 has not excluded or intended to exclude low and moderate income 9 housing. The City knows of no facts which might indicate the 10 contrary. The document entitled "Settlement Agreement and Release 1.1 of Claimsr" referred to in the Response to Interrogatory No. 33 12 herein, speaks for itself and is the best evidence of the facts 13 therein. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 15 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 16 Eighth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 18 1. The Complaint in this action. 191INTERROGATORY NO. 37: 20 Identify each document which.is in any way contrary to or in 21 conflict with any allegation of the Eighth Affirmative Defense to 22 your Answer. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37: 24 The City is unaware of any documents which are in any way 25 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Eighth 26 Affirmative Defense. 2711/ 28 1/ -9- 0 1 VA 91 -;j 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 �WA M INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Eighth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Based on the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint (at para- graphs 3(a) through 3(h)), none of the Plaintiffs have sufficient personal interest in the matters alleged in the Complaint to establish their standing to sue in this action. The City is unaware of any facts to the contrary. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: identify each document which supports each allegation of the Ninth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39: 1. The Complaint in this action; 2. Tentative Tracts 10391, 10019F 10814, 11379, 11064r 11065; 3. Final Tracts 10587, 10151r 10986, 10987, 11041P 11042, 11043r 11044, 11045, 11046, 11047, 11048, 10987r 9676j 10625, 11018; 4. Proposals and applications from all persons proposing to subdivide or seek other land use approvals for their property located within the boundaries of the City. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Ninth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. -10- U !'D 111RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.�40: 2 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 3 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Ninth 4 Affirmative Defense. 51INTERROGATORY NO. 41: 6 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Ninth 7 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41: 9 Plaintiffs seek by their Complaint to enjoin all subdivisions 10 proposed within 180 days of the filing of their Complaint, and 11 thereafter. Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin and invalidate other 12 land use approvals granted by the City. Should Plaintiffs succeed 13 in this relief, certain persons and firms who haver or may have, 14 substantial vested rights in property located within the City will 15 lose or suffer impairment of these rights. These persons and firms 16 thus are necessary and indispensible parties within the meaning of 17 Code of Civil Procedure Section 389. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 42: 19 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 20 Tenth Affirmative Defense to your.Answer. 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42: 22 1. The unverified Complaint in this action. 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 43: 24 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 25 conflict with any allegation of the Tenth Affirmative Defense to 26 your Answer. 27 28 —11- 0 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43: 2 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 3 contrary t6 or in conflict with any allegation of the Tenth 4 Affirmative Defense. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 44: 6 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Tenth 7 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44: 9 The Complaint in this action is unverifiedr indicating that 10 no Plaintiff has attested to the truth or correctness of the 11 allegations therein. The authorization of Plaintiffs to file this 12 action must be established by Plaintiffs themselves; no such 13 evidence of this exists, and the City is unaware of any facts 14 indicating such authorization. 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 45: 16 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 17 Eleventh Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45: 19 1. The Complaint in this action. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 46: 21 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 22 conflict with any allegation of the Eleventh Affirmative Defense to 23 your Answer. 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46: 25 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 26 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Eleventh 27 Affirmative Defense. 28 / / / -12- 0 0 1 2 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Eleventh 3 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47: 5 By the relief requested in Plaintiff's Complaint, which is 6 unsupported by any statute or court decision, Plaintiffs seek to 7 block all development within the City until Plaintiffs' demands ire 8 met. As a logical consequence thereof, no employment centers or 9 Ihousing would be constructed within the City until Plaintiffs' NO. 47: unwarranted demands are satisfied. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: 12 identify each document which supports each allegation of the 13 Twelfth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48: 15 1. The Complaint in this action; 16 2. The document entitled "Settlement Agreement and Release of 17 Claims," referred to in the Response to Interrogatory 18 No. 33 herein. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 49: 20 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 21 conflict with any allegation of the Twelfth Affirmative Defense to 22 your Answer. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 49: 24 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 251contrary to or inconsistent with any allegation of the Twelfth 26 Affirmative Defense. 2711/ 28 / -13- 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.* 2 identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twelfth 3 Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 50: 5 See paragraphs 16 through 22, inclusive, of the City's Answer. 6 The document entitled "Settlement Agreement and Release of Claimsr" 7 referred to in the Response to Interrogatory No. 33 herein, speaks 8 for itself and provides the,best evidence of the contents thereof. 9 INTERROGATORY -NO. 51: 10 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 11 Thirteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 51: 13 1. The Complaint in this action; 14 2. The minutes of the deliberations of the Newport Beach City 15 Council and Planning Commission with respect to all 16 amendments to the City's General Plan; 17 3. The minutes of the deliberations of the Newport Beach City is Council and Planning Commission with respect to all 19 amendments to the City's zoning ordinance; 20 4. The minutes of the deliberations of the Newport Beach City 21 Council and Planning Commission with respect to all 22 amendments to the City's subdivision ordinance; 23 5. The minutes of the deliberations of the Newport Beach City 24 Council'and Planning Commission with respect to all 25 subdivisions, variances, use permits, rezonings, general 26 plan amendments, and other land use entitlements request- 27 ed by owners of land within the City from�and after 28 August, 1979. -14- 0 ral I INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 2 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 3 conflict with any allegation of the Thirteenth Affirmative Defense 4 to your Answer. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 6 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 7 . contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Thirteenth 8 Affirmative Defense. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 10 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the 11 Thirteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 12 E TO 13 As the documents described in Interrogatory No. 51 indicater 14 Plaintiffs failed to object to the City's policies, legislative 15 actions and administrative actions at the numerous public hearings 16 conducted by the City Council and Planning Commission with respect 17 to these policies, enactments and actions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 18 have failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to 19 them. Furthermorer Plaintiffs have never applied to the City for 20 the construction of any low income housing projectst have never 21 inquired of the City regarding the availability of low cost housing 22 in the areat and have never communicated with the City with respect 23 to the subject of housing prior to the filing of their*action. 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 54: 25 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 261Fourteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 2711/ / / 2811/ / / -15- 2 3 IRESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 54: 1. The Complaint in this action; 2. The General Plan of the City Of Newport Beach; 4 3. The zoning ordinance of the City of Newport Beach; 5 4. The Subdivision ordinance of the City of Newport Beach. 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 55: 7 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 8 conflict with any allegation of the Fourteenth Affirmative Defense 9 to your Answer. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 55: 11 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 12 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Fourteenth 13 Affirmative Defense. 141 INTERROGATORY NO. 56: 15 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the 16 Fourteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 56: 18 Virtually all of the policies, ordinancest and practices 19 referred to in Plaintiffs' Complaint were adopted years prior to 20 the filing of this action in February, 1980. Plaintiffs' delay has 21 caused the City extreme prejudice, in that the City has devoted 22 much timel planning and expense to projects consistent with its 23 land use ordinances and regulations and in reliance upon their 24 effectiveness and validity. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 57: 26 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 27 Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 28 -16- I 0 1.0 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 57: 2 The City objects to.Interrogatory No. 57 because it requires 3 the City to identify documents which do not exist, given that the 4 City maintains that Plaintiffs have failed to process any low or 5 moderate income projects within the City. 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 58: 7 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 8 conflict with any allegation of the Fifteenth Affirmative Defense 9 to your Answer. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 58: 11 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 12 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Fifteenth 13 Affirmative Defense. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 59: 15 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the 16 Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 59: 18 The City realleges and incorporates herein by this reference 19 its objection to Interrogatory No. 57. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 60: 21 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 22 Eighteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 60: 24 1. The Budget of the City of Newport Beach; 25 2. Cal. Const.p Art. XIII A; 26 3. The Complaint in this action. 27 28 -17- a a I 2 3 4 5 6 4 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 201 21 221 231 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 61: identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Eighteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 61: The City is unaware of any document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Eighteenth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Eighteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 62: The City's land use policies conform to the limits of the City's spending ability, and the relief sought by Plaintiffs, Complaint would force the City to forego needed public services, and, indeed, to bankrupt itself, to satisfy demands made by Plaintiffs which find no support in the statutory or decisional law of this State. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: Identify each document which supports each allegation of the Nineteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 63: 1. Environmental Impact Reports accompanying the City's General Plan and other land use policies; 2. City Traffic Model Base Data. om 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JINTERROGATORY NO. 64: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 1conflict with any allegation of the Nineteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 64: The City is unaware of any document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Nineteenth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO. 65: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Nineteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 65: The City's land use policies have been developed to be consistent with the coastal character of the Cityr which originally existed as a summer home community. Plaintiffs' requested relief would result in inadequate access to recreational areas, clogged streets, and the conversion of a small municipality into a crowded and congested metropolis. INTERROGATORY NO. 66: Identify each document which supports each allegation of the Twentieth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 66: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 66 on the grounds that it seeks attorneys' work product, which is privileged frodl disclosure under California law. -19- 0 10 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 67: 2 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 3 conflict with any allegation of the Twentieth Affirmative Defense 4 to your Answer. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 67: 6 Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory No. 66. 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 68: 8 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the 9 Twentieth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 68: 11 Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory No. 66. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 69: 13 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 14ITwenty-first Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 69: 16 1. Newport Beach General Plan; 17 2. Newport Beach Zoning ordinance; 18 3. Newport Beach Subdivision ordinance; 19 4. Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims, entered into 20 between Daon Corporation, Eagle Development Companyr. 21 Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation, and 22 Plaintiffs. 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 70: 24 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 25 conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-first Affirmative 26 Defense to your Answer. 27 28 -20- a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 70: The City is unaware of any document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-first Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO. 71: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- first Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 71: California law presumes that the City has not discriminated against the development of low and moderate income housing through its land use regulation system; the Settlement Agreement referred to in the Response to Interrogatory No. 69 confirms this, and the City is unaware of any information to the contrary. INTERROGATORY NO. 72: Identify each document which supports each allegation of the Twenty-second Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 72: See response to Interrogatory Nos. 60 through 62. INTERROGATORY NO. 73: Identify each document which.is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-second Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 73: See response to Interrogatory Nos. 60 through 62. INTERROGATORY NO. 74: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- second Affirmative Defense to your Answer. -21- 1 0 0 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 74: 2 See response to Interrogatory Nos. 60 through 62: 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 75: 4 Identify each document which supports each allegation of 5 the Twenty-third Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 6 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 75: 7 1. Newport Beach General Plan; 8 2. Newport Beach Subdivision ordinance; 9 3. Newport Beach zoning ordinance; 10 4. U.S. Constitution, Amend. 10; 11 5. Cal. Const., Art. XI, Secs. 3, 5 and 7. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 76: 13 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 14 conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-third Affirmative 15 Defense to your Answer. 16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 76-: 17, The City is unaware of any document which is in any way I 18 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the -Twenty-third N" Affirmative Defense. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 77: 21 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- 22 third Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 77: M, 2.5 26 27 28 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 77 on the ground that it quires the City to divulge attorneys' work product, which is ivileged from disclosure under California law. -22- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NO. 78: Identify each document which supports each allegation of the Twenty-fourth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 78: 1. Newport Beach General Plan; 2. Local Coastal Plan of the City of Newport Beach. INTERROGATORY NO. 79: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-fourth Affirmative 10 Dezense to your Answer. 11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 79: 12 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 13 contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-fourth 14 Affirmative Defense. 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 80: 16 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- 17 fourth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 80: 19 The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that housing 20 prices, construction costsr and the costs of borrowing money for 211construction and residential purposes has increased significantly 22 23 241 25 26 27 28 during the past 10 years. These increases preclude the development of low and moderate income housingp absent massive state and/or Federal subsidy programs, neither of which currently exist. TMMWVDnnhMnDV NIn 01. Identify each document which supports each allegation of the �wenty-fifth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. I / / -23- a 01 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 81: The City objects to Interrogatory No. 81 because it raises essentially legal issues, and thus seeks to acquire attorneys, work product, which is privileged from discovery under California law. INTERROGATORY NO. 82: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-fifth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 82: See response to Interrogatory No. 81. INTERROGATORY NO. 83: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- fifth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 83: See response to Interrogatory No. 81. INTERROGATORY NO. 84: Identify each document which supports each of the allegations in the four subsections of the Twenty-sixth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 84:. 1. Newport Beach General Plan; 2. Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan; 3. Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance; 4. Newport Beach Subdivision Ordinance; 5. Environmental Impact Reports prepared in connection with the Newport Beach General Plan and its amendments, on the City's zoning ordinances and the City's subdivision ordinances. -24- 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 85: 2 Identify each document which is in any way contrary or in 3 conflict with any of the allegations in the four subsections of 4 the Twenty-sixth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 85: 6 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 7 contrary to or in conflict with any of the allegations in the four 8 subsections of the Twenty-s-ixth Affirmative Defense. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 86: 10 Identify the factual bases for each allegation in the four 11 subsections of theTwenty-sixth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 86: 13 The documents referred to in Interrogatory No. 84 speak for 14 themselves and demonstrate that any restrictions imposed by the 15 City in its land use -regulations are solely for environmentalp 16 health, safety and aesthetic purposes. 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 87: 18 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 19 Twenty-seventh Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 87: 21 1. California Planning and Zoning naw, Government Code 22 Section 63000, et seq.; 23 2. California Subdivision Map Actr Government Code Section 24 66410, et seq. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 88: 26 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 27 conflict with any allegation of the Twenty-seventh Affirmative 28 Defense to your Answer. -25- 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 88: 2 The City is unaware of any document which is in any way 3 contrary to or in.conflict with any allegation of the Twenty- 4 seventh Affirmative Defense to its Answer. 5 INTERRUGATURY NU. b�f: 6 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Twenty- 7 seventh Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 89: 9 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 89 on the ground that 10 the Thirty -Seventh Affirmative Defense in the City's Answer is 11 essentially legal in nature, such that answering Interrogatory No. 12 89 would require the City to divulge privileged attorneys' work 13 product. 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 90-: 15 Identify each document which supports each allegation of the 16 Thirty-sixth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 90: 18 The City objects to Interrogatory No. 9 because the informa- 19 tion requested is essentially legal in naturer such that any 20 response by the City would divulge attorneys' work product, which 21 is privileged from disclosure under California law. Furthermore, 22 the City's actions and policies are presumed to be valid and 23 lawfult and the City is unaware of any facts or documents to the 24 contrary. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 91: 2 6 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or in 27 conflict with any allegation of the Thirty-sixth Affirmative 28 Defense to your Answer. -26- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.91 Not applicable; see Respons INTERROGATORY NO. 92: Identify the factual bases Thirty-sixth Affirmative Defense RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 92 Not applicable; see respons INTERROGATORY NO., 93: Identify each document whic Fortieth Affirmative Defense to RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 93 The City restates and incor. its response to Interrogatory No INTERROGATORY NO. 94: Identify each document whic] conflict with any allegation of your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 94 Not applicable; see responsi INTERROGATORY NO. 95: Identify the factual bases Affirmative Defense to your Answi RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 95 Not applicable; see responso INTERROGATORY NO. 96: Identify each document whicl Forty-first Affirmative Defense e to Interrogatory No. 90. for each allegation of the to your Answer. a to Interrogatory No. 90. a supports each allegation of the your Answer. oorates herein by this reference . 90. i is in any way contrary to or in the Fortieth Affirmative Defense to to Interrogatory No. 93. Eor each allegation of the Fortieth to Interrogatory No. 93. i supports each allegation of the :o your Answer. !7- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 2.5 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 96 The City restates and incor its response to Interrogatory No INTERROGATORY NO. 97: Identify each document whic conflict with any allegation of Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 97 Not applicable; see respons INTERROGATORY NO. 98: Identify the factual bases first Affirmative Defense to you RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 98 Not applicable; see respons INTERROGATORY NO. 99: Identify each document whic Forty-second Affirmative Defense RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 99 The City restates and incor its response to Interrogatory No INTERROGATORY NO. 100: Identify each document whic conflict with any allegation of Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Not applicable; see respons Dorates herein by this reference . 90. a is in any way contrary to or in the Forty-first Affirmative a to Interrogatory No. 96. for each allegation of the Forty- r Answer. B to Interrogatory No. 96. i supports each allegation of the to your Answer. oorates herein by this reference . 90. a is in any way contrary to or in the Forty-second Affirmative a to Interrogatory No. 99. Mc "Ill 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 VA 91 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 271 E, -a INTERROGATORY NO. 101: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Forty- second Affirmative Defense to your Answer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 101: Not applicable; see response to Interrogatory No. 99. DATED: November 12p 1981 RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG ROBERT BURNHAM, Esq. ""Mendan s orneys for D y of Newport Beachj�Clity �15 Council of the City of Newport Beach, and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach -29- (VERIFICATION — 446, 2D15.5 C. C. P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE I am th Advance Planning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach, Defendant and in the above entitled action, I have read the foregoing RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT CITY OF NEWPORT 13EACH (Interrogatories 27-101) and know the contents :hereof; and I certify that the same is true of my vwn knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon my informatfou or belicl, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury,* that the foregoingIs true and correct. Executed an November 17, 1981 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Beach California (PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL — 1013a, 2015.5, C. C. P.) COUNTY OF ORANGE f M. I ant a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I out over Me age of eighteen years and not a party to tile 611 Anton BlVd., Suite 1400, P.O. BOX 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92666 idthin above entitled fiction; my business address is: Onthe- 17th of Novenber 9 81 . I served the within RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (Interrogatories 27-101) on th parties said action, by placing a trite copy thereof enclosed in a scaled envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States post oBice mail box at-. costa msa, California addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED LIST .1 certify (or declare), under penalty of perjum* that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed a NoVMber 17, 1981 �f Costa Msa, Barbara Caradies *Both the verification and proof of service by mail forms, being signed under penalty of perjury, do not require notarization. I M 3, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Katherine R. T%blff, Esq. orange county Fair Housing Council 1525 East 17th Street Santa -Ana, CA Richard TI. Petherbridge, Esq. 1722 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 George Deukn-ejian, Attorney General R. H. connett, Assistant Attorney General Dixie Moe, Deputy Attorney General 3580 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 John E. Mc;Dermott, Esq. Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwert Esq. Richard A. Rothchild, Esq. 3535 West Sixth Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 crystal C. Sims, Esq. legal Aid Society of Orange County 2700 N. Main Street llth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 U-Mic Robert K. Break, Esq. William W. 'V.�?nder, Esq. latham and Watkins 660 New -port Center Drive, Suite 1400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I L 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG httorneys at Law 611 Anton Boulevard P.O. Box 1950 Costa mesa, California 92626 (714) 641-5100 KICHAEL MILLER, City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640-2201 i j bo Lo Attorneys for Defendants City of Newport Beachr City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARON GARRISON; DOROTHY M. MC ALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATIONr a non-profit corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a non-profit corporationp Plaintiffs/Petitioners, VS. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE IRVINE COMPANY, a corporation; DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants/Respondentsj and DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, Real Party in Interest. NO. 32 95 85 SUPPLEMENTARY AND FURTHER RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGA- TORIES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 211 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. Defendants CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, and PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the City") hereby provide further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 32f 57, 59, 62, 65, 74, 77 and 80 of Plaintiffs' First Set of Inter- rogatories. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The City makes the following responses subject to all pertinent objections regarding admissibility and relevancy that may be interposed at trial. Initially, it should be noted that the City has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not completed its discovery in this action, and has not completed its preparation for trial. The following responses therefore are given without prejudice to the City's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered f acts. Some interrogatories seek to ascertain information which may or may not exist in City files. In the course of preparing these further responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatoriesr the staff employees of the City most knowledgeable concerning the subject matter of the interrogatories have been questioned regarding the existence of the information requested in the City documents. Where the existence and location of such documents are known or are readily available, those documents have been identified. However, the City has not conducted an exhaustive search of all of its own files for purposes of uncovering such documents which may contain information falling within the scope of the interrogatories. Such a search could take literally years -2- 1 to accomplish. Notwithstanding the objections interposed by the 2 City to specific interrogatories, the City has already made its 3 files available to Plaintiffs for examination, inspection and 4 copying. In this regard, and not by way of limitation of any of 5 the foregoing, the City would point out that -in the course of 6 preparing its defense in this action, it has analyzed its own 7 files, prdpared compilations, abstracts and summaries therefrom, 8 and has prepared documentary material for the purpose of aiding 9 its attorneys in preparation for trial. The City claims the 10 attorney -client and work product privileges with respect to these 11 documents. 12 Many of the interrogatories go far beyond any appropriate 13 subject matter of this actiont And tend to oppressr burdenr 14 annoy and harass the City. Specifically, many of the interroga- 15 tories request information which seemingly relates to legislative 16 enactments and subdivision approvals which were enacted or approved 17 subsequent to the filing of this action. Given that this action 18 seeks to challenge specific actions and enactments adopted.by the 19 City, information relating to approvals and legislative enactments 20 adopted subsequent to the filing of this action, and which were 21 not referred to in the Complaint on file hereint are irrelevant, 22 immaterial and not calculated to lead to the production of relevant 23 evidence. Furthermorer Statement No. 8 in the "Instructions" to 24 Plaintiffs' First set of Interrogatories implies that the inter- 25 rogatories are continuing in nature. The City objects to State- 26 ment No. 8 because "continuing" discovery requests are imper- 27 missible under California discovery law. See Smith v. Superior 28 Court, 189 Cal. App. 2d 6, 11 Cal. Rptr. 165 (1961); E�� �ev.� -3- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Superior Court, 225 Cal. App. 2d 106r 112, fn 5, 63 Cal. Rptr. 84 (1967). most of the objections interposed herein are common to many of the interrogatories. Therefore,, in order to avoid the extreme burden of being forced to repeat identical objections numerous times, the City objects generally to the "Definitions and instructions" and to Plaintiffs' First Set of interrogatories, as follows: 1. The interrogatories are irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 2. The interrogatories request information regarding matters of little or n o practical value to Plaintifff and less burdensome means of discovery could produce the desired information. 3. The interrogatories require disclosure of irrelevant as well as relevant matters, and thus are overly broad. 4. The interrogatories are burdensome, oppressive, harassing, and/or annoying to the Cityr such that requiring answers. re . suits in injustice to the City. 5. . Answering the interrogatories places a burden and expense on the answering party that should equitably be borne by the propounder. 6. Much of the information sought by the interrogatories is equally available to Plaintiffs, such that the interrogatories e I ssentially require the city to prepare Plaintiffs' case for them. 7. The interrogatories and their "Definitions and Instruc- tions" are impermissibly "boilerplatell and "shotgun" in nature. -4- 7-�; 10 0 1 8. The interrogatories and their "Definitions and Instruc- 2 tions" are vague, uncertain and ambiguous. 3 9. The interrogatories impermissibly seek to probe into 4 the motives of the legislators who enacted the legislation which 5 is the subject of these interrogatories. 6 10. The information requested by the interrogatories is 7 protected -by the attorney work -product privilege. 8 9 FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 10 The following facts support the allegations of the Third 11 Affirmative Defense in the City's Answer. 12 1- Environmental 13 The protection of sensitive habitat areas within the City, 14 including: 15 (a) Regional resources -- Upper Newport Bay is an integral 16 part of the Pacific Flyway and provides resting, feeding and 17 nesting for 158 recognized species of birds, many of which 18 visit the Bay as part of their seasonal migration from areas 19 as far away as Canada and Mexico. This sensitivity has been 20 recognized by the California Department of Fish and Game. 21 While a portion of the Upper Bay has been purchased as a 22 reserve by the Department of Fish and Game, development in 23 and around the Bay must be strictly controlled in order to 24 ensure the viability of this regional wildlife resource. 25 (b) Endangered Species -- Areas in Newport Beach which 26 support animal and plant species which are rare, endangered, 27 or otherwise sensitive, including: 28 1 1. Birds 2 (i) California least tern (endangered); 3 (ii) Light-footed Clapper Rail (endangered) 4 (half of the known population nests in Newport 5 Beach); 6 (iii) Belding's Savannah Sparrow (endangered); 7 (iv) California Brown Pelican (endangered); 8 (v) California Peregrine Falcon (endangered); 9 (iv) California Black Rail (rare); 10 2. Plants 11 (i) Salt -marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus maritimus 12 maritimus); 13 (ii) Live -forever (Dudleya stolonifera); 14 (iii) Turkish rugging (Chorizanthe staticoides). 15 (c) Freshwater marsh areas 16 (d) Saltwater marsh areas 17 (e) Riparian areas 18 (f) Intertidal areas 19 (g) Other wetlands 20 2. Coastal Requirements 21 State Coastal Policy requires the City to engage in certain 22 actions with respect to those areas of the City within the Coastal 23 jurisdiction, these actions include: 24 (a) Land should be reserved for and priority given to 25 visitor -serving facilities; 26 (b) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas must be 27 preserved ; 28 (c) Risks due to natural hazards must be minimized; -6- I 1 (d) Bluffs and cliffsmust be preserved; 2 (e) Public access must be preserved and provided; 3 (f) Archeological sites and resources must be preserved; 4 (g) Paleontological resources must be preserved; 5 (h) Scenic qualities in the coastal areas of the City 6 must be preserved; 7 (i) *Boating and water -related recreational activities 8 are to be encouraged and preserved; 9 (j) The City is required to give precedence to coastal 10 dependent development. 11 3. Traffic 12 Streets and thoroughfares in many areas of the City are 13 subject to severe congestion during periods of peak beach 14 usage. Moreover, on a day-to-day basis, the following intersec- 15 tions function at an I.C.U. rate of 0.9 or greater: 16 (a) Bristol North and Campus Drive; 17 (b) Bristol North and Birch Street; 18 (c) Bristol North and Jamboree Road; 19 (d) Pacific Coast Highway and Orange; 20 (e) Pacific Coast Highway and Prospect; 21 (f) Pacific Coast Highway and Balboa/Superior; 22 (g) Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur; 23 (h) Pacific Coast Highway and Marguerite; 24 W Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive; 25 (j) Jamboree Road and Campus Drive; 26 (k) MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive; 27 4. Provision and maintenance of a safe living environment, which 28 Irequires the City to avoid development, or provide safeguards for -7- (1) 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 developmentr in the following areas: (a) Areas with slopes with ratios greater than 2:1; (b) Areas of earthquake ground breakage; (c) Areas with unstable slopes; (d) Areas subject to seismic ground failure; (e) Areas subject�to flooding. These areas are mapped in the City's Public Safety Element, and to some extent, in the City's Local Coastal Plan. 5. Provision of safe and adequate water supply and maintenance of water quality in the Bay to protect both local citizens and visitors who may utilize the regional recreation facilities provided by the beach and bay. 6. Maintenance of water quality in the Bay to protect the wildlife resources in the Bay area; this maintenance requires strict on -site controls during construction; 7. Protection of archeological resources, including over 30 identified sites in the City. 8. Noise. Under existing regulations, no residential structure may be located within an area with a CNEL of 65 db or greater. Areas which are currently designated for noise walls include portions of Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. other significant sources of noise in excess of 65 CNEL include: (a) Orange County Airport; (b) Jamboree Road; (c) Pacific Coast Highway; (d) Irvine Avenue; (e) MacArthur Boulevard; W-M 1 11 I (f) Ford Road; 2 (g) San Joaquin Hills Road; 3 (h) University Drive; 4 (i) Bison Avenue; 5 (j) San Miguel Drive; 6 (k) Marguerite Avenue; 7 (1) -Dover Drive; 8 9- Maintaining and repairing existing infrastructural facilities, 9 including old sewers, old streets and thoroughfares, water facili- 10 tiest and tideland pr:eservation activities (see Further Responses 11 to Interrogatory No. 62 infra). 12 10. The provision of adequate City facilities and services to 13 serve and cope with the heavy influx of visitors to the City's 14 harbor, bay and beach areas during the late spring, summer, and 15 autumn seasons. These facilities and services include police 16 protection, traffic control, lifeguards, fire suppression facili- 17 ties and personnel, paramedic facilities and personnel, parking 18 facilities, and sanitation and street and beach cleaning and 19 maintenance facilities and personnel. 20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 57:. 21 Review of the City's General Plan and Municipal Code indicates 22 that no City regulations prohibit or impede low and moderate 23 income housing. Information regarding housing.assistance is on 24 file with the orange County Housing Authority, which entity 25 handles all such programs for the City. 26 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 59,: 27 No City Council? Planning Commission or other municipal 28 actions, policies or enactments impede Plaintiffs' ability or -9- I right to process a suitable low or moderate income housing project 2 in Newport Beach. A planned affordable housing project is the 3 development sponsored by the Lutheran Church of the Master. 4 FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 62: 5 The City incorporates herein by this reference its further 6 response to Interrogatory No. 32, supra. Moreover, severe fiscal 7 constraints have been imposed upon the City as a result of the 8 enactment of Cal. Const.r Article XIIIA and its implementing legislation, which constraints have restricted the City's ability 10 to provide existing municipal services. 11 In addition, City resources will be needed to cover expenses 12 for numerous existing projects which require immediate attention, 13 including: 14 (a) Sewer repair -- many of the sewers in the City are in 15 excess of fifty years old and thus require more repair and replace--� 16 ment than would be necessary in newer areas. 17 (b) Street repair -- many of the streets and throughfares in 18 the City are in excess of fifty years old and thus require more 19 repair and replacement than would be necessary in newer areas. 20 (c) Completion of General Plan Circulation Element impiove- 21 ments, including the widening of Pacific Coas t Highway. 22 (d) Repair of pump stations due to the high water table 23 beneath the City. 24 (e) Bulkhead repair and replacement, particularly on Balboa 25 Island. 26 (f) Covering the City reservoir. 27 (g) Maintenance of the City's water supply as imported 28 domestic water becomes increasingly scarce and expensive due to -10- a 1 recent court decisions and increased water demand throughout the 2 State of California (the City has no water wells and must import 3 all of its water). 4 (h) Dredging the Upper Newport Bay. 5 (i) Contingency financial planning to ameliorate possible 6 seismic disasters caused by the City's location over the Newport- 7 Inglewood -Fault. These contingent needs include slope repairs, 8 infrastructural repair in areas of ground breaking, infrastructural 9 repair in areas of liquificationt and infrastructural repair in 10 areas subject to earthquake -induced flooding. 11 FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 65: 12 The City incorporates by reference herein its further response 13 to Interrogatory No. 32. 14 FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 74: 15 The City incorporates by reference herein its further respon- 16 ses to Interrogatories No. 32 and 62. Furthermorer the City is 17 presently unaware of any statute or law which imposes upon the 18 City an affirmative obligation to build low and moderate income 19 housing, to grant tax concession, or to sponsor or finance any 20 public housing project. 21 FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 80: 22 The principal cause of the lack of affordable housing the 23 City of Newport Beach results from the market constraints and 24 their impact upon land acquisition and development costs, and 25 financing constraints. Facts supporting the twenty-fourth affirm- 26 ative defense in the City's Answer are discussed in the Housing 27 Element of the City of Newport Beach (GPA 81-1(H)), at pages 28 86-89. The City has not yet completed its discovery regarding 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PAI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this issue, and therefore is unable to provide any further response to Interrogatory No. 80 at this time. Dated: April 7, 1982. 09-2 RUTAN & TUCKER LEONARD A. HAMPEL JEFFREY M. ODERMAN JOEL D. KUPERBERG MICHAEL MILLER, ESQ. AtArneys for Derendanfs City of Nekport Beach, City Copncil of thV City of Newport Bettch, and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach. 0 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I have read the foregoing SIJPPMIE'� �ANP FURUM RESPONSES OF DEFEMANT = OF IMIPORT BEACH, rTO PLX MZIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTE and know its contents. 0 CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I am El an Officer 0 a partner Division Chief, J�dyapce Planning Mq�art�it of Defendant, CITY OF NENPORT R a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I have read the foregoing document and know its contents. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I am one of the attorneys for a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I have read the foregoing document and know its contents. I am informed and believo:n1d on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true. Executed on ADril 6 982 19, at Newport Beach —California.. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. &k4Z_dn04 Signature ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF DOCUMENT WBEIr p. LENARD (other than summons -and complaint) Received copy of document described as Signature PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the county of. 094nM - - State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is! 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, California 92626. On APril 7, 19a2— I served the foregoing document described as SUPPLE]YIENTAFY AND FIJR= RESPON 3ES QF DEFENDANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEL(H TO PLAM= I FTRST qRT QF INTEPROGATORIES on . the rties in this action by placing gsuaecostereoofnen�cfoscd in a scaled envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at: COS f addressed as follows: see attadied list (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail al Costa blesa. , California. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I -caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. Executed on A=J 1 7, 19—U at rnc;f-,q Mecta , California. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (Federal) I declare that I am employedin theofficcof a member ofthe bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Signature Barbara Cara&es I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard W.. Petherbridge, Esq. 1722 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 John E. McDermott, Esq. Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Esq. Richard A. Rothchild, Esq. 3535 West Sixth Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 Crystal C. Sims, Esq. Legal Aid Society of orange County 2700 N. Main Street, llth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 Robert K. Break, Esq. William W. Wynder, Esq. Latham and Watkins 660 Newport center Drive, Suite 1400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 V� - '. I 1jC%STAaLIDC. SIMS GAL SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 2 F2700 North Main Streetr 11th Floor Santa Ana, California 92701 3iTelephone: (714) 835-8806 4 MICHAEL WINE LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES 5 318 South Lincoln Boulevard Venice? California 90291 6 Telephone: (213) 392-4177; 87.0-4672 7 TOBY J. ROTHSCHILD LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LONG BEACH 8 205 East Broadway Long Beach, California 90802 9 Telephone: (2,13) 434-7421 10 GREGORY VEACH LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO 11216 South Tremont Oceanside, California 92054 121Telephone: (714) 722-1935 13 JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER RICHARD A. ROTHSCHILD 14 WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTYj INC. 3535 West Sixth Street 15 Los Angelesr California 90020 Telephone: (213) 487-7211 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners 17 OLIVE DAVISF ALFREDO ORTIZ? MARIA ORTIZr SHARION GARRISONt DOROTHY 18 McALEAVEY, ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION 19 KATHERINE R. WOLFF 2010RANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL 1525 East 17th Streett Suite E 21 Santa Anar California 92701 22 Telephone: (714) 835-8718 Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner 23 ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL 24 THERBRIDGE 1722 NorN Broadway 25 Santa Anat California 92706 26 Telephone: (714) 835-0935 Attorney for Plaintiffs/Petitioners 27 FRANK H. BARNESr MARION S. BARNES, 28 ,and JOSEPH P. BOYLE 4 1 v6L, �� CASE NO. 32-95-85 N-1 -1- 1 1 2 3 41 41 6 7 8. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA n FOR THE COUNTY -OF ORANGE 10 11 OLIVE DAVIS; ALFREDO ORTIZ; MARIA ORTIZ; SHARION GARRISON; 12 DOROTHY M. McALEAVEY; FRANK H. BARNES; MARION S. BARNES; 13 JOSEPH P. BOYLE; ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATIONr 14 a non-profit corporation; ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, a 15 non-profit corporation, 16 Plaintiffs/Petitioners, 17 VS. 18 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT 19 BEACH; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE 20 IRVINE COMPANY, a corporation; DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, 21 Defendants/Respondentsy 22 and 23 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 24 DEVELOPMENT 25 Real Party In Interest. 20' 11 M �L_' CASE NO. 32-95-85 PLAINTIP; F' INTERROGATORIES TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACHr SET NO. 1 VN�' 0\� —2— n 11 TO: Defendantsr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF 2 1 THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 31NEWPORT BEACH. 4 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT plaintiffs.request that pursuant 5 to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030 you answer the foll6wing 6iinterrogatories in the manner prescribed by law and by the 71following instructions: 81 9 DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 10 A. Definitions: Unless conclusively negated by th I e 11 1 context of the question, the following is to be considered 121applicable to all questions contained in this set of written 131interrogatories. 141 1. The singular number and the masculine gender as used 151herein shall embracer and be read and appliedr as the plural or 161the feminine or neuterr as circumstances may make appropriate. 171 2. The term "complaint" shall refer to the "Third 18 Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to Enjoin 19 i Exclusionary Land Use Practicesr.and Third Amended Petition For 20 Writ of Mandate" filed in the above -captioned action. 21 3. Each term used herein which is also used in the 22 complaint is used in the same sense as it is used in the com- 23 plaintr except as may otherwise be specified in this Preliminary 24 Statement. 25 4. The term "person" shall be deemed to mean, in the 26 plural as well as in the singularr any natural personr firmr 271association, partnershipi--corporation, governmental agency, or 281other form of legal entity. -3- 2 3 4 r3 6 7 8 9 1:2 131 14 in 5. The terms "you" or "your" shall refer to defendants to which these interrogatories are directed, their officersp employees, and agents. Whenever an interrogatory elicits the name of a person and it is claimed that one or more other persons are affected by reason of an agency or employment r�_-lationship b.etween the first named person and the other person or personst state such fact and also state the name and last known address of each such 6. Each interrogatory is intended to, and does require thatr each and every particular and part thereof be answered with the same force and effect as if each part and particular were the subject of, and were asked by, a separate interrogatory. 7. The term "document" means all papers, notes, records, books and other things, whether or not in your possession or under your controlt directly or indirectlyr relating to or pertaining in any way to the subject matters addressed in the 171following interrogatories, and includes, but without limitation, 18 originals, all file copies, no matter how preparedp and all memo- 19 1 randa, drafts and notes (whether.typed, penciledr or otherwise)t 20iwhether used or nott of the following: 21 (a) memoranda (internalt interoffice, or other- 22 wise), notest shorthandr or stenographers' notebooks, 23 correspondence, letters and telegramst whether received 24, or sent; 25 (b) Minutes of meetings; 26 (c) Contracts, agreementsr understandings, 27 commitments, pruposals, and other business dealings; 28 (d) Recordingsp transcriptions and memoranda or -4- 1 1-* '1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 notes made of any telephone communications or face-to- face oral conversation between or among any persons; (e) Dictated tapes or other sound recordings; (f) Computer printouts and/or reportst and the applicable program or programs therefor; (g) Tapest cardso or any other means by which data are stored or preserved electrically? electronically, magnetically or mechanically, and the applicable program or programs therefor (from which defendant may reproduce or cause to be reproduced such data in written form); (h) Instruments of assignment, transfer or conveyance; (i) Pictures, drawingst photographs or other graphic representations; and (j) Documents of title. 8. The terms "affordable" and "affordable housing cost," which may be used interchangeably herein, have the same meaning as specified in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5. 9. The term "very low income" refers to a person or family whose annual income is 0-50% of the area median income, adjusted for family size and revised annually. 10. The term "low incomen refers to a person or family whose annual income is 51-80% of the area median income, adjusted for family size and revised annually. 11. The term "moderate income" refers to a person or family whose annual income is 81-120% of the area median income, adjusted for family size and revised annually. -5- e U 1 B. Instructions: In answering these interrogatories, 2 comply with the following instructions: 3 1. When asked to "identify" or "state the identity of" 4 any document, state the following with respect to it: 5 (a) The type of document (e.g.r"contractr 16jtter, 6 report, memorandum, etc.); 7* (b) The date(s) it bears and was prepared; 8 (c) Its author(s), signatory(ies), addressee(s); 9. (d) Its present or last known location and 10 custodian (with his/her address); and 11 (e) A summary of its contents. 12 2. In lieu of providing such information, you may attach 13 to your answers to these interrogatories a true copy of such 14 document, identifying the interrogatory to which it responds and 15 stating in your answer only such information requested above which 16 does not appear on its face. 17 3. If you claim a document is privileged or attorney's 18 work product, identify it in accordance with subparagraphs B 1 (a) 19 through (d) above, summarize its contents, and state all facts 20 upon which you base the privilege claimed. 21 4. if any requested document was, but is no longer, in 22 existence or in your possession or under your control, give the 23'reason therefor and its present location or present custodian of 241any copy or summary thereof. 25 1 5. When requested to "identify" or "state the identity 26 of" any person, state the following with respect to such person: 27 (a) The full name and title of such person; 28 (b) The present or last known business and home -6- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 addresses of such person; and (c) The present or last known telephone number of such person. 6. if you cannot answer any of these interrogatories, or any subparagraph thereof, after exercising due diligence to secure the information to do sot ans.wer the particular interrogatory or paragraph thereof as completely as possible and do the following: (a) Specify each portion of such interrogatory which you are unable to answer fully and completely; (b) State the facts upon which you rely in making your contentions that you are unable to answer fully and completely; (c) Specify what knowledge, information or belief you have concerning the unanswered portion of any such interrogatory; (d) State the acts done and the requests made to secure the information sought by the interrogatory. 7. For each interrogatory or portion thereof which you refuse to answer on the grounds of privilege, state the Ifollowing: ('a) 'The authority relied upon by you for such a claim; (b) The nature of the privilege (e.g., attorney- clientf et6.); and (c) Whether the information called for is available to plaintiffs in any other way (e.g., through some application procedure, deletion of sensitive material by authorized individual, protective order or -7- je t" stipulation limiting disclosurer etc.). 2 8. If after filing your answer to these interrogatori est 3 you become aware of additional facts or documents relevant to but 4 not contained in your answers, submit supplemental answers 5 incorporating the new material in accordance*with the instructions 6 contained in this first set of interrogatories. 71 INTERROGATORIES o INURROGMORY NO. 1: 9 Identify each amendment of or revision to the Housing 10 Element of the Newport Beach General Plan which was adopted by the 11 City Council on February 11l 1974. Include in your answer an 12 identification of revisions or amendments which were either 13 adopted, prepared or in any way considered by the City including, 14 inter alia, the proposed new housing element of the Newport Beach 15 General Plan which was prepared by Ward Connelly. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 17 Identify each document known to you which supportsf 18 refers, or relates to the documents identified in answer to 19 Interrogatory No. 1. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 21 Identify each document known to you which was used in the 22 preparation of the documents identified in answer to Interrogatory 23 No. 1. 241INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 25 Identify each document.known to you upon which the 261documents identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 1 are based. 27 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 28 Identify each document which the City has adoptedr -8- 0 0 repared or in any way considered or is in the process of p 2 adoptingr preparing or considering, which is related in any way to 3 bringing the City's zoning or other land use ordinances in Sections 65913 to 65913.4. �V 4 compliance with Government Code 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 6 Identify each docume nt known to you which supports, 7 refers or relates to the documents identified in answer to 8 Interrogatory No. 5. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 10 Identify each document known to you which was used in the 11 preparation of documents identified in answer to Interrogatory 12 No. 5. 13 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 14, Identify each document known to you upon which the 15 documents identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 are based. 16 INTERROGATORY Wo- 9: -cal. � d""-d - �Akvll 17 Identify each amendment to any of the elements of the 18 Newport Beach General Plan which were adopted by the City Council 19 since Januaryr 1970j which in any way had any of the following 20 effects: 21 (a) Decreased or limited the total number or 22 density of dwelling units permitted to be developed in 23 the Cityr or any portion thereof; 24- (b) -Set standards for or increased thd minimum 25 building lot sizes for commercial or housing developments 26 permitted to be built in the City or any portion 27 thereof; 281 (c) Set standards for or increased the minimum -9- 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 size of dwelling units permitted to be developed in the City or anyportion. thereof; (d) pecreased or limited the total number or density of multi -family attached dwelling units permitted to be developed in the City or any p6riion thereof;- (e) Limited or decreased the total number or density of mobile homes permitted in the City or any portion thereof; (f) Increased the cost of developing dwelling units by changing housing development standards to include additional cost generating requirements; (g) Increased any city taxes or fees which are levied upon the development of housing, including, but not limited to, land dedication or in lieu of fees for parksr open spacer and schools and processing fees for subdivision applications, building permit fees, sewerage hook-up feest electrical permit feest plumbing fees, grading inspection fees, annexation fees, etc. MrATORY NO. 10: Identify all sources of federalt stater county and local funding which the City has utilized for the purpose of encouraging or developing any low or moderate income housing since January 1970. ity. 11: How many acres of land are currently undeveloped in 12: identify each document upon which the answer to _10- a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Interrogatory No. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Specify the use and zoning categ( INTERROGATORY NO. 14: List all acl city contends are in !Government Code 56531 65913.4, and Governm( INTERROGATORY NO. 15 Identify eal Numbers 1765 and 177' of revisions or amen, in any way considere4 being,,adopted, prepa' Ordinances Numbers 1' INTERROGATORY NO. 16 Identify ea refers, or relates t, Interrogatory No-. 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 17 identify ea preparation of the d No. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 18 Identify ea documents identified is based. amount of undeveloped land within each land iry of the City. Jons%aJ�by the City since 1970 which the compliance with the requirements of 12(a) and (c), Government Code S§65913 to tnt Code SS65915-65918. ,h amendment of or revision to Ordinances F. Include in your answer an identification Iments which were either adopted, prepared or I by the Cityr or which are.in the process of -ed, or considered, relating in any way to r65 and 1777. �h'document known to you which supports, ) the document identified in answer to, .,h document known to you which was used in thE Dcuments identified in answer to Interrogator5 .-h document known to you upon which the in answer to Interrogatory No. 15 are based. -11- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RL IINTERROGATORY NO. 19! Identify an3 Idiscriminatory effect within the Orange Coi INTERROGATORY NO. 201 Identify ea( Ito your answer in Ini UNTERROGATOR)� NO. 21 Identify eai answer to Interrogati INTERROGATORY NO. 22 Identify an, were intended to pro, development of low a. INTERROGATORY NO. 23 Identify ea refers or relates to Interrogatory No. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 24 Identify ea answer to Interrogat INTERROGATORY NO. 25 Identify ea map which was approv and the present. INTERROGATORY NO. 26 Identify ea map which was submit 0 actions taken by the City which have a against any ethnic or racial groups living [nty region. !h document which supports, refersr or relates �errogatory No. 19. -h document known to you upon which your )ry No. 20 was based. Z�"d cc-'J� actions by City since January 1970 which ride for o r encourage in any way the 7 moderate income housing in the City. :h document known to you which supports, the actions identified in your answer to �h document known to you upon which your )ry No. 22 is based. �h tentative tract map and final subdivision �d by the City Council between August 29, 1979 oh tentative tract map and final subdivision ted to the City for approval between August -12- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2E 29, 1979 and the pres INTERROGATO Y NO. 27: Identify eac the Second Affirmativ Complaint for Declarz Exclusionary Land UsE Frit of mandate" (hez INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Identify eac lin conflict with any to your Answer. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Identify th( Second Affirmative D( INTERROGATORY NO. 30 identify ea, the Third Affirmativ, INT ERROGATORY NO. 31 Identify ea in conflict with any your Answer. INTERROGATORY No. 32 Identify th Third Affirmative De INTERROGATORY NO. 33 Identify ea the Fourth Affirmati ent. h document which supports each allegation of e Defense to your "Answer to Second Amended tory and injunctive Relief to Enjoin Practices and Second Amended Petition For eafter Answer). !h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the second Affirmative Defense � factual bases for each allegation of the �fense to your Answer. A t,&4 xw� 1"117 /�,, / A-, ,x /4� h :h document which supports each allegation of Defense to your Answer. :h document which is in any way contrary*to or allegatio of the Third Affirmative Defense to B factual bases �or each allegation of the fense toyour Answer. ch document which supports each allegation of ve Defense to your Answer. -13- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1E 1 ' 2C 21 22 2-1: V 2E 2E Z 2( 2! INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Identify eac in conflict with any to your Answer. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: identify thE lFourth Affirmative DE I 1INTERROGATORY NO. 36: identify eac the Eighth AffirmatiN INTERROGATORY NO. 37i Identify ea( in conflict with any to your Answer. INTERROGATORY NO. 38 Identify thi Eighth Affirmative D1 INTERROGATORY NO. 39 Identify ea, Ithe Ninth Affirmativ, INTERROGATORY NO. 40 Identify ea in conflict with any ito your Answer. INTERROGATORY NO. 41 Identify th Ninth Affirmative De INTERROGATORY NO. 42 Identify ea 10 h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of.the Fourth Affirmative Defense factual bases for each allegation of the fense to your Answer. h document which supports each allegation of e Defense to your Answer. th document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Eighth Affirmative Defense ! factual bases for each allegation of the �fense to your Answer. ,h document which supports each allegation of ? Defense to your Answer. ,h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Ninth Affirmative Defense a factual bases for each allegation of the lense to your Answer. 2h document which supports each allegation of -14- 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2E 26 27 2E Tenth Affirmative Def 1INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Identify eac in conflict with any to your Answer. INTERROGATORY NO. 4,4: Identify the ITenth Affirmative Def INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Identify eac the Eleventh Affirmal INTERROGATORY NO. 46i Identify ea( in conflict with any !Defense to your Answi iINTERROGATORY NO. 47 I- IIdentify thi lEleventh Affirmative INTERROGATORY NO. 48 Identify ea ithe Twelfth Affirmat INTERROGATORY NO. 49 Identify ea in conflict with any to your Answer. INTERROGATORY NO. 50 Identify th !Twelfth Affirmative anse to your Answer. h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Tenth Affirmative Defense factual* bases for each allegation of the ense to your Answer. h document which supports each allegation of ,ive Defense to your Answer. !h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Eleventh Affirmative factual bases for each allegation of the Defense to your Answer. :h document which supports each allegation of Lve Defense to your Answer. 1h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Twelfth Affirmative Defense a factual bases for each allegation of the Defense to your Answer. -15- C) I'D 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 51: 2 Identify each document which supports each allegation of 3 the Thirteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 5 Identify each document which is in any'way contrar�.to or 6 in conflict with any allegation of the Thirteenth Affirmative 71 Defense to your Answer. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 9 Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the 10 Thirteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 54: 12 Identify each document which supports each allegation of 13 the Fourteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. J�t INTERROGATORY NO. 55: 15 identify each document which is in any way contrary to or; 16 in conflict with any allegation of the Fourteenth Affirmative 17 Defense to your Answer. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 56: 19 identify the factual bases for each allegation of . the 20 Fourteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 57: 22 Identify each document which supports each allegation of 23 the Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to your Answer. 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 58: 25 Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or 26 in conflict with any allegation of the Fifteenth Affirmative 27 Defense to your Answer. 281// -16- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 1E is 2C 21 22 2 ": V 2E 2( 2 j 2E C) INTERROGATORY NO. 59: Identify the Fifteenth Affirmative ,INTERROGATORY NO- 60: ,Identify eac Ithe Eighteenth Affirri IINTER�OGATORY NO. 61: identify ea( in conflict with any Defense to your Answ( INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Identify th4 Eighteenth Affirmatii INTERROGATORY NO. 61 Identify ea4 the Nineteenth Affiri INTERROGATORY NO. 64 Identify eai lin conflict with any Defense to your Answ, INTERROGATORY NO. 65 Identify th Nineteenth Affirmati' INTERROGATORY NO. 66 Identify ea the Twentieth Affirm INTERROGATORY NO. 67 Identify ea %I factual bases for each allegation of the Defense to your Answer. h document which supports*each allegation of ,ative Defense to your Answer. !h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Eighteenth Affirmative x. t factual bases for each allegation of the ,e Defense to your Answer. :h document which supports each allegation of iative Defense to your Answer. ,h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Nineteenth Affirmative !r. factual bases for each allegation of the 7e Defense to your Answer. :h document which supports each allegation of ative Defense to your Answer. 1h document which is in any way contrary to oi -17- 1 2P 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 �L' in conflict with any efense to your Answe INTERROGATORY NO. 68: Identify the I �rwentieth Affirmative JINTERROGATORY NO. 69: �Identify eac ,the Twenty-firSt Aff! 1INTERROGATORY NO. 70: Identify eac in conflict with any Defense to your Answ( INTERROGATORY NO. M Identify th( Twenty-first Affirmal INTERROGATORY NO. 72i identify eal the Twenty-second Af: INTERROGATORY NO. 73 Identify ea in conflict with any Defense to your Answ INTERROGATORY NO. 74 identify th Twenty-second Affirm INTERROGATORY NO. 75 Identify ea the Twenty-third Aff allegation of the Twentieth Affirmative r. factual bases for each.allegation of the Defense to your Answer.' h document which supports each allegation of rmative Defense to your Answer. -h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Twenty-first Affirmative x. ! factual bases for each allegation of the :ive Defense to your Answer. �h document which supports each allegation of 2irmative Defense to your Answer. :�h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Twenty-second Affirmative Br. a factual bases for each allegation of the ative Defense to your Answer. ch document which supports each allegation of irmative Defense to your Answer. M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 INTERROGATORY NO. 76: Identify eac in conflict with any ,Defense to your Answ, INTERROGATORY NO. 77: Identify th( Twenty-third Affirmal INTERROGATORY NO. 78: Identify ea� the Twenty-fourth AfJ INTERROGATORY NO. 79 Identify ea4 in conflict with any Defense to your Answ4 INTERROGATORY NO. 80 Identify thi Twenty-fourth Affirm, INTERROGATORY NO. 81 identify ea ;the Twenty-fifth Aff INTERROGATORY NO. 82 Identify ea in conflict with any Defense to your Answ INTERROGATORY NO'. 83 Identify th Twenty-fifth Affirma .0 h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Twenty-third Affirmative r. factual bases for each allegation of the �ive Defense to your Answer. :h document which supports each allegation of �irmative Defense to your Answer. ,h document which is in any way contrary to 07 allegation of the Twenty-fourth Affirmative �r. ? factual bases for each allegation of the itive Defense to your Answer. -h document which supports each allegation of Lrmative Defense to your Answer. ,h document which is in any way contrary to 0: allegation of the Twenty-fifth Affirmative ?r. a factual bases for each allegation of the tive Defense to your Answer. 0 VM I. " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 !INTERROGATORY NO. 84: I - Identify eac allegations in the fc Affirmative Defense i IINTERROGATORY NO. 85: Identify ea( conflict with any of the Twenty-sixth Aff' INTERROGATORY NO. 86: Identify th( four subsections of 1 Answer. INTERROGATORY NO. 87� Identify eai the Twgnty-seventh A: INTERROGATORY NO. 88 Identify eai lin conflict with any Defense to your Answ, -INTERROGATORY NO. 89 Identify th, Twenty-seventh Affiri INTERROGATORY NO. 90 identify ea the Thirty-sixth Aff ,INTERROGATORY NO. 91 Identify ea jin conflict with any WE !h document which supports each of the ,ur subsections of the Twenty-sixth ;o-your Answer. !h document which is in any way contrary or in the allegations in the four subsections of .rmative Defense to your Answer. � factual bases for each allegation in the :he Twenty-sixth Affirmative Defense to your �h document which supports each allegation of :firmative Defense to your Answer. ,h document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Twenty-seventh Affirmative ?r. factual bases for each allegation of the native Defense to your Answer. ::h document which supports each allegation of irmative Defense to your Answer. uh document which is in any way contrary to or allegation of the Thirty-sixth Affirmative # I -20- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2E '2E 27 2E Defense to your Answe INTERROGATORY NO. 92: Identify the Thirty-sixth Affirmat INTERROGATORY NO. 93: Identify eac the Fortieth Affirmat iINTERROGATORY NO. 94i Identify eac in conflict with any Defense to your Answ( 1INTERROGATORY NO. 95i Identify th( Fortieth Affirmative INTERROGATORY NO. 96 identify eal the Forty-first Affi: INTERROGATORY NO. 97 Identify ea lin conflict with any Defense to your Answ INTERROGATORY NO. 98 Identify th Forty-first Affirmat INTERROGATORY NO. 99 Identify ea the Forty-sec6Wd Aff r . factual bases for each allegation of the ive Defense to your Answer. !h document which supports each allegation of �ive Defense to your Answer. !h document which is in any way contrary to Or allegation of the Fortieth Affirmative factual bases for each allegation of the Defense to your Answer. -h dodument which supports each allegation of -mative Defense to your Answer. ::h document which is in any way contrary to 01 allegation of the Forty-first Affirmative ar. a factual bases for each allegation of the ive Defense to your Answer. ch document which supports each allegation of irmative Defense to your Answer. . I -21- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 le 19 2C 21 22 2.: 24 2E 2( 2j K-3 [NTERROGATORY NO- 100: Identify each document which is in any way contrary to or Ln conflict with any allegation of the porty-second Affirmative )efense to your Answer. INTERROGATORY NO. 101: Identify the factual bases for each allegation of the Forty-second Affirmative Defense to your Answer. : August-V 1 1981 E CRYSTAL C. SIMS MICHAEL WINE TOBY J. ROTHSCHILD GREGORY VEACH JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER RICHARD ROTHSCHILD KATHERINE R. WOLFF RICHARD W.- PETHERBRIDGE -22- 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 � 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 211 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (VERIFICATION - 446 and 2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, as. 1, the undersigned, say: lam the County0f in the above entitled action; I have read theforegoing and know the contents thereof, and that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters,that I believe it to be true. I certify (or declare) under penalty of Perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date) at (place) � I California (Signature) (PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL - 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTYOF MANGE, Z am a resident of/empWed in the county aforesaid, Z am over the age at eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action, my business culdrenlregidence address is: 2700 North Main Street, 11th Floor, Santa Anat California.92701. On September 8, —1 19 8 1 J served the within PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACHl SET NO. 1 onthe Interested Parties in said action, byplacinga truecopy thereof enclosed ina seated envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED LIST I certify (or declare.! under penaltY of perjury,* that the foregoing. is true and correct. Executed on SepteMber 8, 1981 at Santa An I ralifornia (�p Act) zilgriarure FLORENCE M. BOBLETER *Both the "rifsotionand proof of service by mailforms, being sived under penaltr of Periurn do net requir* nou""'"om WOLCOTTS811P R9V 2.76 1 LEONARD A. HAMPEL', ESQ� JEFFREY M. ODERMAN. ESQ. 2 JOEL D. KUPERBER6, ESQ. RUTAN AND TUCKER 3 American City Bank Towerr Suite 1400 South Coast Plaza Town Center 4 611 Anton Blvd. P. 0. Box 1950 5 Costa Mesal CA 9f26 6 HUG5 R. COFFIN CITY ATTORNEY 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 8 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beachl.California 92660, 9 ROBERT K. BREAK, ES Q. 10 WILLIAM M. WYNDER, ESQ. LATHAM & WATKINS - 11 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400 Newport Beach, California 92660 12 GEORGE DEUKMEJIANt ATTORNEY GENERAL 13 R. H. CONNETT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DIXIE MOE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 14 3580 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90010 2( 21 2', Z 29 21 2( 2', 21