The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHOUSING ELEMENT 1984= -H-0-U S-2-N-G"—'E'L'E;_M—EE-N-T� O F T H E N E W P 0 R T B E A C H G E N E R A L P L A N Adopted by the City Council on September 28, 1981 Resolution No. 11051 Amended by the City Council on November 22, 1982 Resolution No. 82-153 Amended by the City Council on June 25;'7:9841 Resolution No. 84-59 I ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Page iv LIST OF TABLES ' LIST OF SCHEDULES vii LIST OF MAPS viii ' INTRODUCTION 1 ' ORGANIZATION OF THE ELEMENT 2 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 3 I. COMMUNITY HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS 4 Statistical Summary 4 Newport Beach Within the Region 6 Population Trends 8 Housing Unit and Population Projections 14 Employment Trends 15 Analysis of Employment Trends 17 Household Characteristics 18 Ethnicity 18 Household Incomes 20 Housing Affordability 22 Overcrowding 27 Special Population Groups 28 Students 28 ' Elderly 28 Female Head of Household 29 Handicapped 29 Large Families 30 Persons in Poverty 31 Housing Stock Characteristics 33 Residential Growth and Dwelling Unit Types 33 Residential Densities 38 Housing Tenure 41 Vacancy Rates 43 Housing Condition 45 Housing Prices 46 New Homes 46 Existing Homes 53 ' Rental Housing 58 Mobile Homes 60 ' Inventory of Land Suitable for Housing 63 Energy Conservation Opportunities 74 Statistical Area Analysis 77 II. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 96 City Demand/Supply Analysis 96 II fl i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't.) II. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (Con't.) Estimation of Housing Need Housing Demand supply Housing Need Regional Share Calculation of 1983-1989 Housing Need Five -Year Housing Needs in Newport Beach Regional Housing Needs Housing Needs Summary III. CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING DELIVERY Market Constraints Community Attitudes Market Impacts on Development Costs Financing Constraints Developers Perception of Marketability Governmental Constraints Local Governmental Constraints The Planning Process The Subdivision Process Required street Widths Park Dedication Standards Hillside Development Standards Permit Process and Development Fees The Building Permit Process Building Code Plumbing Code Electrical Code State Legislative Constraints The CEQA Process Coastal Act Requirements IV. HOUSING PROGRAM/STRATEGY Community Housing Market Housing Needs Assessment Governmental and Market Housing Goals, Policies PROGRAM OBJECTIVES A. Objective 1 B. Objective 2 C. Objective 3 D. objective 4 E. Objective 5 F. Objective 6 G. Objective 7 H. Objective 8 I. Objective 9 J. Objective 10 K. Objective 11 Analysis Constraints and objectives 97 98 98 99 99 99 103 104 105 106 106 106 106 108 ill 113 113 115 125 125 126 129 129 131 132 132 132 133 134 135 139 139 139 140 141 142 143 143 144 150 151 152 158 163 164 167 170 I �I I r i u I L I I 1 I I ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't.) IV. HOUSING PROGRAM/STRATEGY (Cont.) L. Objective 12 M. Objective 13 N. Objective 14 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES Performance Relative to Regional Need (RHAM) SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS FOR HOUSING PROGRAM IMPI V. EVALUATION OF PAST HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENR APPENDICES A. 1984 Inventory of Undeveloped Land B. Compliance Checklist C. Glossary of Programs 171 172 173 174 178 178 PUN 187 188 236 238 iii LIST OF TABLES I Table N Title Page I I Housing Unit Mix - 1980 5 2 Estimated Housing Unit Mix January 1, 1981 5 3 Vacancy Status (Year -Round Units) in 1980 6 4 Population Growth, Orange County and Newport Beach: 1910-1980 8 , 5 Persons Per Occupied Housing Unit 9 6 Population by Age, City of Newport Beach 1960-1976 11 7 Changes in Elementary School Enrollment by Grades, January 1976-January 1982, City of Newport Beach 12 8 School Enrollment 1970-1980 13 9 10 Population - City of Newport Beach Newport Beach Population as a proportion of 14 Orange County Population 15 11 Employee generation ratios 16 12 Employee by Category 16 13 Projected Employment - Newport Beach and Orange County 17 ' 14 Ethnic and Racial Identification of Head of Household, City of Newport Beach and Orange County 18 15 Households by Type and Ethnicity (1980) 19 16 Actual and Projected Median Household Incomes, Orange County and Newport Beach 20 17 1980 and 1984 Estimated City of Newport Beach Household Incomes 21 18 Income Group Housing Expenditure 23 19 Households Paying More than 30% of their Income for Housing 24 20 Relationship of Housing Costs to Median Household Income by Area 26 21 U.C.I. Off -Campus Student Service Office Housing Cost 28 22 Household and Family Size 30 23 Persons in Family by Family Income 31 24 Income Limit Defined as Poverty Level 31 25 Households and Families Below Poverty Level (1980) 32 26 Net Additions and Total Housing Units 1976-1984 33 27 Housing Units and Vacancy Rates, 1976 and 1980 by Statistical Area, City of Newport Beach 34 28 Year -Round Housing Unit Types (April 1980) , by Statistical Area, City of Newport Beach 35 29 Housing Unit Types (January 1980) by Statistical Area, City of Newport Beach 36 30 Units in the West Newport Triangle 37 31 Housing Unit Mix 37 32 Housing Unit Comparisons 38 33 Residential Densities by Area 38 34 Densities of Attached Housing 39 35 Permits Issued 1980-1983 40 36 Housing Tenure 41 37 Percent of Rental Housing by City 41 38 Major Recent Rental Projects 41 39 Condominium Conversion Applications Approved 42 iv [l I I i r I 1 r It Ii I 1 I LIST OF TABLES (Con't Title 40 Newport Beach Overall Housing Unit Vacancy Rate 43 41 City Rental Vacancy Rate Survey Results 44 42 Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco Vacancy Survey (May 1963) 44 43 Regional Vacancy Rates 45 44 Value Ratios of New Residential Construction in Newport Beach 1975-1983; Condominiums and Planned Unit Developments., Single -Family Detached 47 45 Value Ratios of New Residential Construction in Newport Beach 1980-1984; Condominiums and Planned Unit Developments, Single -Family Detached 51 46 Median Sales Prices of Existing Housing 1978-1980, Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Real Estate Area 54 47 Newport Harbor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors Listings 55 48 1980 Monthly Payments for Owner -Occupied Housing, City of Newport Beach 56 49 Average Construction Value per Multi -Family Unit 57 50 Average Construction Value per Multi -Family Unit 57 51 Monthly Rental Prices as of January 1981, City of Newport Beach 58 52 1981 Median Rental Prices by Unit Type 59 53 Median Contract Rents by Statistical Area - 1980, City of Newport Beach 59 54 Mobile Home Parks 61 55 Summary of Vacant Land 66 56 Vacant Residentially Designated Parcels 67 57 Vacant Non -Residentially Designated Parcels 69- 56 Vacant Parcels Designated "Open Space with Alternate Use" 71 59 Vacant Parcels without Development Potential 72 60 Identified Potential Redevelopment Parcels 73 61 Population by Statistical Area, City of Newport.Beach 84 62 Number of Households and Household Sizes by Statistical Area, City of Newport Beach 85 63 Household Types by Statistical Area, City of Newport Beach 86 64 1980 Population by Statistical Area, City of Newport Beach 87 65 1980 Special Population Groups by Statistical Area, City of Newport Beach .88 66 City of Newport Beach Community Profile by Census Tract 67 Relationship of Household Expense Patterns and Median Incomes by Statistical Area in Newport Beach 91 68 Housing Tenure by Statistical Area, City of Newport Beach 92 69 Housing units by Statistical Area, January 1984 93 70 1983 Housing Needs Assessment Based on City Median Household Income 101 71 1989 Housing Needs Assessment Based on City Median Household Income 102 72 Regional Housing Needs 105 73 Comparison of Costs for Four Similar Projects 109 74 Sales Price Components of Residential Projects in Newport Beach and Orange County 110 I u LIST OF TABLES (Con't.) Table # Title Page i 75 The Effect of Changes in Interest Rates on the Affordability ' of a $100,000 Loan III 76 Comparison of Maximum Permitted Densities and Actual Density of Constructed Housing by Project 112 , 77 Comparison of Required Amenities and Amenities Proposed by Developer 113 78 Designation of Land in Newport Beach by Use 114 79 Existing Residential Use by Density Category 115 80 Summary of Zoning Code Provisions by District, City of Newport Beach 118 81 Multi -Family Residential Developments of Three or More Stories 121 82 Special Requirements in Combining "B" District 124 83 Park Standards 127 84 Processing Time by Jurisdiction 130 85 A Comparison of Permit Fees 130 86 Newport Beach Permit Fees 131 87 Local Coastal Program Land Use Designations for Vacant Sites within Newport Beach 136 ; 88 Parcels with Increased Residential Density 146 89 Undeveloped Residential Sites Inventory 148 90 Residential Sites for Increased Density Consideration 149 91 Low and Moderate Income Residential Parcels 154 92 Maximum Number of Housing Units by Income Category 175 93 Housing Units per Project by Income Category 175 94 Increase in Housing Units thru Redevelopment , and Intensification by Income Category 176 95 Rehabilitation of Housing in Newport Beach by Income, 1984-1989 176 96 Conservation of Housing in Newport Beach by Income Category, 1984-1989 177 97 Project Regional Demand in Newport Beach 178 98 Housing Element Implementation Progress Assessment 182 LJ I J U vi I I 1 LI I LIST OF SCHEDULES Schedules Page 1 Housing Element Implementation 179 LIST OF MAPS ' Title Page(s) City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Boundaries 25 City of Newport Beach Undeveloped Parcels 65, 190 City of Newport Beach Statistical Divisions and Areas 76 City of Newport Beach Undeveloped Parcels Site Boundaries 191-234 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 viii I IINTRODUCTION The Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan examines residential development within the city and sets forth local policies and programs to facilitate the conservation, improvement, and development of housing for all economic segments of the community. ' This element presents policies and programs which are intended to guide the city in daily decision -making regarding the provision of residential services. These policies have been developed to reflect local economic and social attitudes in the community, and also to coincide with the attainment of state housing goals. These goals have been declared as follows: a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order. b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels. c) The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate -income households requires the cooperation of all levels of government. d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of I housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the 'state in addressing regional housing needs. 1 This Housing Element has been prepared in accordance with Sections 65580-65589 of the Government Code, which was adopted by the State Legislature in September 1980.* * A compliance checklist, attached as an appendix to this Element, references the reader to portions of the Element which comply with provisions of state law.. I Organization of the Element 1 The Housing Element has been prepared in five parts, as follows: 1 I. Community Housing Market Analysis This section presents the most current information on population growth, employment growth, household characteristics, and the housing stock in Newport Beach. Data presented in this part of the Housing Element form the basis for analysis and discussion in the following three sections of the Element. 11. Housing Needs Assessment The "match" between the supply of housing in the city and city household preferences and ability to afford housing is examined. The city's share of the regional housing need is also included. , This assessment concludes with a quantification of community housing needs over a five-year period. , III. Constraints to Housing Delivery This section provides a general discussion of governmental, market, and financial factors which influence housing delivery in -the city. The purpose of this discussion is to identify problems which can be addressed through local actions, as well as constraints which are outside the sphere of local influence. IV. The Housing Program/Strategy This portion of the Element summarizes major findings of the earlier housing assessment, sets forth city goals and policies, and outlines city objectives in addressing problems and issues identified. Each objective is followed by a programmatic response, or "implementation plan" and target dates for activities. The housing program presents a five year plan of action. Quantified goals for the next five-year period are also established for the maintenance, improvement, and production of housing in the city. V. Evaluation of Past Housing Element Implementation Government Code Section 65588 requires the city to review the housing element as frequently as is appropriate to evaluate the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goals the effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's goals and objectives; and the city's progress in implementation of the housing element. Section V of the Housing Element provides this evaluation. 1 I 1 P I 1 i w D 1 I I t LJ I L� Citizen Participation The views and proposals of the citizens in the community have been actively solicited in the preparation of this Housing Element. Two citizen forums have been sponsored to obtain public review and comment on each portion of the Housing Element as it was prepared in draft form. The city provided notice of these meetings as well as all public hearings to a mailing list of all interested parties, including groups representing the interests of all economic segments of the community. In addition, all meetings and public hearings were advertised in the legal section a local newspaper and by means of a 3 inch by 5 inch display advertisement in a prominent location of the same local newspaper. one study session and six public hearings before the Planning Commission, and one study session and two public hearings before the City Council, were also held in the process of Housing Element preparation. During the 1983 Amendment two public hearings were held on the draft Element, one before the City Planning Commission and one before the City Council. During the 1984 review and amendment process, five public hearings were held on the Draft Element;, two before the City Planning Commission and three before the City Council. Time Period Covered by the Element This revised Housing Element covers the five-year period 1984-1989. Review and Update of the Housing Element The city will review this Housing Element on an annual basis, to evaluate the appropriateness of objectives, the effectiveness of programs, and progress in implementation. The Housing Element will be revised again in five years (1989) in accordance with state law. 3 I. COMMUNITY HOUSING MARKST ANALYSIS STATISTICAL SUMMARY Population: The Newport Beach population reported by the 1980 Census was 62,556 persons. Including the West Newport Triangle, annexed , in December of 1980, the City's total population was 63#503. This compares to 63,101 persons in 1976 and 49,442 persons in 1970. The California Department of Finance estimates the , city's 1983 population to be 65,700. Employment: In 1983, Newport Beach was the location of 47,715 jobs. Finance, insurance, and real estate are major industries. i Household Characteristics: The average household size in Newport Beach as of 1980 was 2.23 persons per household. This compares to the ' Orange County 1980 average of 2.78 persons per household. The median household income for Newport Beach was 20.7% higher than the Orange County median income in 1979. The median household income for the city in 1979 was approximately $27,516, compared to $22,806 for Orange County. Assuming the same relationship between city and county income in 1983, the city's median income would be about $35,000, based on the federal government's calculation of county median income. The 1980 Census reported that 80980 households, over 32% of all city households, Were living on incomes below 80% of the regional median income and are therefore lower-ibcome households. The city has a high percentage of elderly residents. In 1980, 9,196 residents, 14% of the population, were 62 years of age or older. The comparable 1980 figure for Orange County is 10.3%. Several neighborhoods in the city provide housing for college students in the region. Approximately 7,850 residents were enrolled in college in 19801 about 21500 students were enrolled full-time at the University of California, Irvine, and Orange Coast College in 1983. Housing Stock Characteristics: An average of 892 new housing units have been added annually to the city housing stock between 1970 and 1980. 4 Table 1 HOUSING UNIT MIX - 1980 Year Round Housing Type Total Single -Family Detached 14,581 Single -Family Attached 4,277 Duplex 3,942 Triplex/ Fourplex 1,638 Multi -Family 6,280 Mobile Home 679 TOTAL 31,397 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Total Renter Occupied Occupied 14,368 13,252 2,638 4,255 3,806 1,478 3,828 3,464 2,766 1,634 1,525 1,239 6,189 5,252 4,686 669 521 175 30,943 27,820 12,932 Table 2 ESTIMATED HOUSING UNIT MIX - JANUARY 1, 19811 Number Single -Family 17,799 Duplex ' 5,560 3-4 Units 1,831 5 or More Units 6,254 Mobile Homes 984 Other 61 TOTAL 32,489 1. Based upon City Permit Data yearly update. Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Percent 54.8% 17.1% 5.6% 19.2% 3.0% 0.2% 0 I Table 3 VACANCY STATUS (YEAR-ROUND UNITS) IN 1980 For Sale 649 For Rent 945 Total Available Units 1,594 (5.2%) + Occasional Use 11031 + vacant Seasonal 457 + Other Vacant 495 TOTAL, 3,577 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. NEWPORT BEACH WITHIN THE REGION The City of Newport Beach is situated within one of the fastest growing regions in California, in terms of population and employment growth. Development was at first gradual in Orange County and the result of urbanization of areas surrounding Los Angeles. In the 1970's, the growth of Orange County as an employment center accelerated: between 1970 and 1980, an annual county average of 60,000 jobs were added. Since 1975, housing starts and population growth have not kept pace with employment growth in the county. This has resulted in a pent-up demand for housing throughout the region. This demand is indicated by decreasing vacancy rates and increasing housing prices. Since 1978, vacancy rates in Orange County among single-family homes have been below 2%. Between 1979 and 1983, the median price of housing in Orange County increased by 27%. Since 1970, the median asking price has increased from $32,100 to $134,800 or 320% in 13 years. (Source: California Association of Realtors, California Real Estate Trends, January -December 1983. Based on sample of 5,595 homes sold.) The intense demand for housing and the dramatic increase in residential prices that are a characteristic of Orange County are at their height in the City of Newport Beach, The city is rich with amenities which have been enhanced through the development of well -planned residential neighborhoods. Much of Newport Beach is now the most favored residential site for aspiring upper -income families from the entire orange County area. Many of the older neighborhoods in the city retain the character of Newport Beach before the onset of the 1970's housing demand. These areas are developed in higher density, older housing which was originally constructed to accommodate moderate -income households. In addition, a large percentage of the housing stock in Newport Beach is rental housing. This housing t� I 11 I I I I 11 II 6 t Laccommodates seasonal visitors as well as moderate- and lower -income working adults and students. The percentage of rental housing in Newport Beach is generally higher than other cities in the area, and is an important supply of student housing for both U.C. Irvine and Orange Coast College. Much of the populous of Newport Beach is therefore composed of renting households, as well as residents who bought housing in the city before housing prices escalated. The city 'contains many older residents within the latter category. The number of people who live in Newport Beach who could not afford their home if they were buying it today is sizeable. Nearly 20% of the City's residents in 1980 had moved into their homes prior to 1970, before 'the rapid escalation of housing costs began. Therefore, at the same time that the ' city's housing attracts upper -income households, it also houses many persons and families with incomes well below the median income of the area. The intense demand for housing in the city is complicated by the fact that employment growth has also been strong in the area. The city has become one of the most desirable office locations, not only within the region, but on an 1 international basis. It is for this reason that demand for office, commercial, and industrial expansion competes with housing demand in the city. The functional significance of Newport Beach within the region, as a business center, a recreational center, and an attractive residential area brings to the city many undesirable effects. These include acute 'traffic congestion, extremely crowded conditions in summez months and tourist seasons, and pressures for development of the city with more intense urban uses. Over 46% of all occupied units in the city are rental units. The City represents one of the highest proportions of rental housing in Orange County. County -wide, about 40% of the year-round housing units are rentals. Vacancy rates for units available for occupancy in the city in July 1980 were: 2.2% for single-family homes; 2.9% for multi -family; and 0.4% for mobile homes. It should be noted that vacancies vary throughout the year, and the actual number of units available for sale or rent at any one time will always be substantially lower than the total number of unoccupied units. in 1976, 1.3% of the city's housing stock was in substandard condition. Most substandard units are concentrated in the following areas: Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Newport Heights. A 1984 visual survey of exterior housing conditions in these three areas conducted by the City found 20 units in need of major rehabilitation or replacement. In addition, based on 1980 Census data, it appears that less that 1% of the City's housing is internally deficient. The average value ratios of homes constructed in Newport Beach increased from between $50.00 to $63.00 per square foot in 1975 to between $135.00 to $181.00 in 1980. A 1984 market survey of homes on the Balboa Peninsula and an area south of Pacific Coast Highway revealed prices per square foot of $174 and $360. For homes constructed in 1983, the average price per square foot was about $180. I In 19830 the average price of homes sold in Newport Beach was $330,100. This compares to an average price of $177,900 in Irvine and $133,223 in Costa Mesa. (Source: Newport Harbor Costa Mesa Board of Realtors.) For newly constructed homes sold in 1983, the average price was $522,800, with a range in prices of $129,900 to $1.7 million. (Source: Project developer sales information - excludes Seashore townhouses for which information was not available.) In 1983, the median selling price of existing homes was nearly $135,000 in Orange County. The average rent of apartment units vacant and available for rent in the city in February 1984 was $615. For vacant, single-family homes, average rent was $1,390, and for home sharing arrangements, the average rent was $315. (Source: Consultant survey of advertised rental units.) Land Availability: A total of 245 gross acres in the city are designated for residential development and are vacant and uncommitted to any specific project. Of these 245 acres, 152.48 are estimated to be buildable and can accommodate 724 dwelling units. within this context, the housing market of Newport Beach is examined. The present and projected population of the city, as well as the housing stock is examined to determine where housing needs exist and to identify public actions which are appropriate and meaningful to maximize housing services within the city. POPULATION TRENDS The City of Newport Beach was one of the first cities to develop within Orange County. The city's rate of population growth therefore exceeded the county's through 1950. Since 1950, however, the city6s proportionate gain in population has been substantially less than the county's. Table 4 POPULATION GROWTH ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH: 1910-1980 Orange County Newport Beach Population Growth Rate Population Growth Rate 1910 34,436 445 1920 61,375 78.2% 894 100.9% 1930 118,674 93.4% 2,203 146.4% 1940 130,760 10.2% 4,438 101.4% 1950 216,224 65.4% 12,120 173.1% 1960 703,925 225.6% 26,565 119.2% 1970 1,420,386 101.8% 49,442 86.1% 1980 1,932,709 36.1% 62,556 26.5% 1983 2,036,400 5.4% 65,700 5.0% Sources: U.S. Census of Population and Housing and California Department of Finance. I I r I LJ I I 11 I W I This latter trend is due to the fact that the supply of vacant land to support ' new residential development in the City of Newport Beach is rapidly being diminished. Therefore, immigration, which is still a strong factor in population growth in Orange county, is a much lesser factor in Newport Beach. ' Between 1976 and 1980, Newport Beach actually lost population, despite the fact that approximately 1500 housing units were added in the city. However, the State Department of Finance estimates that the city has increased in population to 65,700 in 1983, largely due to the annexation of the West Newport Triangle in 1980. The vacancy rate for all year-round housing units reported by the 1980 Census was 10.1%. The vacancy rate for year-round housing units in the city in 1976 was 10.9%. This relatively high rate of vacant units is attributed to the use of many housing units as second homes for persons who have seasonal business or recreational ties to the area. The overall vacancy of year-round units actually available for occupancy at the time of the federal census was 5.2%. The use of units as second homes actually decreased between 1970 and 1980, and does not explain the reduction in population growth relative to the increase in the number of households. This trend is attributed instead to a sizeable reduction in the average size of city households. While the"average household usehold size of size in 1976 was 2.36, the 1980 Census reported an average ho ' 2.23. Decreases in household sizes are occurring in most communities in California; however, Newport Beach has traditionally had a household size that is smaller than the regional or state" average. The continuing decrease in ' average persons per household is shown below: Table 5 PERSONS PER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT 1960 1970 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1983 est. Newport Beach 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 Orange County 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing. I I I Various factors that contribute to this phenomenon are explored below: - Rental housing in most urban areas is occupied by households for which the average size is smaller than owner -occupied housing. Thus, the supply of rental housing in Newport Beach, which is proportionately higher than the region as a whole, contributes to a household size that is smaller than.the region as a whole. - Many predominantly owner -occupied neighborhoods in the city were originally populated by child -rearing families. These families have matured and children have passed through high school and left home in the same general time period. Thus, certain neighborhoods now have sizeable numbers of childless couples in the "empty nest" stage of life, causing a general reduction in neighborhood•population. I1 I - Limited opportunities exist for children who have been raised in Newport Beach to establish an independent residence in the city and to raise a new generation of children. Many young adults live in the city as renters; however, opportunities to purchase housing as a first-time homebuyer are rare. Young adults who are renting are generally not pursuing a child -rearing lifestyle. Generally, this stage of life coincides with the first purchase of housing. Thus, the city does not offer numerous housing opportunities for households that are producing young children. - Following the national trend, many young couples are postponing child -rearing or electing not to have children at all for a variety of reasons. Such childless couples, supported by two professional salaries, are often able to afford housing in Newport Beach. In many neighborhoods or larger, single-family homes where child -rearing families have been predominant, young ss households are now very common. Much of the reduction in neighborhood population can be attributed to this phenomenon. - Many retired persons have moved to Newport Beach in the last ten years. in summary, the reduction in household size in Newport Beach is the result of a reduction of child -rearing households in the city, and a reduction in the child population in the city as well. This trend is further documented on Tables 6 and 7: population 9y Age, City of Newport Beach 1960-1976, and Changes in School Enrollment By Grades, aanuary 1976-January 1982. i 1 1 1 r mom r r r r ■r �r - m m m r Table 6 POPULATION BY AGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1960 - 1976 Age 1960 of Total)1 1970 (% of Total)1 1976 (% of Total)1 1980 8 of Total Under 5 1,823 ( 6.9%) 2,343 ( 4.7%) 1,835 ( 2.9%) 1,663 ( 2.7%) 5-13 4,102 (15.4%) 6,434 (13.6%) 6,460 (10.3%) 5,135 ( 8.2%) 14-17 1,63 ( 6.2%) 3,799 ( 7.7%) 4,270 ( 6.8%) 3,843 ( 6.1%) 18-34 4,715 (17.7%) 13,389 (27.1%) 19,169 (30.5%) 19,342 (30.9%) 35-64 11,169 (42.0%) 18,602 (37.6%) 24,934 (39.6%) 25,285 (40.4%) 65+ 3,117 (11.7%) 4,859 ( 9.8%) 6,240 ( 9.9%) 1,288 (11.7%) TOTAL: 26,556 49,426 62,908 62,556 1. Percentages do not add to 100% due to independent rounding. Source: 1960, 1970, and 1980 U.S. Census and 1976 Special Census for Newport Beach-. 7- IF Table 7 CHANGES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENROr.IMU BY GRADES JANUARY 1976 - JANUARY 1982 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Area Schools Mariners Elementary West Newport Elementary of Newport Heights Elementary Bay Ensign Intermediate School Anderson Elementary East Corona del Mar Elementary of 'East Bluff Elementary Bay Harbor View Elementary Lincoln Intermediate School Percent 1976 1982 Change 516 558 + 8.1% 642 364 -43.3% 575 417 -25.5% 763 828 + 8.5% 673 498 -26.0% 480 (Closed in 1982) 467 171 -63.4% 662 516 -22.1% 1,325 634 -52.2% TOTAL 4,778 3,986--16.6% 1. A school closure in an adjacent area within the school district accounts for this enrollment increase. Source: Newport -Mesa Unified School District. r= M = = M M M M M M M M M r= M M r IY W Table 8 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 1970 - 1980 1970 1980 M Public K-8 5,681 4,495 (-20.9%) 9-12 3,299 3,669 (+ 5.4%) Subtotal 9,180 8,164 (-11.7%) Private K-8 882 902 (+ 2.3%) 9-12 157 200 (+27.4%) Subtotal 1,039 1,102 (+ 6.1%) TOTAL 10,219 9,266 1/84 (%) 3,594 (-12.08) 3,251 (-11.4%) 6,845 (-16.2%) 912 (+ 1.1%) unavailable Source: 1. Newport -Mesa Unified School District; 2. City of Newport Beach Planning Department. HOUSING UNIT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS The ultimate residential capacity within the City of Newport Beach has been projected at 38,700 dwelling units. This projection is based on the General Plan and the city's traffic model. This dwelling unit total includes the West Newport Triangle (A3), but does not include the Banning Property, Santa Ana Heights, or the Irvine Downcast southeast of the city, which are currently unincorporated areas. The housing unit projection is based on estimated vacant land inventory of 245 gross acres in 1984. This ultimate residential capacity provides the most accurate means by which to project population within the city. To project population, the following assumptions have been made: 1. Household size will stabilize and perhaps increase to 2.3 or 2.4 persons per household by 2000. As housing costs continue to rise, more units will be occupied by unrelated persons sharing housing expenses. Additionally, a portion of the younger childless couples within the city will eventually have children, thus providing some natural population increase and offsetting the historical decline in household size. 2. Vacancy rates will decline somewhat as a result of the demand for housing and increased price of housing in Orange County. An overall vacancy rate of 10% through the year 2000 has been projected. (This 10% vacancy rate includes seasonal and migratory units not available for occupancy. The comparable overall vacancy rate in 1980 was 12.9%.) 3. Ultimate residential buildout in the city will occur by the year 2000. Table 9 POPULATION - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Average Assumed Housing Popula- Household Vacancy Units tion size Rate 1980 1 31,397 62,556 12.9% 1983 (Estimated) 32,266 65,700 2.23 11.7% 1990 (Projected) 35,000 71,400 2.25 10.0% 1995 (Projected) 360850 76,500 2.3 10.0% 2000 (Projected) 38,700 82,500 2.35 10.0% 1. Estimated as of January 1, 1983. Source: 1980 U.S. Census and the City of Newport Beach Planning Dept. These projections indicate that the City of Newport Beach will grow at an average rate of 1.5% per year as compared to a 2.2% annual growth rate which has been projected by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) (Growth Forecast Policy January 1982) for Orange County. This variance 11 I I 1 14 1 in growth rates is related to the smaller portion of undeveloped residential acreage remaining in Newport Beach. It should also be noted that population growth will be significantly affected by the assumption regarding average household size. If household size were to remain constant, the population in the year 2000 would be 78,200. ' The past and future populations of both Orange County and Newport Beach are shown below. Newport Beach population will continue to constitute a lesser ' percentage of the county population. Table 10 NEWPORT BEACH POPULATION AS A PROPORTION OF ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION Orange Newport of County Beach County 1940 130,760 4,438 3.4% 1950 216,224 703,925 12,120 5.6% 3.8% 1960 26,565 1970 1,420,386 49,442 3.5% 1980 1,932,709 62,556 3.2% 1983 (Est.) 2,036,400 65,700 3.2% Projections: 1990 2,399,700 71,400 3.0% ' 1995 2,596,800 1 76,500 3.0% 2000 2,769,200-A1 82,500 3.0% 2,7581800-5 2000. 1. SCAG has prepared two alternative forecasts for the year 1 II Sources: U.S. Census, 1980; State Department of Finance, 1983; SCAG Growth Forecast Policy, January 1982. EMPLOYMENT TRENDS ' The Newport Beach Planning Department estimated total non -construction employment to be 42,000 in 1980. In March 1984, employment was estimated to be 47,715, a 13.7% increase. City estimates are based on the city's computer traffic model which applies employment generation ratios to non-residential land uses. This model accounts for employment that can be attributed to permanent land uses and therefore excludes miscellaneous seasonal and non -facility based employment (such as certain construction jobs, fishing, lifeguards, and certain transportation employment). The excluded employment accounts for between one and three percent of the total -employment in Newport Beach. The city employment estimates are much lower than historical estimates for Newport Beach prepared by the State Employment Development Department (EDD). The EDD estimates show much greater employment increases in commercial offices and service industries than the city believes are supportable by new commercial construction which has occurred since 1977. ° t 15 The employment generation ratios used by the Planning Department in its traffic model appear in Table 11. Table 11 EMPLOYEE GENERATION RATIOS Land Use Business Office Medical Office General Commercial Restaurant industrial Hotel/Motel Factor 3.9 employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 3.2 employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 1.0 employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 3.2 employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 44 employees per acre .39 employees per guest room Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Table 12 compares employment categories estimated for 1984 and projected for the year 2000. Table 12 EMPLOYMENT BY CATEGORY March 1584 2000 $ Change Manufacturing/1 Industry 2 91561 8,739 90515 -8.68 +38,O% Wholesale/Retail 61894 Business40ffices3 25,425 46,834 +84.2% Services 5 4,050 6,884 +69.5% Government 1,785 1,608 -9.906 TOTAL 470715 73,580 +54.2% 1. includes mixed office -industrial uses and research and development. 2, Includes restaurants. 3. Includes financial, insurance, and real estate institutions offering services. 4. Includes hotels and motels, medical services, cultural services, and other non -governmental services. 5. Includes private school employment and emergency government services. Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department, Land Use Survey (April -May 1983). 16 I it II J d 1 LI I Table 13 compares the City's projected employment growth with the SCAG projected employment growth for Orange County. Table 13 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT - NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY City Employment/ Newport Beach Orange County County Employment 1980 42,000 881,700 4.8% 19851 47,715 1,036,700 4.6% 1990 57,415 1,162,000, 1995 65,500 1,259,300 5.2% 2000 73,580 1,504,900-A 4.9% 1,482,900-B 5.0% 1. City estimate is for 1984. Sources: SCAG Growth Forecast Policy 1978 and January 1982. Employment growth in the city, like housing and population growth, will be limited at some point in the future by the finite amount of land and building space available within the city for expansion. The ultimate employment capacity of the city has been estimated at 73,580 employees, through the following methodology: * Ratios of employees per square foot of employment generating land uses were developed by using the city's computer traffic model to compare 1980 employment with 1980 land uses. * The total number of employees as of November 1980 was estimated at 42,000 by applying these ratios to 1980 land uses. * The city's remaining buildable square footage for office, medical, commercial, restaurant, industrial, hotel, and hospital uses was then inventoried using the holding capacity specified in the existing General Plan. This assessment indicates that another'9,673 employees will be added to the city at ultimate build -out. It is assumed that office and commercial build -out will occur in the city in the year 2000, and that employment growth will be uniform through the period 1980-2000. ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT TRENDS The city is expected to increase in employment by 75% between 1980 and 2000, compared to a SLAG -projected regional growth rate of between 68% and 70% during that same period. The city will contain about 5% of the jobs in Orange County by the year 2000. Between 1984 and 1989, employment should increase by nearly 17%, or about 8,100 jobs. Historical trends suggest that by 1989 there may be as many as 17 I 1.65 workers per non -elderly household. Therefore, 8,100 jobs would provide employment for about 4,900 households. Based on the percentage of households living and working in the city in 1980 (about 37%), 8,100 jobs would translate into a housing demand of 1,813 units (4,900 x 0.37). Actual housing demand resulting from the additional employment will depend on the type of jobs created, the availability of housing in communities near Newport Beach at costs available to those workers. The city's employment projections show the largest increases occurring in business office employment and services. Manufacturing employment is expected to decline somewhat. This decline would be much steeper, without an anticipated new aerospace/research facility to be developed. Specific types of employment expected to make significant increases are restaurant services (+96%), medical services (+154%), hotel/motel services (+49%), and business offices (+84%). The anticipated employment growth suggests a large addition of lower -income service workers (about 1,850 restaurant workers), several hundred upper -income service workers (mostly medical professional), and over 20,000 office workers (who would include lower -income entry level and clerical workers, moderate -income managers and professionals, and upper -income senior professionals). HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS ETHNICITY The 1980 U.S. Census reported the following ethnic and racial identification of city households. Comparative figures for Orange County are also provided. Table 14 ETHNIC AND RACIAL IDENTIFICATION OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY Heads of Household Non-Mijority White 26,726 Black 61 American Indian, Eskimo, A 1 Aleut 49 Asian a Pacific Islander 294 Other 109 Spanish Origin 581 White (461) Black (3) American Indian (13) Other (104) Newport Beach 96.0 % .22% .18% 1.06% .39% 2.09% 1. Excludes persons of Spanish origin, shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1980. Orange County 84.32% 1.15% .62% 3.24% 1.15% 10.19% 1 I ri I I i I I I 18 1 M = M ! = = M = M = M = M M� M = = M IID Table 15 HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE AND ETHNICITY (1980) Asian/ Spanishl Total HH White Black Other Origin Total Households 27,820 27,187 64 569 581 Non -Family HH 12,081 11,748 41 292 309 Single 8,644 8,431 2 25 2 144 2 168 Family Households 15,739 15,439 23 277 272 Married Couples 12,851 12,618 16 217 181 With Children 4,463 4,337 6 120 82 Without Children 8,388 8,281 10 97 99 Single Parent W/Children 1,479 1,440 3 36 49 Female -Headed 1,197 1,168 3 26 37 Other Family 1,409 1,381 4 24 42 1. Spanish Origin may be of any race. 2. Numbers do not add to total due to estimation of sampling error. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. HOUSEHOLD INCOMES The median household income in Newport Beach has traditionally been higher than that of Orange County. In 1970, the city's median income was 34.2% higher than the county figure. In 19801 the City's median household income was 20.7% higher that the County's household median income. Table 16 ACTUAL AND PROJECTED MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH Orange County Newport Beach of County) 19601 $ 7,219 $ 8,571 (+18.7%) 19701 $12,244 $16,435 (+34.2%). 1976 $16,8002 $20,8752 (+24.38) 1980 $ 22,8061 $27,516 (+20.7%) 1983 (Est.) $28,2843 $35,0003 (+23.7%) Sources: 1. U.S. Census; 2. 1976 Special Census for Newport Beach; 3. Estimate based on HUD -calculated county median income for March 1983. 20 ' Table 17 ' 1980 AND 1984 ESTIMATED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOUSEHOLD INCOME ' Income Number 1980 M Number 19842 M $ 0- 4,999 1,899 6.8%' 1,682 5.6% ' $ 5- 9,999 2,341 8.4% 2,074 7.0% $10-14,999 2,792 10.1% 2,468 8.3% $15-19,999 2,877 10.4% 2,552 8.6% $20-24,999 2,683 9.7% 2,407 8.1% $25-29,999 2,186 7.9% 1,939 6.5% $30-34,999 2,017' 7.3% 1,787 6.0% $35-39,999 1,827 6.6% 2,492 8.4% $40-49,999 2,635 9.5% 3,595 12.1% $50-74,999 3,296 11.9% 4,470 15.0% $75,000+ 3,183 11.5% 4,352 14.6% TOTAL 27,7361 29,818 1. Total does not add to total number of households due to rounding. ' 2. 1984 total estimated as of January 1. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban ' Development. ' The households which are moving to Newport Beach to purchase housing are likely to be in an income category that is well above the estimated 1983 median income for the city of $35,000. in this regard, many housing market professionals report that an income of at least $60,000 to $65,000 is required ' in order to seriously consider a housing purchase in the city. The income required to purchase the 1983 average -priced home of $330,100 is between $134,000 and $144,000, depending on assumptions one makes regarding the downpayment, percent of income devoted to housing payments, and the type of loan. ' It should be stated that the incomes of households purchasing housing in 198.4 in Newport Beach do not accurately characterize the average household residing within the city. A review of 1980 Orange County Assessor's Property Tax Rolls indicates that 62.3% of all single-family homeowners bought their housing before January 1, 1977. Before this date, owner -occupied housing in the city was more accessible to moderate -income families. 21 11 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 1 Housing affordability is best assessed by analyzing the level of payment as 1 compared to the ability to pay. The most recent data on the amount of income spent on housing expenses in the city of Newport Beach comes from the 1980 U.S. Census. For renters, about 54.5% of the households spent 25% or more of their income on rent. For homeowners, about 34.7% of the households spent about 35% or more of their monthly income on mortgage payments. Currently, lenders are allowing households to pay between 29% and 35% of their gross 1 income for housing. Table 18 shows the relationship of income spent on housing by income group. i 1 r i i 1 i 1 1 1 1 i i 22 1 Rent/Mortgage asa%of Income 0-24% 25-34% 35%+ Table 18 INCOME GROUP HOUSING $0-4,999 $5,000-9,999 $10,000-14,999 $15,000-19,999 $20,000 + TOTAL Renters Owners Renters Owners Renters Owners Renters Owners Renters Owners Renters Owners 0.5% 21% 1.4% 33.7% 11.9% 40.0% 25.0% 54.7% 79.7% 72.3% 45.5% 63.3% 2.1% 11.5% 8.7% 10.9% 20.5% 17.4% 37.5% 15.5% 19.1% 14.0% 19.3% 14.0% 97.4% 67.5% 89.9% 55.4% 67.6% 42.6% 37.5% 29.8% 1.2% 13.7% 35.2% 22.7% IN Source: 1980 U.S. Census. w u From this table, it appears that among those households earning 80% or less of the 1980 city median household income, the incidence of households paying more than 25% of their income for rents or mortgage payments is significant. It should be noted that a large number of the lower -income households paying more that 25% of their income for housing are likely to be students. Those households in the moderate- and upper -income groups do not appear to have any housing affordability problem. As part of the 1983 Regional Housing Allocation Model, SCAG prepared an analysis of City households at or below 80% of County median household income paying more than 30% of their income for housing. This analysis was also based on 1980 U.S. Census data. Based on the SCAG analysis, an estimated 3,924 households are at or below 80% of County median income and paying more than 30% of their income for housing. It was further estimated that 21325 of these households were very low-income, at or below 50% of County Median Household income, and 11599 of these households were low-income, between 50% and 80% of County Median income. SCAG estimates these households were distributed between owners and renters as follows: Table 19 HOUSEHOLDS PAYING MORE THAN 30% OF THEIR INCOME FOR HOUSING Very Low-income Low-income Total (0-50%) (50-80%) (0-80%) Owner 490 270 760 Renter 1,835 1,328 3,164 TOTAL 2,325 1,599 31924 The large number of renter households is also supporting evidence that a large number of households paying over 25% to 30% of their income for housing are students. (See Special Population Groups, Students.) I I 11 L11 1 LJ 24 I I N N . l •, �'..: ems; � ,'�h �'� A / 4 2 i N i''1ir.: tp: :� / )�� • y°i L.r.�trrF � � i (may PEWPORT BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD r y 1� CIW OF NEMPOW MM fYdO.W .. I Table 20 RELATIONSHIP OF HOUSING COSTS TO MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AREA Neighborhood Statistical Med. Med. Med. Area Income Rent Percent Mortgage Percent 1 25,045 500+ 0.25+ 675 0.34 2 18,119 338 0.22 750+ 0.50+ 3 28,529 492 0.21 579 0.24 4 24,766 446 0.22 628 0.30 5 20,370 359 0.21 556 0.33 6 41,552 500+ 0.14+ 750+ 0.22+ 7 17,622 368 0.25 685 0.47 8 26,801 489 0.22 741 0.33 9 20,123 415 0.25 709 0.42 10 49,087 500+ 0.12+ 740 0.18 11 23,641 437 0.22 612 0.31 12 43,626 449 0.12 750+ 0.21+ 13 37,022 500+ 0.16+ 750+ 0.24+ 14 23,934 349 0.17 577 0.29 15 37,151 500+ 0.16+ 582 0.19 16 18,048 295 0,26 --- 0.00 17 45,929 500+ 0.13+ 750+ 0.20+ 18 120500 169 0.16 325 0.31 19 21,170 446 0,25 391 0.22 20 29,493 500+ 0.20+ 460 0.19 21 38,722 500+ 0.15+ 592 0.18 22 27,500 500+ 0.22+ --- 0,00 23 60,181 500+ 0.10+ 750+ 0.15+ 24 45,811 445 0,12 750+ 0.20+ 25 52,792 500+ 0..11+ 750+ 0.17+ 26 18,703 477 0.31 413 0.26 27 430048 500+ 0.14+ 733 0.20 28 50,723 500+ 0.12+ 750+ 0.18+ 29 31,959 442 0.17 604 0.23 30 22,444 .442 0.17 604 0.23 31 190082 428 0.27 510 0.32 Remainder of City 430630 375 0.10 --- 0.00 CITY TOTAL 270516 461 0.20 742 0.32 1. Neighborhood Statistical Area relates to those areas delineated upon the preceding map. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 26 I 11 J 1 t The incidence of higher -income households paying more than 25% of their income for housing is an indication of unique standards of housing affordability in Newport Beach. Many households allocate a higher percentage of their income for housing because of the unique environmental features of the community which are purchased with the housing unit. In addition, a higher allocation of income toward housing is perceived to be justified because of the investment qualities of housing in the city.- Finally, higher expenditures on housing may be justified when tax advantages of such an arrangement are considered, and also on the expectation that incomes will increase while housing expenses remain fixed. A 1984 survey of mortgage lenders in the Newport Beach area indicates that more liberal standards of affordability have been accepted on an institutional level. Loan underwriting standards for the financial institutions vary from 29% to 35% as the acceptable ratio of monthly housing costs to gross monthly earnings. The accepted total debt service ratio (between all long-term obligations and gross monthly earnings) varies between 36% and 40%. OVERCROWDING The substantial reduction in the average household size in the City of Newport Beach indicates that the majority of city households are not overcrowded in terms of persons per dwelling unit. The 1980 Census figure of 2.23 persons per dwelling unit is well below the state and regional average. In 1980, non -family households, households composed of individuals unrelated by kinship, law, or marriage, comprised 43.6% of all households. By definition, all other households, 56.4%, were family households. The most common household type in the City of Newport Beach was couples without children. This household type comprised 52.4% of all family households and 29.6% of all households. The second most common household type was single -person residence, comprising 31.3% of all city households. Only 16.3% of all households were two -parent families with children. • The 1970 Census indicated that 134, or 1.2%, of all owner -occupied units and, 249, or 2.9%, of all renter -occupied units in Newport Beach in 1970 were occupied by more than 1.01 persons per room, In 1980, these figures were 84 (0.6%) for owner -occupied units and 212 (1.6%) for renter -occupied units. These percentages compare with county figures of 5.2% overcrowding among owner -occupied units, and 7.8% overcrowding among renter -occupied units. The rate of overcrowding, therefore, was substantially less in Newport Beach than it was in the county in 1970, and has decreased since that time. In 1980, the incidence of overcrowding is most frequent among households where unrelated persons are sharing housing expenses. This household arrangement is common among students as well as seasonal visitors renting units in West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Island. Although the 1980 Census reports an average household size in these areas of 2.18, 2.10 and 2.06 respectively, overcrowded conditions have been observed. Overcrowding in such instances is related to the desirability of housing in these areas, especially among students, and the willingness to "double up" in living arrangements in 27 order to decrease housing costs. The incidence of overcrowding in west Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Island was 1.0%, 0.6%, 1.0% respectively. SPECIAL POPULATION GROUPS Students Newport Beach provides a significant supply of housing for students attending both the University of California at Irvine and Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa. The V.C. Irvine Housing Office has used permanent addresses reported on Winter 1984 registration forms to count the number of U.C.I. students living in Newport Beach. The University estimated this number to be approximately 1,000. Based on 1981 enrollment at Orange Coast College, it is estimated that an additional 1,500 full-time students from that institution reside in Newport Beach. The U.C.I. Housing Office, in a past study of student housing opportunities in Orange County, estimated that 1,500 students attending Orange Coast College also reside in Newport Beach. Thus, a total of approximately 2,500 persons, or 43 of the Newport Beach population, are college students, Most of these students reside in the neighborhoods of West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Island, where median rents in January 1981 were $600, $600, and $500 respectively. These prices are comparable to average costs for off -campus student housing throughout the Orange County Area. Average costs reported by the U.C.I. off -Campus Student Service Office as of September 1980 were: Table 21 U.C.I. OFF -CAMPUS STUDENT SERVICE OFFICE HOUSING COST Apartments 1 bedroom, 1 bath $400/mo. 2 bedroom, 1 bath $450/mo. Homes 3 bedroom, 2 bath $640/mo. Irvine Co. Apartments 1 bedroom, 1 bath $469/mo. 2 bedroom, 1 bath $515/mo. Students are able to afford these prices by living with other students and sharing costs. In some cases, this encourages overcrowded conditions. Elderly In 1980, 7,288 persons, or 11.7% of the city population, were 65 years of age or older. Those 62 years of age or older totalled 9,196, and made up 14.7% of 28 I n 1 1 u the population. The elderly population in Newport Beach has grown steadily since 1960, and is expected to continue to increase. The percentage of older persons in -the city is large compared to the region; in 1970, when 12.3% of all city residents were 62+ years of age, only 8.4% of all county residents were in this same age category. Many elderly persons residing in Newport Beach are long-time residents of the city. Many others have moved to the city to pursue a retirement lifestyle. Those persons in the latter category are generally well -housed because their housing arrangement has been chosen to match their retirement lifestyle and financial situation. Persons in the former category are in many cases living in the dwelling unit purchased at an earlier stage in their lives. In many cases, this unit no longer matches their housing needs in terms of living space, maintenance, location in respect to community facilities, and cost. Persons living on low, fixed incomes may be "housing rich" in terms of the accumulated equity in their homes, but poorly served by the housing unit itself. In such cases, elderly residents may retain their living quarters only because they wish to remain in the community. Alternative living arrangements in the community, involving smaller units close to commercial and transportation facilities with some congregate services, would better serve the needs of this population segment. Many elderly residents in the city reside in mobile home parks. A significant number of long-time elderly residents live in the older parks which were developed in the 1950's and 19601s, while others live in parks which are close to the bay and which cater to a retirement lifestyle. Female Head of Household Available 1980 Census data indicates that there are 2,121 female -headed households within the Community. of these total households 1,224 have related children under 18 years of age and 181 have related children under 6 years of age. It is not possible to determine how many of these households are in need of housing assistance, below 80% of County median household income and paying more than 30% of their income for housing, from Census data. However, Census data shows that 264 of these female -headed households are below poverty status, below $7,356 in 1979 for a family of four. of these 264 households, 202 had related children under 18 years of age and 32 had related children under 6 years of age. Handicapped The 1980 Census reported that 1,143 persons, or 1.8% of the city population, had a permanent mental or physical handicap which prevented them from using public transportation. over 69% of those individuals with such disabilities. were 65 years of age or older. This includes persons who are blind, deaf or mute, or who are confined to bed or a wheelchair, or who require crutches. Public transportation disability is an indicator of special housing needs of handicapped persons, these include: structural accommodations, including wheelchair ramps, wide doorways, grab bars, etc., as well as infrastructure accommodations (Handicapped access ramps) to make neighborhoods accessible. R&:] Large Families For purposes of this analysis, the City has f ilies with five or more persons. The 1980 examined both households and Census reported that of the 27,736 total households in the City, 1,515 (5.4%) contained 5 persons or more. Of the 1,515 large househols, 1,382 (91.2%) were large families. Families are groups of persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The remaining 133 (8.8%) households were non -related individuals residing together as household groups; these households represented 0.5% of the total households in the City. The large family households represent 5.Ob of the total households in the City. The 1,382 large families represent 8.816 of the 15,656 total families residing in the City at that time. Table 22 shows the distribution of the number of persons per family and household as indicated in the 1580 Census. As indicated in Table 23, in 1980 116 (0.7%) of these large families were low income families earning less than 80% of the County median family income (less than $19,999); and of these, 39 (0.2%) were estimated to be very -low income families earning no more 50% of the County median family income ($13,045). Thirty-one (0.18) households at that time paid more than 30% of their income towards housing costs, and 19 (0.07%) of those households fell in the very -low category. Based upon the projected population for the Clty in 1989, the number of total families should increase to 17,732 and households to a total of 31,413. Assuming the project number of persons per family/household is achieved, large families should number approximately 1,560, and large households should equal 136 for a total of 1,696 total households of 5 or more persons. The number of low income families will be nearly 131, and approximately 44 of these will be very -low income families. Households paying more than 30% of their income to housing in 1989 will number about 35. It is estimated that 14 of the households will be classified as low income households, and the remaining 21 as very-loW income households. Table 22 HOUSEHOLD & FAMILY SIZE Persons Families % Households 2 81624 55.1 3 31257 20.8 4 2,393 15.3 5 1,051 6.7 6 222 1.4 7+ 109 .7 Total 15,656 8,686 31.3 10,581 38.1 4,184 15.1 2,770 10.0 1,I20 4.0 260 .9 135 .5 27,736 i I I J 1 I t 30 $ - $ 4,999 $ 5,000 - $ 9,999 $10,000 - $14,999 $15,000 - $24,999 $20,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 + MEDIAN Table 23 PERSONS IN FAMILY BY FAMILY INCOME 276 131 46 8 0 3 464 546 110 72 15 0 0 743 723 208 97 6 7 0 1,041 997 273 148 68 13 11 1,510 997 273 148 68 13 11 1,510 1,395 521 459 129 39 5 2,548 1,525 699 507 168 61 37 2,997 1,272 576 525 209 46 9 2,537 31,849 38,096 42,358 58,792 46,875 44,200 Persons in Poverty The Census Bureau reported that in 1980, 4,256 persons were. below the poverty level, or 6.9% of the city's residents. The -poverty level is an annually revised income ceiling calculated by the Census Bureau. Table 24 compares the 1979 and 1983 poverty levels adjusted for family size-, and Table 25 shows the number of families and households below the poverty level. Table 24 INCOME LIMIT DEFINED AS POVERTY LEVEL 1979 Size of Household 1 $ 3,666 2 $ 4,723 3 $ 5,787 4 $ 7,412 5 $ 8,776 6 $ 9,915 7 $11,237 8 $12,484 9 $14,812 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, weighted average threshold for age of household members. 1983 $ 5,060 $ 6,480 $ 7,940 $10,180 $12,060 $13,630 $15,520 $17,260 $20,330 31 Table 25 HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILIES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL (1980) With Total Children Families 529 299 Elderly (65+) 34 0 Female -Headed 264 202 Non -Families 1,427 Elderly (65+) 323 TOTAL 1,956 290 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Without Children 230 34 62 1,427 323 1,657 32 I I I LEI L I I I I I I I r L- L HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS Residential Growth and Dwelling Unit Types Between April 1970 and April 1980, 8,919 housing units were added to the housing inventory in the City of Newport Beach. This indicates an average yearly increase in the housing stock of approximately 892 housing units. Since 1976, this rate of increase has slowed significantly. Between April 1976 and January 1980, 1,460, an average of 365 housing units per year, were added to the housing stock. Actual units constructed each year since 1976 are listed in Table 26. Table 26 NET ADDITIONS AND TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 1976 - 1984 Total Housing Units Year At Year Start Net Additions 1976 29,812 330 1977 30,142 507 1978 30,649 348 1979 30,997 275 1980 31,272 191 1981 31,463 149 1982 31,612 121 1983 31,733 .223 1984 31,956 To this total must 'be added the West Newport annexation and the discrepancy, between the City's records and the 1980 Census count. The actual total number of housing units as of January 1, 1984, is estimated to be 32,489. The number of housing units in 1976 and in 1980 in each statistical area of the city is shown on Table 27. This data indicates that four neighborhoods experienced 82% of all dwelling unit growth in the city. In the Hoag Hospital Area (Area A) 214 units were added; in the Harbor Isle, Linda Island, Bayside Drive Area (Area G) 101 units were added; in the Bluffs, East Bluff, and Park Newport (Area K) 156 units were added; and in Harbor View Hills, Jasmine Creek, and Spyglass Hills (Area M) 721 units were added. I 33 Table 27 HOUSING UNITS AND VACANCY RATES 1976 and 1980 BY STATISTICAL AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Statistical Areas Housing units Vacant Units 19761 Jan. 1, 19802 % Change 19761 19803 Al, A2 1,156 1,370 +18.5% 257 (22.2%) 321 (14.45%) B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 4,143 4,219 + 1.8% 610 (14.72%) 559 (13.26%) Cl, C2 910 919 + 1.0% 111 (12.20%) 109 (11.580 D1, D2, D3, D4 3,079 3,105 + 1.0% 531 (17.25%) 502 (16.56%) El, E2, E3 2,197 2,216 + 0.9% 371 (16.89%) 253 (11.64%) F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, 1-7, FS 4,250 4,339 + 2.1% 251 ( 5.91%) 283 ( 6.57%) G1 943 1,044 +10.7% 386 (40,93%) 127 (13.00%) H1, H2, H3, H4 2,177 2,209 + 1.5% 165 ( 7.67%) 117 ( 5.35%) w At. al, J2, J3, J4, J5 3,952 3,%B + 0.4% 228 ( 5.76%) 445 (11.299k) Kl, g2, g3 3,573 3,572 0.0% 184 ( 5.15%) 171 ( 4.71%) L1, L2, L3, L4 572 728 +27.3% 44 ( 6.69%) 72 ( 9.66%) Ml, M2, M3, M4, M5 2,862 3,583 +25.2% 121 ( 4.23%) 193 ( 5.26%) CITY TOTAL 29,812 31,272 + 4.9% 3,259 (10.93%) General Plan Area (includes A3 and J6) 30,819 32,277 + 4.7% 3,292 (10.68%) 3,153 ( 9.83%) Sources; 1. 1976 Special Census; 2. 1980 Census; 3. Includes West Newport Triangle (A3), annexed to the City in December 1980. M M M M M rr No M M" W M am" r M M r r mom M M. M M M r r M M M M M mom M M Statistical Areas Al, A2, A33 B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 Cl, C2 DI, D2, D3, D4 El, E2, E3 Fl, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, PT, F8 G1 H1, H2, H3, H4 ' Jl, J2, J3, J4, J5 Ln K1, K2, K3 L2, L2, L3, L4 Ml, M2, M3, M4, M5 other City Total Table 28 YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNIT TYPES (APRIL 1980)1 BY STATISTICAL AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Single- Triplex + Multi- Mobilehome/ Family Duplex Fourplex Family Other TOTAL 719 5 196 964 313 2,187 1,750 1,591, 221 350 211 4,123 767 35 55 45 --- 902 1,321 711 362 516 39 2,949 1,303 629 32 42 --- 2,006 2,691 676 379 265 14 4,297 555 15 40 414 --- 1,024 1,665 79 39 350 42 2,175 2,146 17 28 1,698 21 3,910 1,913 54 86 1,364 234 3,651 544 7 56 117 --- 724 2,969 7 156 513 --- 3,645 15 --- 5 --- --- 20 18,628 3,828 1,645 6,638 874 31,613 (56.2%) (17.2%) (2.8%) (17.7%) (2.9%) 100%2 1. Does not include group quarters and seasonal or migratory units. 2. Percentages do not add to 100% due to independent, rounding. 3. Includes West Newport Triangle, annexed to the City in December 1980. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. w ON Statistical Areas Al, A2 Bl, B2, B3, B4, B5 Cl, C2 D1, D2, D3, D4 El, E2, E3 £l, F2, F3, F4, FS, F6, F7, F8 G1 Hl, H2, H3, H4 Jl, J2, J3, J4, JS R1, K2, R3 L2, L2, L3, L4 M1, 142, M3, M4, M5 CITY TOTAL Table 29 HOUSING UNIT TYPES (JANUARY 1980)1 BY STATISTICAL AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Single- Multi- Mobile Family Duplex Triplex Fourplex Family Home Misc. TOTAL 854 12 6 52 364 82 --- 1,370 1,583 1,929 117 40 212 328 10 4,219 791 48 54 -- 26 --- --- 919 1,460 773 284 161 360 63 4 3,105 1,002 1,128 51 21 13 --- 1 2,216 2,663 1,144 253 68 197 -- 14 4,339 305 108 24 116 479 --- 12 1,044 1,540 126 ill 52 333 46 1 2,209 2,100 34 6 52 1,671 105 --- 3,968 1,771 36 6 64 1,389 292 14 3,572 589 6 --- 40 93 --- --- 728 2,926 46 3 208 400 3,583 17,584 5,390 915 874 5,537 916 56 31,277� (56.2%) (17.2%) (2.9%) (2.88) (17.7%) (2.94) (.28) 100% 1. Does not include group quarters. 2. Percentages do not add to 100% due to independent rounding. Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The annexation of the West Newport Triangle (Statistical Area A3) in December 1980 added the following additional units within the city: Table 30 UNITS IN THE WEST NEWPORT TRIANGLE Total Dwelling Single Mobile Homes Units Family Duplex Multi -family 735 9 8 505 213 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. With this addition, the housing unit mix in the city is estimated as follows: Table 31 HOUSING UNIT MIX Housing Unit Type Single -Family Duplex Triplex Fourplex Multi -Family Mobile Home Miscellaneous TOTAL Number of Units 17,593 5,398 915 874 6,042 1,129 56 32,007 Percent of Total Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 55.0% 16.9% 2.8% 2.7% 18.9% 3.5% .2% 100.0% 37 I This housing unit mix compares to Orange County and neighboring cities as , follows: Table 32 HOUSING UNIT COMPARISONS 2 - 4 5 or more Single- Multiple Multiple Mobile Family Units Units Homes Newport Beach 17,593 7,187 6,042 11129 (55.0%) (22.4%) (18.9%) (3.5%) Costa Mesa 16,781 61229 9,496 1,141 (49.9%) (18.5%) (28.2%) (3.4%) Huntington Beach 34,030 100843 15,436 3,056 (53.7%) (17.1%) (24.4%) (4.8%) Laguna Beach 5,740 1,963 11337 17 (63.4%) (21.7%) (14.706) (0.2%) Orange County 420,029 93,471 165,917 30,184 (59.2%) (13.2%) (23.4%) (4.3%) California 5,257,625 1,3630741 21215,995 385,759 (57.0%) (14.8%) (24.0%) (4.2%) Source: State Department of Finance, Population Research Unit, January 1, 1980. Residential Densities Residential densities in many neighborhoods in the City of Newport Beach are very intense. Densities have been estimated by dividing residential acreage (as of 1972) by current dwelling unit counts: Balboa Peninsula West Newport Balboa Island Old Corona del Mar Lido Island Table 33 RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES BY AREA Estimated Density (Dwelling Units per Acre) 22.4 1943 27.7 16.9 13.9 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 91 I ' In addition, many attached housing projects in the city have been developed to maximize land usage. Existing attached projects in the city and their densities are listed below. Table 34 ' DENSITIES OF ATTACHED HOUSING Number of Dwelling i Gross Dwelling Units Per Project Acreage Units Gross Acre Newport Crest 38.0 460 12.1 37.5 Versailles Phase I 6.8 255 Lido Condominiums 1.1 54 49.1 Condominium at 621 Lido Park Drive 1.7 36 21.2 Caribe 1.3 48 36.9 Rendezvous .75 24 32.0 Oakwood 32.3 1,450 44.9 Mariners Square 6.2 114 18.4 Park Newport 53.2 1,302 24.5 Promontory Point 32.8 520 15.8 Bayview Apts. 5.4 64 11.8 Bayport Apts. 5.3 96 18.1 Baywood Apts. 27.4 310 11.3 Newport Terrace 40.0 281 7.0 Granville Apts. 10.16 67 6.59 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Dwelling units in these projects when totalled with all units in the neighborhoods listed above account for 18,640 dwelling units, or 60% of all city dwelling units as of January 1980. The trend within the city toward higher density development is demonstrated also by building permit data. Table 35 shows that since 1980, multi -family permits issued have exceeded single-family permits issued in the city. This is exactly opposite the trend state-wide, where single-family permits have exceeded multi -family in recent years. I I _1 r] Ll 910 Table 35 PERMITS ISSUED 1980 - 1983 NEWPORT BEACH Single- 2 - 4 ramily Units 5 Units Total Apr. -Dec. 1980 138 (52.6%) 64 (24.4%) 60 (22.9%) 262 1981 79 (29.2%) 77 (28.4%) 115 (42.4%) 271 1982 106 (61.6%) 66 (38.4%) 0 172 1983 97 (35.7%) 74 (27.2%) 101 (37.1%) 272 Total 420 (43.0%) 281 (28.8%) 276 (28.2%) 977 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. PERMITS ISSUED 1980 - 1983 ORANGE COUNTY Single -Family Multi -Family Total Apr. -Dec. 1980 5,421 (64.0%) 3,055 (36.0%) 8,476 1981 41345 (46.2%) 51069 (53.8%) 9,414 1982 2,859 (34.3%) 21410 (45.7%) 5,269 1983 7,457 (57.9%) 5,433 (42.1%) 12,890 Total 20,082 (55.7%) 15,967 (44.3%) 36,049 Source: Security Pacific National Bank, "California Construction Trends" CALIFORNIA Single -Family Multi -Family Total Apr. -Dec. 1980 67,321 (60.3%) 44,380 (39.7%) 111,701 1981 59,900 (57.1%) 45,000 (42.9%) 104,900 1982 49,784 (59.1%) 34,404 (40.9%) 84,188 1983 99,299 (59.0%) 69,059 (41.0%) 168,358 Total 276,304 (58.9%) 129,843 (41.1%) 469,147 Source: Security Pacific National Bank, "California Construction Trends" 40 11 Housing Tenure Tenure of housing in Newport Beach has varied as follows between 1970 and 1980: Table 36 HOUSING TENURE Total Occupied Owner- Renter - Units Occupied Occupied 1970 19,280 10,810 (56.1%) 8,470 (43.9%) 1976 26,553 14,710 (55.4%) 11,843 (44.6%) 1980 27,820 14,888 (53.5%) 12,932 (46.5%) Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; 1976 Special Census for Newport Beach. The percentage of rental housing in Newport Beach is higher than that of Orange County. The latest data comparing rentals are from the 1980 Census: Table 37 PERCENT OF RENTAL HOUSING BY CITY1. Newport Beach Costa Mesa Huntington Beach Laguna Beach Orange County Percent of Rental Housing 46.5% 57.7% 43.0% 47.9% 40.1% 1. Percent based upon occupied units plus units available for sale or rent. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. The percentage of rental housing has increased in the city since 1960, when only 36% of all occupied units were rented. This is due to a sizeable amount of new rental construction in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Such rental projects include the following: Table 38 Bayview Apartments Bayport Apartments Park Newport Promontory Point Baywood Apartments Sequoia Apartments Big Canyon MAJOR RECENT RENTAL PROJECTS 64 units 104 units •1,302 units 502 units 320 units 54 units 74 units TOTAL 2,438 units Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 41 In addition to these larger rental projects, and others built earlier, the city contains many rented duplex, triplex, and £ourplex rental units in its older neighborhoods. Areas where this type of rental housing is predominant include West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Island. Since 1980, the amount of new rental construction in the city has been negligible; only one major (over $800,000) apartment project has been completed during the past three years, a 68-unit project. Approved condominium conversions, since 1980, total 2 units. In September 1979, the city adopted a new ordinance to regulate condominium conversions. Condominium conversions are restricted as follows: - No condominium conversion may be approved on a lot of less than 5,000 square feet, regardless of when such lot was legally established (Zoning Code, Chapter 20.73.025). - No condominium conversion Use permit shall be approved when the rental dwelling unit vacancy rate in the city is equal to or less than 5% (zoning Code, Chapter 20.73,035). This provision can be overridden if two-thirds of the tenants of a project vote to recommend project conversion, or if conversion will minimize vacancies or other wise substantially comply with the intent of the city's zoning code. These restrictions have influenced the incidence of condominium conversions in the City of Newport Beach as follows: Table 39 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION APPLICATIONS APPROVED Resubdivisions Tracts Total 1976 0 34 34 1977 12 0 12 1978 60 53 113 1979 7 255 262 1980 11 0 it 1981 2 0 2 1982 0 0 0 1983 0 0 0 1984 (through April) 0 0 0 Total 92 342 434 source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Under this zoning regulation, most rental units in the older beach neighborhoods are preserved as rental housing, because lots in these neighborhoods are generally less than 5,000 square feet. Property owners may not convert rental units, but, in some cases, such units have been demolished and new attached for -sale housing has been built to bypass the city's restrictions on condominium conversions. 42 tes that its Review of assessor parcel the�ity actuallyaconverted. 38 This represents sentsof the 424 nten approved for conversion by projects, including two triplexes, one duplex and one project consisting of 225 units. The remaining 7 conversions ranged in size from 8 units to 45 units. Among those units which were approved, but did not convert were nine duplexes and three triplexes. The remaining projects which did not convert contained 6, 10, and 11 units. The conversion of large rental projects has been restricted by the city's vacancy rate provision. Vacancy Rates vacancy rate has varied as follows between The city's overall housing unit 1970 and 1980: Table 40 NEWPORT BEACH OVERALL HOUSING UNIT VACANCY RATE All Vacant Units Total For Sale For Rent 19701 14.2% 6.8% 2.6% 11.6% 2 1976 10.98 4.1% 2.3% 6.5% 19803 10.1% 5.2% 3.8% 6.1% for Sources: 1.1970 U.S. ratesCensu., 2. 1976 special Pointbeen adjustedCfromsactual e 976tdata cto all vacancy Point which account for 54.1% vacancy rate within Promontory 3. 1980 was recently completed at the time of the 1976 Census; U.S. Census -- year-round housing units. The large discrepancy between overall vacancy rates and vacancy rates among omes available units is due to the large number of 526seasonal of 3 120 vacanteunitshweYe in Newport Beach. Within the 1980 Census, , "held for occasional use" or "held for other reasons". Etc] To assist in the administration of its condominium conversion ordinance, the city has conducted rental vacancy surveys since 1979. The results of these surveys are shown on Table 41. Table 41 CITY RENTAL VACANCY RATE SURVEY RESULTS Unit Type Single -Family Duplex Triplex Fourplex 5 or More Units Mobile Homes TOTAL October 1979 8.68% 4.66% 3.47* 1.23% 1.97% .19% 4.22% Vacancy Rates April 1980 May 1983 31% 2.34% 4.37% 1.96% 2.38% 3.04% 1.25% 4.24% 2.31% ---- Excluding Single - Family and Mobile Homes 2.93% 2.31% 3.34% Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The most recent source of information from an outside agency on vacancies comes from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Table 42 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO VANCY SURVEY (MAY 1983) Zip Code Areas All Units Single -Family Multi -Family Newport Beach 92660 228'(2.3%) 80(1.7%) 138(2.8%) 92661 70(2.78) 63(3,2%) 7(1.1%) 92662 134(6.3%) 79(5.7%) 55(7.48) 92663 256(2.3%) 67(1.594) 132(2.19) Corona del Mar 92625 145(2.3%) 71(1.78) 74(3.48) TOTAL 833(2.6%) 360(2.2E) 406(2.7%) it should be noted that the method used by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board in calculating vacancies differs from the Census Bureau because of the method of counting vacant units and defining such units. Vacancies are calculated by 44 interagency agreement with the U.S. Postal Service. Vacant units are counted as those dwellings which are not receiving mail deliveries. Thus, the Federal Home Loan Bank survey cannot distinguish unoccupied units by rental or sales status or whether the unit is a much lower reported vacancy rate than the Census. It should be noted that the Federal Home Loan Bank surveys usually show lower vacancy rates than comparable Census surveys because of the different definitions used to determine vacancy. ' A regional housing vacancy survey for owner- and renter -occupied units provides comparisons between overall vacancy rates in Newport Beach and within the Anaheim -Santa Ana -Garden Grove Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). According to this Federal Home Loan Bank Survey, vacancy rates in this region have been declining as follows since 1978. Table 43 REGIONAL VACANCY RATES Vacancy Rate All Housing Types May 1978 2.3% July 1979 2.0% July 1980 1.7% Source: Federal Home Loan Bank Survey (May 1983). Housing Condition The most recent survey of housing conditions in Newport Beach was completed as part of the 1976 Special Census. This survey indicated that only 1.3% of all housing units were deficient. Deficient units in this regard include deteriorated, and dilapidated units,. as well as those units which were inadequate in original construction, or which were under extensive repair. Three neighborhoods in the city contain slight concentrations of substandard housing. Five and one -tenth percent of all housing units on Balboa Peninsula were in substandard condition, while 2.5% and 2.6% of all units on Balboa Island and in Newport Heights (Statistical Area H) respectively, were in substandard condition. Because of the 'increasing value of housing in Newport Beach, private investment in housing improvements is a common phenomenon. Based on 1980 Census information and a 1984 visual survey, it is estimated that currently less than 1.0% of the city's housing stock is deficient because of structural or plumbing problems. In 1980, 72% of all residential building permits issued by the City of Newport Beach were for residential alterations or additions. The average value of the 676 building permits issued in 1980 was $14,530. 1 45 HOUSING PRICES New Homes Prices of new homes in Newport Beach have escalated sharply since the mid-1970ts. The increase in price can be estimated by comparing value ratios of homes for sale in 1975 to those for sale in 1980. Table 44 provides value ratios for 24 new residential projects (or phases of projects) built in Newport Beach in those years. Of the seven condominium and planned unit development projects constructed in 1975, average value ratios were $49.69 to $63.78 per square foot. Average value ratios for the four projects constructed in 1980 ranged from $134.51 to $181.50 per square foot. The increase represented by these figures is 170% to 180%. By 1984, value ratios ranged from $107.52 to over $218.58 per square foot. Table 45 provides value ratios for eight new residential projects (or phases of projects) built in Newport Beach in the last four years. The most significant factor in the increasing prices of new homes in Newport Beach is the increase in land costs. As the supply of vacant residential land decreases, the price of the last remaining residential acres increases. This, in turn, triggers the construction of more luxurious units with more amenities and higher construction costs which "balances" the land price component of the unit selling price. For this reason, units built between 1980 and 1984 are not necessarily similar in nature to the types of units built in 1975; amenities and luxury features have been increased. The large square footage of many projects suggests that developers are concentrating ,on the highest income segment of potential homebuyers. 46 Table 44 VALUE RATIOS OF NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN NEWPORT BEACH 1975 - 1983 Condominiums and Planned Unit Developments Value Ratio Development Location, Basic Price Square (Price - Square (Developer) Phase Range Feet Feet) 1. Canyon Crest Estates/ 1 Condominium Pacific View Drive & New 2 MacArthur (Estate Builders Inter- national) 2. Deane Homes -Big Canyon/ P.U.D. San Joaquin & Big Canyon Dr. (Ben Deane & Co.) 3. Jasmine Creek/P.U.D. 1 San Joaquin Hills & Marguerite 2 Inlet & Marguerite 3 San Joaquin & Marguerite 4 (M.J. Brock & Son) 5 4. Newport Crest/Condominium 1 Superior & Ticonderosa (Pacific Newport Crest) 2 5. Sea Wind Newport/Condominium Superior & Ticonderosa (Don W. Woodward) Date of Price Figures $ 76,900-$ 85,500 1,650-2,100 46.61- 40.71 February 1975 $ 76,900-$ 88,000 same 46.61- 41.90 February 1976 $125,000-$260,000 1,820-3,695 68.68- 70.37 February 1975 $ 95,500-$112,000 1,857-2,582 51.43- 43.38 February 1975 $ 98,500-$148,000 same 53.04- 65.05 February 1976 $168,950-$226,950 1,857-2,323 90.98- 97.70 March 1978 $189,950-$223,950 1,857-2,275 102.29- 98.44 May 1979 $222,000-$395,000 - 1,850-2,000 120.00-197.50 March 1980 $ 58,875-$ 68,875 1,242-2,043 47.40- 33.71 February 1975 same same same February 1976 $ 45,000-$ 51,000 1,050-1,300 42.86- 39.23 February 1975 OP. m Table 44 (Con't.) VALUE RATIOS OF NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN NEWPORT BEACH 1975 - 1983 Condominiums and Planned Unit Developments Development Location, Developer Phase 6. Six Twenty -One I Park Dr./Condominium Lido Park & Lafayette 2 (Dan Olmstead) 7. Six Zero One Lido Park Dr./ I Condominium 2 Lido Park & Lafayette (Swan Construction) B. The Cove/Condominium Bayside & Jamboree (Irvine Pacific) 9. Big Canyon Townhomes Ford & MacArthur (McLain Development) 10. Tract 9810 Tustin & Sixteenth (Pacesetter Homes) 11. Harbor Ridge Crest/P.U.D. 1 Spyglass & Harbor Ridge 2 (Irvine Pacific) Value Ratio Basic Price Square (Price r Square Date of Range Feet Feet) Price Figures $135,000-$165,000 2,150-2,632 62.79- 62.69 February 1975 $129,500-$170,000 2,550-2,650 50.78- 64.15 February 1976 $110,000-$150,000 1,850-2,000 59.46-125.00 February 1975 $115,000-$245,000 1,990-2,000 60.53-122.50 February 1976 $ 85,000-$I99,500 1,600-2,386 53.13- 83.61 February 1976 $136,300-$199,800 1,606-1,986 84.87-100.60 March 1978 $105,000-$130,000 1,496-1,967 66.09- 70.19 March 1978 (Proposed) $275,000-$360,900 1,950-2,967 141.03-121.33 May 1979 $310,000-$385,000 1,950-2,967 158.97-129.76 May 1980 ,c t Table 44 (Con't.) VALUE RATIOS OF NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN NEWPORT BEACH 1975 - 1983 Single -Family Detached Development Location, (Developer) 1. Spyglass Hill Spyglass Hill & San Joaquin Hills (Lusk Homes) 2. Westcliff Grove Dover and 17th St. (Pacesetter Homes) 3. Sea Island 4. Belcourt 5. Harbor Ridge Estates/PUD Spyglass & Harbor Ridge (Irvine Pacific) 6. The Versailles/Condominiums Superior & Hoag (Dann Corp.) 7. 1000 Sea Love Lane (McLain Development) 8. Ocean Vista (McLain Development) Value Ratio Basic Price. Square (Price a Square Date of Phase Range Feet Feet) Price Figures $131,000-$215,000 2,239-4,072 58.51-52.79 July 1976 $340,000-$445,000 2,508-3,368 135.57-132.13 June 1980 $330,000-$720,000 2,111-3,294 141.45-218.52 1983 $375,000-$1,700,000 Sept.-Nov.1983 $245,000=$625,000 2,350-3,804 146.81-164.30 March 1980 $ 65,500-$325,500 463-1,586 141.47-205.23 March 1980 $125,150/unit1 November 1980 Average $125,700/unitl February 1981 Average Ln 0 Table 44 (Con't.) VALUE RATIOS OF NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN NEWPORT BEACB 1975 - 1983 Single -Family Detached Development Location, (Developer) 9. 31st, 32nd, 33rd Sts. (Morgan Development) 10. Belcourt 11, villa Balboa Basic Price Phase Range $ 81,750/unitl Average $375,000-$700,000 $139,900-$399,900 value Ratio Square (Price r Square Feet Feet) 149.10-176.01 1. Excludes land costs. Sources: Residential Sales Survey, First American Title Trust company; Security Pacific National Bank, Construction Trends. Date of Price Figures 1983 December 1983 aw as wr M M M M so r M M= M M M M r M M M r M M r M M= r ■. Ln N Table 45 VALUE RATIOS OF NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN NEWPORT BEACH 1980 - 1984 Condominiums and Planned Unit Developments Value Ratio Development Location, Basic Price Square (Price - Square (Developer) Phase Range Feet Feet) 1. Villa Balboa 4 (Newport Development Company) 2. Brookview Newport 1 (Heltzer Enterprises) 3. Belcourt Hill 1 (J.M. Peters Co.) 4. Belcourt N/A (J.M. Peters Co.) 5. Sea Island 1 (Lusk Homes) 6. Seashore Townhomes N/A (Morgan Development, Inc.) $139,900-$399,900 1,020-2,012 137.16-198.76 $162,900 1,515 107.52 $375,000-$720,000 2,036-3,294 184.18-218.58 $535,000-$700,000 2,969-4,579 180.20-152.87 $330,000-$505,000 2,333-3,003 $240,000-$325,000 1,600-2,034 141.45-168.17 150.00-159.78 Date of Price Figures March 1984 March 1984 March 1964 March 1984 March 1984 March 1984 f Ln N Tabe 45 (Con`t.) VALUE RATIOS OF NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN NEWPORT BEACH 1980 - 1984 Single Family Detached Development Location, (Developer) Phase 1. Belcourt Manor 1 (J.M. Peters Co.) Ia. Belcourt Manor Lot Only I (J.M. Peters Co.) 2. Belcourt Gallery I (J.M. Peters Co.) 2a. Belcourt Gallery Lot Only 1 (J.M. Peters Co.) Value Ratio Basic Price Square (Price a Square Range Feet Feet) $730,000-$ 830,000 3,304- 4,411 220.94-188.17 $375,0004 535,000 8,000-11,265 46.88- 47.49 $995,000-$1,700,000 3,565- 5,223 279.10-325.48 $475,000-$ 695,000 9,902-28,699 47.97- 24.22 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Date of Price Figures March 1984 March 1984 March 1984 March 1984 M M i� M mow" 'M M M M r! M M M M IExisting Homes ' Prices for existing owner -occupied housing in Newport Beach have also risen sharply in the last five years, reflecting the increased demand for housing in the Orange County area, and the identification of Newport Beach as one of the most desirable areas in the region. Information available from the Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of Realtors indicates that the median price of existing homes rose by 42% between May 1978 and November 1980. Newport Beach represents only one portion of this real estate area, and approximately one-third of all sales used to determine median prices. While the median sales price of existing housing in the Newport -Costa Mesa area as of November 1980 was $147,777, the estimated median price of homes selling in Newport I Beach is well above this figure. In 1983, the Board reported an average price of $322,215, exclusive of Corona del Mar. (See Tables 46 and 47.) These facts demonstrate that the purchase of existing housing within Newport Beach is not possible for a majority of first-time homebuyers. The existing owner -occupied housing market in the city serves persons who are moving up in their housing purchase either from another area of the county of from another 1 neighborhood in Newport Beach. Even for these homebuyers, a housing purchase in the city is probably not possible unless down payments are larger than 20% of the purchase price, and incomes are well above the regional median. II 1 1 I I 11 11 1 Cl t 53 Table 46 MEDIAN SALES PRICES OF EXISTING HOUSING 1978-1980 NEWPORT HARBOR -COSTA MESA REAL ESTATE AREA May 1978 May 1979 May 1980 2 Bdrm. or less $ 89,500 $ 88,332 $134,999 3 Bdrm. $ 92,321 $ 97,856 $121,905 4 Bdrm. $124,615 $131,111 $159,999 ' All Homes $104,054 $108,723 $128,000 Sample Size 406 319 208 to .tom 1. Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Real Estate Area is shown on the following map. Source: California Association of Realtors Monthly Existing Home Sales Survey. ' 1983 January February March April May June July August September October November December 1984 January TOTAL 1983 'January February March April May June July 'August September October November ' December 1984 ' January ' TOTAL Table 47 NEWPORT HARBOR/COSTA MESA BOARD OF REALTORS LISTINGS Newport Beach Corona del Mar Sales $ Volume Average Sales $ Volume Average 14 4,223,900 324,915 4 1,707,000 426,700 23 7,976,500 346,800 6 1,495,000 290,000 24 7,083,300 321,968 9 3,402,500 425,313 30 8,055,400 268,513 8 2,674,000 334,250 49 18,455,000 376,633 8 3,092,000 386,500 32 10,196,900 318,600 11 4,557,000 414,200 38 23,368,200 322,800 8 2,565,000 320,600 46 14,505,800 315,300 10 3,904,000 390,400 44 14,395,000 327,100 6 2,755,000 459,100 34 13,355,500 392,800 10 4,238,000 432,800 21 6,815,000 324.,500 13 4,274,300 328,700 37 9,519,900 257,200 4 1,364,900 341,200 27 8,158,000 302,100 4 2,174,500 543,600 419 135,008,400 322,215 101 38,203,200 378,249 Irvine Costa Mesa Sales $ Volume Average Sales $ Volume Average 2 405,500 202,700 19 2,507,400 131,900 7 1,342,000 191,700 25 3,115,000 124,600 5 810,000 202,500 29 4,083,900 145,854 6 1,212,900 202,150 39 4,794,500 122,936 6 1,002,000 167,000 44 5,730,500 130,239 8 1,119,500 139,900 43 5,731,900 133,300 10 1,864,900 186,400 40 5,938,400 148,400 16 3,245,500 202,800 29 3,580,700 123,400 4 724,000 181,000 48 6,369,800 132,700 5 710,000 142,000 38 5,043,600 132,700 4 753,000 188,200 35 4,843,400 138,300 9 1,498,500 166,500 33 4,193,600 127,000 3 433,500 144,500 24 4,484,900 145,200 85 15,121,300 177,897 446 59,417,600 133,223 1. Excluding Corona del Mar. Source: Newport Harbor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors. The accessibility of owner -occupied housing in Newport Beach was much broads before 1977. The increase in real estate values throughout Orange County started as early as 1973. However, property values did not begin their dramatic increase until 1976 and 1977. Before 1977, a housing purchase by a first-time home buyer was still possible in Newport Beach. The actual housing costs of, 1980 homebuyers in the city is documented by the 1980 U.S. Census: Table 48 1980 MONTHLY PAYMENTS FOR OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0- $ISO- $250- $350- $450- $600 $149 $249 $349 $449 $559 $749 750+ 11 1 11 11 No. of ' Responses 1,091 903 1,324 995 10137 989 4,150 The median monthly housing payment of owner -occupied households in the city as of 1980 was $625 per month. Nearly 40% of all owners made housing payments over $750 per month. For those owner -occupants in the city who have not sold their homes since 1976, housing payments have remained fixed, while property values have escalated. Households in this category generally have incomes which would not be sufficient to buy their own home at its current market price. Within the city there are a sizeable number of owner -occupant households who are not upper income, but who live in an area where most homes are selling for more than $200,000. Many single-family properties in the city are rented units. Regardless of whether such properties have been sold, rents will rise or fall with market demand. The 1980 Census indicated that 4,116 (31.8%) of all rented units in the city were single-family homes (excluding mobile homes). The City of Newport Beach is often thought of as a community in which only luxury housing for the very wealthy is built. Much of the problem in housing cost stems from the extremely highland values in Newport Beach generated through not a problem unique to Newport Beach but is symtommatic of many if not most coastal communities in Southern California. One method to compare the types of units (in terms of cost) that are being built in coastal communities independent of land costs is to look at the construction value per unit of new development. The following chart compares the average construction value per multi -family unit in 1983 as reported on building permits issued during that year. The City of Newport Beach is compared with other Orange County jurisdictions and with three coastal communities in other counties. With respect to other Orange County communities, Newport Beach ranked 7th of 23 cities and unincorporated Orange County in the average per unit construction value of multi -family units approved in 1983. Laguna Beach had the highest per unit value at $80,170, compared to Newport Beach at $46,800 and all of Orange County at $410000. The cities of La Habra, Los Alamitos, Orange, San Clemente, and Westminster also had average per unit multi -family construction values higher than in Newport Beach. 56 r 11 r 11 r r r r r r r Newport Beach also ranked behind two of three other coastal communities which were chosen for a comparison with Newport Beach because of their similar size or household characteristics. Santa Monica had an average per unit construction value of $81,900 in 1963, 75% higher than in Newport Beach. Coronado, in San Diego County, had an average per unit construction value of, $105,640, 125% greater than in Newport -Beach. Table 49 AVERGE CONSTRUCTION VALUE PER MULTI -FAMILY UNIT Construction Value Jurisdiction No. of Units Per Unit Orange County Unincorporated Anaheim Brea Buena park Costa Mesa Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Irvine Laguna Beach La Habra Los Alamitos Newport Beach Orange Placentia San Clemente Santa Ana Stanton Tustin Westminster TOTAL 832 624 24 59 79 4 164 266 142 100 1,398 81 94 65 82 147 24 109 551 514 16 58 5,433 $35,790 32,670 74,950 44,160 44,460 41,250 33,225 39,900 43,300 34,170 42,600 80,170 54,180 58,600 46,800 51,370 32,300 50,360 40,590 39,750 45,610 46,860 $41,000 Source: Security Pacific National Bank, "California Construction Trends". Comparison of Newport Beach and three other counties in Southern California: ' Table 50 AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION VALUE PER MULTI -FAMILY UNIT Construction Jurisdiction County No. of Units Value Per Unit Coronado San Diego 116 $105,640 Oxnard Ventura 65 36,630 Santa Monica Los Angeles 43 81,900 Newport Beach Orange 82 46,800 ' "California Trends". Source: Security Pacific National'Bank, Construction ' 57 Rental Housing A survey of Newport Beach rents conducted in January 1981 revealed the following distribution of prices for vacant rentals in the city. Table 51 MONTHLY RENTAL PRICES AS OF JANUARY 1981 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0- $200- $300- $400- $500- $600- $700- $800- $900- $199 299 399 499 599 699 799 899 999 $1000+ 0 5 15 28 53 62 41 34 20 58 1.6% 4.7% 8.9% 16.8% 19.6% 13.0% 10.8% 6.3% 18.3% Median: $690 Source: Survey of Newport Beach Rental Prices, Connerly & Associates, Inc., 1981. The median rent for all types of vacant rental housing in the city shown by this survey is $695. Median rents for houses and apartments by size are shown on Table 53. The median rent reported by the 1980 Census was $443. It should be noted that the 1981 median rent reflects vacant rentals in the city, while the 1980 median reflects occupied rental properties. Therefore, the 1980 and 1981 medians are not directly comparable. The median for occupied rentals will generally be lower than the median for vacant rentals (by 6.3t in 1980), because long-term tenants usually pay lower rents, and because vacant units are in most cases those experiencing rent increases to reflect market conditions. In February 1984, a similar survey was conducted in which newspaper listings were examined to estimate rents for vacant units. The average rent asked for apartment units was $615 (median of $600). For single-family homes, the average rent asked was $1,390 (median of $1,200), and for rooms to rent the average was $315 (median of $300). This information is not comparable to the 1980 Census information because it only evaluated advertified rents not actual rents paid. As discovered in 1981 advertized rents are several hundred dollars above the median rent paid. Real estate professionals in the area note that the traditional rule that rental prices equal 1% of the market value of a unit does not apply to the Newport Beach rental housing market. Rents are closer to 0.5% of the housing unit market value. This is possible because many rental properties, especially duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in the older neighborhoods of the city, have been held by the same owner for many years. Rents have risen over time, but not at the same rate as property values. Sale of such rental property is made difficult by the fact that rental incomes usually will not cover the financing costs in purchasing rental property. Conversion of these units to owner -occupied housing is not possible under the city's condominium conversion ordinance. 58 Table 52 1981 MEDIAN RENTAL PRICES BY UNIT TYPE 1 Bd. 2 Bd. 3 Bd. 4-5 Bd. Rented Houses Furnished $ 750 $1200 $1200 $1600 Unfurnished $ 400 $ 695 $ 825 $1100 Rented Apartments Furnished $ 425 $ 550 $ 700 $ 750 Unfurnished $ 430 $ 550 $ 750 $ 795 Source: Survey of Newport Beach Rental Prices, Connerly & Associates, Inc., 1981. Medians calculated from rental prices of units listed in Orange Coast Daily Pilot January 23, January 30, February 8, February 15, 1981. Table 53 MEDIAN CONTRACT RENTS BY STATISTICAL AREA - 1980 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Statistical Areas A1,A2,A3 B1,B2,B3,B4,B5 C1,C2 D1,D2,D3,D4 E1,E2,E3 F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8 G1 H1,H2,H3,H4 J1,J2,J3,J4,J5 K1,K2,K3 L1,L2,L3,L4 M1,M2,M3,M4,M5t City Total 1980 Median Rent $355+ $411 $500+ $387 $415 $434+ $500+ $385+ $410+ $444+ $500+ $463+ $437 1. Median figures followed by a "+" indicate approximate median. Source: 1980 Census. 59 Mobile Homes There are presently 985 mobile home spaces in 12 mobile home parks in Newport Beach. Of these 985 spaces, 792 or 80.4% are occupied by permanent residents. The remaining homes are occupied by persons who use their mobile homes for vacations and weekend visits to the area. These parks house 1,236 permanent residents. Space rents range from $125 to $850. (See Table 54.) The character of the city Is 12 mobile home parks varies. Six of the parks are located on or close to Newport Harbor. The character of these parks appeals to retirees, and many weekenders. Over seventy percent of all spaces in these parks are occupied by permanent residents. Space rents range from $125 to $850 a month, depending on the location of the space in relationship to the bay and the size of the mobile home. One of these parks, Bayside Village, is occupied primarily by retired persons, a large portion of whom have occupied their mobile homes for 15 years or more. The remaining six mobile home parks are located either in West Newport (Statistical Area B) on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway or in the West Newport Triangle area (Statistical Area A). Space rents in these parks range from $150 to 359 per month. Many of these mobile homes are older, having been in parks since their development usually in the 1950's or 1960's. Many of the residents of these parks are also older. For mobile home residents who own their mobile home home and who bought them when interest rates were lower, or -who made a cash purchase, housing payments will be affordable on moderate incomes and, in some cases, lower incomes. 1 I 1 i I I L. I 1 I 1 60 1 Bayside Village 300 E. Coast Highway Beach & Bay 7204 W. Coast Highway Cannery Village 700 Lido Park Dr. Ebb Tide 1560 Placentia . F. Flamingo 7000 W. Coast Highway Harbor 1535 Superior Lee Haven 2940 W. Coast Highway Lido Mobile Home Park 710 Lido Park Dr. Lido North 701 Lido Park Dr. Table 54 MOBILE HOME PARKS Spaces Occupied Number of Units/ By Permanent Permanent Space Rent Acres # Spaces Acre Residents Residents Per Month 26.46 291 11.0 262 445 $243 - $771 1.405 47 33.4 41 70 $150 - $300 1.4 33 24.3 30 55 $560 4.16 80 19.2 80 120 $190 - $225 .31 20 64.0 20 30 $180 - $200 1.92 40 '20.8 40 50 $190 - $200 .73 25 34.2 23 34 $125 - $250 12.4 214 17.3 96 145 $405 - $850 .3 6 20.0 6 9 N/A - Marinapark 1770 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Terrace 824 W. 15th St. Seacliff 890 W. 15th Street TOTAL: N Acres 4.94 4.27 9.12 67.415 # Spaces 60 55 Table 54 (Con't.) MOBILE HOME PARKS Spaces Occupied Number of Units/ By Permanent Permanent Acre Residents Residents 12.2 27 42 13.1 55 114 12.5 112 986 14.6 792 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. M37 162 1,236 Space Rent Per Month $347 - $409 $290 $359 r IInventory of Land Suitable for Housing The following tables inventory all major vacant parcels of land within Newport Beach, including land suitable for both residential and non-residential uses, as well as vacant parcels designated as open space with alternate uses, vacant parcels without development potential, and sites with redevelopment potential. This inventory includes a review of the General Plan designations, existing zoning, site areas, estimated buildable acreage, allowable uses and developmental status for each vacant parcel. The information presented here summarizes this study, by listing all vacant residential sites within this inventory. The parcels designated as "vacant residentially designated parcels" and "identified potential redevelopment parcels" are the parcels which the. City has determined to be suitable for residential development. Public facilities and services are available to accommodate residential development on each of these sites. More detailed information regarding each ' of the major vacant parcels of land within Newport Beach is included in Appendix 1. �1 i I .1 63 UNDEVELOPED PARCELS Site Number Parcel 1. Westbay 2. Eastbluff Remnant 3. Newporter North 4. Castaways. 5. Fifth Avenue Corridor Parcels 6. Freeway Reservation West -- Big Canyon Area #16 7. Freeway Reservation East S. Caltrans West 9. Caltrans East 10. Mobil/Armstrong il. Aeronutronic Ford 12, Bayview Landing 13, Koll Center 14. Emkay--Newport Place 15. Jamboree and MacArthur 16, San Diego Creek North 17, North Ford/San Diego Creek South 18. Newport Dunes 19. Buck Gully 20. Newport Center 21. North Bay (unincorporated) 22. Irvine Coastal Area (unincorporated) 23. Mobil/Armstrong (unincorporated) 1, See accompanying UNDEVELOPED PARCELS Map for parcel locations. 64 Ln i N 13 UUNDEVELOPED PARCELS \\ 11 ;4- I_e•^"'^'J U \Ic-r'� fir. "I � .� .\ \ � .„ter CC•^I V 22 '\`�: '.�'•�\,l'I. h'ru%Cf37(/'l l�i P.'01 i^M:-.:;.ter^�._ 1 5 - CITY OF NEnPOgT�Y.CII 8 Table 55 SUMiMRY OF VACANT LAND Plus Sites BALANCE designated Gross Less Less land (total non- "Open Space vacant committed currently in committed with Alter - acreage land BALANCE review process acreage) nate Use" Residential Sites 453.8 10.9 442.9 197.9 245.0 53.67 Non-residential Sites 215.2 85.9 129.3 69.3 60.0 0 TOTAL 669.0 96.8 572.2 267.2 305.0 53.67 Estimate of Less Sites Plus Sites Buildable without with re- Acreage on re- development development maining non - BALANCE potential BALANCE potential BALANCE committed land Residential Sites 298.67 53.67 245.0 5.2 250.2 152.48 Non-residential Sites 60.0 0 60.0 0 60.0 47.5 TOTAL 358.67 53.67 305.0 5.2 310.2 199.98 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. M _ ' M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Table 56 vACANT RESIDENTIALLY DESIGNATED PARCELS Estimated Estimated Site Area General Plan/Zoning Buildable Residential Status Parcel (Acres) Designation Acreage Density of Site Westbay 65.0 Mixed: Low Density Residential; 33.84 40 Non -Committed Rec. & Enviro. Open Space/P-C Newporter North 88.0 Low Density Residential/P-C 58.24 212 Non -Committed Castaways 60.0 Low Density Residential/P-C 34.8 151 Non -Committed Fifth Avenue Parcels 29.2 Rec. & Enviro, Open Space; 22.44 228 In Process Low Density Residential/P-C, R-3-B, R-1-B . Freeway Reservation West -- 10.9 Medium Density Residential/P-C 8.7 80 Under Big Canyon Area #16 Construction Freeway Reservation East 25.0 Low Density Residential/P-C 20.0 76 Non -Committed Cal Trans West 13.6 Multi -Family Residential/P-C 10.16 152 In Process Mobil/Armstrong1 45.2 Multi -Family Residential/P-C 28.0 406 In Process North Ford/San Diego 79.0 Multi -Family Residential/P-C 65.57 888 In Process Creek South Table 56 (Con't.) VACANT RESIDENTIALLY DESIGNATED PARCELS Estimated Site Area General Plan/Zoning Buildable Estimated Status Parcel (Acres) Designation Acreage Resid. Density of Site 2 Newport Center Block #800 7.0 Multi -Family Residential/P-C 5.6 245 Non -Committed P.C.B. Frontage 12.9 Low Density Residential/P-C 8.2 15e In Process Newport Village 18.0 Multi -Family Residential/P-C 14.4 208 In Process am TOTAL: 453.8 m 309.95 2,840 1. Includes some area in the County of Orange's jurisdiction but within the City of Newport Beach's sphere -of -influence. 2. Newport Center (76.4 residential acres) has the potential for an additional 326 'floating' units -- transferred from other company owned parcels, to be applied to the parcel(s) of the Irvine Company's choosing. 3. Includes 33 units based upon the parcel's density category allotment and 121 applied 'floating' units transferred from other Irvine Company owned parcels (not included in the above footnote's 'floating' units total). Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. M = = = = = = = = M i M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 1 0% to Table 57 VACANT NON -RESIDENTIALLY DESIGNATED PARCELS Estimated Site Area General Plan/Zoning Buildable Status Parcel (Acres) Designation Acreage of Site Castaways 5.0 Rec. & Mar. Comm./P-C 4.0 Non -Committed Cal Trans East 25.0 Rec. & Enviro. Open Space/U 16.0 Non -Committed Mobil/Armstrong1 30.3 Mixed: Admin., Prof., & Fin. Comm.; Gen. 25.4 In Process Indus.; Govt., Ed., & Instit. Facil./P-C Aeronutronic Ford 18.6 Gen. Indus./P-C 18.6 Committed Koll Center 34.7 Admin., Prof., & Fin. Comm.; Ret. and Serv. 31.23 Committed Comm.; Gen. Indus.; Gov., Ed., & Instit. Facil./P-C Courthouse 7.8 Gov., Ed., & Instit. Facil./P-C 7.02 Committed Emkay 6.0 Ret. & Serv. Comm.; Admin., Prof., & Fin. 5.9 Non -Committed Comm.; Gen. Indus./M-1-A, P-C Jamboree and MacArthur 2.0 Gov., Ed., & Instit. Facil., w/Alt. uses 1.8 Non -Committed of: Ret. and Serv. Comm.; Admin., Prof., & Fin. Comm./U San Diego Creek North 12.0 Gov., Ed., & Instit. Facil., w/Alt. use 10.8 Non -Committed of: Ret. and Serv. Comm./U North Ford/San Diego 39.0 Admin., Prof., & Fin. Comm.; Ret. and Serv.. 35.1 In Process Creek South Comm.; Rec. & Enviro. Open Space/P-C Table 57 (Con't.) VACANT NON -RESIDENTIALLY DESIGNATED PARCELS Estimated Site Area General Plan/Zoning Buildable Status Parcel (Acres) Designation Acreage of Site Newport Center Block #600 10.0 Admin., Prof., & Fin. Comm.; Rec. & Enviro. 9.0 Committed Open Space/O-S, COH Corporate Plaza 14.8 Admin., Prof., & Fin. Comm.; Rec. & Enviro. 13.32 Committed Open Space/O-S, P-C Corporate Plaza West 10.0 Ret. and Serv_ Comm., w/Alt. use of: 9.0 Non -Committed Admin., Prof. Fin. Comm.; Rec. & Enviro. Open Space/O-S, P-C TOTAL: 215.2 187.17 1. Includes some area in the County of Orange's jurisdiction but within the City of Newport Beach's sphere -of -influence. Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. ! M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M OEM M Parcel Lower Bayview Landing Buck Gulley TOTAL: Table 58 VACANT PARCELS DESIGNATED "OPEN SPACE WITH ALTERNATE USE" Site Area (Acres) General Plan/Zoning Designation 4.6 Rec. & Enviro. Open Space, w/Alt. use of: Low Density Residential/U 49.07 Rec. & Enviro. Open Space, w/Alt. use of: Low Density Residential/R-1-B Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Estimated Buildable Acreage Status of Site 0 Non -Committed 0 In Process 0 Table 59 VACANT PARCELS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENTAL POTENTIAL Estimated Site Area General Plan/Zoning Buildable Status Parcel (Acres) Designation Acreage of Site Eastbluff Remnant 8.0 Rec. & Enviro. Open Space/R-3-B 0 Committed Buck Gulley 49.07 Rec. & Enviro. Open Space, w/Alt. use 0 In Process of: Low Density Residential/R-1-B Bay View Landing 19 Rec. & Enviro. Open Space; (lower 0 Non -Committed site) Rec. & Enviro. Open Space, w/Alt. ' use of: Low Density Residential/U TOTAL: 76.07 0 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Site Area Parcel _(Acres) C.D.M. Elementary School 5.2 TOTAL: 5.2 Table 60 IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT PARCELS Estimated General Plan/Zoning Buildable Designation Acreage Govt., Ed., & Instit. Facil./P-C 3.1 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 3.1 Estimated 40 40 Status of Site Committed I ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES The City of Newport Beach is fully enforcing the provisions of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, which provides for energy conservation in new residences. The standards found in Title 24 create energy savings of approximately 50% over residential construction practices utilized prior to the Standards' enactment. The building department of the pity evidences an awareness of energy conserving design innovations and solar technology. The department utilizes the Solar Systems Code Review Manual and its companion document, the Pool and Spa Solar Systems Code Review Manual, both published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) to facilitate the installation of appropriate solar systems. Under the existing state law (the California Resources Code), local jurisdictions may adopt structural energy conservation standards in excess of the existing state standard. In the moderate climate of the City of Newport Beach, such an increase in standards would be of dubious value. Additionally, it should be noted that increases in conservation standards generally increase homebuyers' costs and will therefore exacerbate the existing housing affordability concern. The City of Newport Beach has a relatively small remaining amount of land available for residential development. As such, land use standards which would require proper orientation of subdivisions to take advantage of solar energy would be of limited value. The city may wish to explore this optiont however, care should be taken to insure that densities, and therefore affordability, are not unduly affected. A major concern in the area of energy conservation is the relationship of housing to employment and the necessary transportation lines between them. While specific energy saving! of variables involved in our a physical proximity betwee savings. With, regard to Ne increases energy use by fore: expensive housing outside of the relatively small amount cannot in itself mitigate t city cannot be expected to within the city. are difficult to quantity because of the myriad transportation system, it is generally true that � home and work provides transportation energy Tort Beach, the existing affordability concern ng workers employed within the city to seek less the city. Again, it should be noted here that of remaining land for residential development ,is concern. The jobs/housing imbalance in the )e totally mitigated by residential development With regard to other "alternative" energy sources, iti Newport Beach is not in an area of either geothermal activity and, therefore, cannot take advantage of these should be noted tha� or significant wind sources. I I C I I 1 n I C 74 It appears that the city, through the enforcement of Title 24 and by its sensitivity to innovative design is making excellent use of residential energy conservation opportunities. 1. California Energy Commission, Geothermal California: Status.Report, June 1976. 2. California Energy Commission. 75 city of Newport Beach g statistical divisions �• _ { statistical areas ,:-� _�' t✓ram'` � •� \�� d�'� �%-�..�.. _ ..�- . \� It+ t+� lid=�---s,,,111�11aT' _- ✓�`-lf�+ ~'t' tt �l .r ti t � ♦/` r � .^��^__ •- C�j lam' ,1��+� - ,/ ^'. w�� :/, _ �- �! ;" Jam! -«-�s�p•� � � � t '' ' L` _ `}�- w/ �•' <- tk-� I i Ts T--s.--tX"'.�t.-��,'� %f 71 tNJ '�� ` .. -vi''e �ti� �' r•�•�.w��•• �.��. Al- � � ,`' ; : . • - —'= a - c" '°". `. ttl +•.� •car—..:.1 .%,�. = � c `i J�4 � }.tc tt,� it if +. r"-J ...\ ,�� /'r' E•' 'i' i.t� 1 \. AZ _. Y,.- �� •' �:,' lam' •«`cc i' y��. r (.' -: _ - .• ''t__'-�3�•w��"•19 - .,� _4.�;;,;.,,J''� i;1' ;` "_ _�T�-4 � `,��:�.` .:.f f��?i��?tr ' p liTlt. jjj7 I F• , C 4 `� J^� _ C E •` prepared by Advents Planning 11 1 1 1 I 11 I I1 I I! I d I 11 I STATISTICAL AREA ANALYSIS In the following section of this Housing Element, the 12 neighborhood areas within the City of Newport Beach are examined in closer detail. Various information on housing costs, housing unit types, and household characteristics are discussed individually for these geographic areas within the city. Statistical divisions which form the basis for this analysis are shown on the map provided. This discussion is followed by Tables 61 to 68 which summarize housing information by statistical area. Neighborhood information is based on 1980 Census data unless otherwise indicated. AREAS Al HOSPITAL AREA, WEST NEWPORT TRIANGLE Statistical Area A contains a mix of industrial, commercial, and office uses, as well as a diversified housing stock. Of all residential units, some 30% are single-family, 45% -are multi -family, and 14% are mobile homes. Group quarters in the area are convalescent facilities near Hoag Hospital. in 1980, the average household size in this area was 1.76, the smallest in the city. A majority of households are either couples with no children or single -person residences. The area houses relatively few students (5.1%) and a high percentage of residents over 65 (20%). Many residents are employed by the area's medical facilities; in this respect, the area may have the most closely matched employment/housing land use in the city. The median income for the area in 1980 was only two-thirds of the city median and the lowest of the neighborhood median incomes. The median price of owner -occupied housing in Statistical Area A is among the lowest in the city. This is attributable to the supply of mobile homes, as well as condominiums selling for $95,000 to $140,000. Between 1976 and 1980, the housing stock in this area increased by 13.3%. New housing has generally been condominiums selling for $100,000 to $200,000. Median rent was also well below the city median, by about 20%. The area has potential for further residential development. The Banning property, at present an unincorporated area of Orange County, consists of 450 acres. The city's Specific Area Plan for the Banning Property includes development of either a harbor or residential uses, with associated retail and service commercial, recreational, and open space development. Much of the residential land in Statistical Area A3 is developed in mobile home parks at densities which are less than the 20 unit per acre maximum established by the City at the time Area A3 was annexed. Public action may be required if these sites are to be preserved in their present use. '`I 77 STATISTICAL AREAS B1, B2, B3, B9, B5 WEST NEWPORT West Newport, together with Balboa Peninsula and Balboa Island, makes up the area of older, more densely developed beach neighborhoods in the city. Housing types are predominantly single-family units and duplexes on small lots, and are predominantly rental housing (56.8%). The 1980 average household size in West Newport was less than the city average. The majority of households are couples without children, single -person residences, or unrelated persons sharing housing expenses. Along with Balboa Peninsula and Balboa island, West Newport in 1980 had one of the three highest concentrations of student residents and one of the three lowest median incomes of city neighborhoods. Unlike Balboa Island and Balboa Peninsula, prices for ownership housing are below the city median. Housing demand is less here because the area does not have the aesthetic appeal of the other two beach neighborhoods, and because housing structures are more uniform. Many of the residents in West Newport are employed by the city's retail and service commercial facilities; thus, the area provides a reasonable match between local housing and employment opportunities. No vacant developable land remains in West Newport. The existing net density in the area is 20 units per acre. STATISTICAL AREAS Cl, C2 LIDO ISLAND Lido Island is a fairly homogeneous residential neighborhood of approximately 820 households. The predominant housing type is single-family. Average household size (2.51) as well as incidence of married -couple households (61%) on Lido Island is substantially higher than in surrounding beach neighborhoods. The area's 1980 median income was the third highest of the city's 12 statistical areas. Finally, 80.7% of all housing is owner -occupied, by far the highest percentage in the city. Because the area is fully developed and stable, no new construction is expected. However, redevelopment of existing older homes occurs on a regular basis. �I STATISTICAL AREAS D1 D2, D3, D4 BALBOA PENINSULA in 1980, Balboa Peninsula had the second lowest median income in the city, slightly above Area A. The highest incidence of substandard housing and the highest percentage of rental housing (58.6%) are found in this neighborhood. This is not an indication of marked deterioration but of the attraction and availability of the area to a variety of population segments. These include students (10.7e), long-time residents who bought on the peninsula when housing 78 was very affordable, and seasonal visitors. Household size in this neighborhood, like Balboa Island and West Newport, is below the city average. the of The growing attraction of the peninsula contributes to rising prices ownership housing. The median list price'of housing for sale in early 1981 was well over $400,000. Rental prices, however, were below the city median in 1976. Balboa Peninsula is fully developed with no vacant and developable land remaining; existing net density in this area is 20 units per acre. The character of households in the neighborhood is expected to change in the next 1 ten years, as older residences of greatly appreciated value are sold to higher -income buyers. STATISTICAL AREAS El, E2, E3 BALBOA ISLAND Balboa Island is predominantly residential, with 50% of all housing being single-family and 46% duplex. The average net density on the island is 25 dwelling units per acre. Like West Newport and Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island houses a large concentration of students (15.0%). As in these other neighborhoods, the median income is among the lowest in the city, rental housing is plentiful (61.4%) and substandard housing is present (2.5%). Housing prices are slightly higher than those on Balboa Peninsula; however, the median rent in 1980 was below the city median by about 12%. As turnover of owner -occupied housing on Balboa island occurs, higher -income residents will replace present moderate -income homeowners. .� STATISTICAL AREAS F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 ■J The Corona del Mar area contains both older neighborhoods (F2, F3, F4) and newer neighborhoods developed since 1965. Old Corona del Mar contains a mixture of single-family homes (49%) and duplexes (27%) developed at a net density of 16 dwelling units per acre; while newer sections of this area are developed at lower densities and are predominantly single-family neighborhoods. Household characteristics vary between the new and older sections of Corona del Mar. Old Corona del Mar houses families which are smaller in size than the city average. The predominant household types are single -person residence (33%) and couples without children (27%). Household sizes in newer areas of Corona del Mar are larger than the city average, and the predominant household types are couples without children and two -parent families. 79 Owner -occupied housing in Corona del Mar has traditionally been higher in price than in the city as a whole. The median rents in 1980, on the other hand, are close to the city median. The area as a whole has a balanced mix of rental (48%) and owner -occupied housing (528). Corona del Mar contains one of the highest concentrations of residents over 65 years of age than the city as a whole. The median income in 1980 was higher than the city median. There are no large vacant parcels within this neighborhood. STATISTICAL AREA G1 PROMONTORY POINT AND BAYSIDE DRIVE AREA This area of the city contains a diverse and relatively new housing stock. Forty-five percent of all units are multi -family; 35.2% are single family; and 24.3% are duplex, triplex, and fourplex. All units, as of 1980, were in sound condition. Household size in this area in 1980 was one of the lowest in the city at 1.93 persons per household. The most common household type is the childless couple (448), followed by single -person residences (40%). The median income of the area in 1980 was the fourth highest of the 12 statistical areas in the city. The large supply of rental housing, primarily Promontory Point Apartments, in 1980 was among the highest priced in the city. Owner- occupied housing along the harbor is also the most highly priced in the city. There are no vacant parcels which could accommodate substantial new development. STATISTICAL AREAS H1, H2, H3, H4 MARINER'S MILE, NEWPORT HEIGHTS, CLIFFHAVEN Statistical Area H contains the oldest inland single-family neighborhood in the city (H1 and H2); the housing stock is therefore older and contains a greater degree of deficiencies (2.6% in 1976) than the city as a whole. The entire area continues to be predominantly single-family (67%), although some multi -family projects contribute to the rental housing stock (33.0%). Owner -occupied housing is among the lowest priced in the city, as are median rents. This area has experienced a reduction in household population in the last decade as child rearing households experience the "empty nest" syndrome. The average household size is now similar to the City-wide average. The most common household type in 1980 was couples without children (34%), along with single -person residents (27%). The area has a high concentration of elderly residents (13.7%) and a median income which is about $1,000 less than the city median in 1980. ri P I []I I u LJ I rn I I! I I It I 11 r1 �J I I I I Statistical Area H is fully developed. While some of the medium and higher density areas are developed in single-family housing, market conditions are not likely to induce any higher intensity private redevelopment. STATISTICAL AREAS J1, J2, J3, J4, J5, J6 WESTCLIFF, DOVER SHORES, BAYCREST, AND SANTA ANA HEIGHTS Most of the residential land in Area J is developed in new single- family neighborhoods at three to five dwelling units per acre. However, several multi -family projects on the west side of Area J add a sizeable portion of rental housing to the area: 46.7% of the housing stock in 1980 was rental housing. This area is the only one in the city which gained in household size between 1976 and 1980. Two -parent families predominate in the single-family neighborhoods, while single -person households are most common in multi -family dwellings. The median income in 1960 in Area J was over $2,500 above the city median. The median listed housing prices in 1981 for this real estate district was $250,000. The newest development in, this area contains 2,500 to 3,300 square foot single-family dwellings selling for $340,000 to $445,000. Santa Ana Heights (J6) is an unincorporated area of the county which is not included in the above statistical information. The area is developed in residential -agricultural uses. Area J contains two of the largest developable vacant parcels within the city. These two sites, West Bay (71 acres) and Castaways (65 acres) are adjacent to Upper Newport Bay. Low density residential development at four units per acre is the designated land use for the Castaways site. The West Bay parcel will include recreational open space as well as low density residential development. A third vacant parcel in Area J, North Bay (81 acres), is in' the unincorporated area adjacent to the city. A combination of open space and residential development has been proposed for this site. STATISTICAL AREAS K1, K2, K3 BLUFFS, EASTBLUFF, PARK NEWPORT Area K is divided into three distinct newer residential developments: Eastbluff (K3) is a 456-unit, single-family subdivision built at four units to an acre; the Bluffs (K2) is a large condominium development with a density of ten units to an acre; and Park Newport is a 1300+ unit rental project built at 24.5 units to an acre. Area Kl also contains a 292-unit mobile home park. The area is equally divided between rental and owner -occupied housing. IF I ' The average household size for Area K is well below the city average, due to the predominance of single -person residences and couples without children in Areas K1 and K2. K3 contains a large number of two -parent families. The median income for Area K was below the city median in 1980. The area contains a large concentration (17.3% in 1980) of elderly residents. Area K can accommodate additional residential development on an 88-acre site (Newporter North) designated for low density residential development. A smaller 25-acre site at Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree may also accommodate limited residential development. STATISTICAL AREAS L1, L20 L3 L4 NEWPORT CENTER, BXG CANYON Area L contains most of the city's commercial, office, and industrial land uses within Koll Center (L4), Ford Aeronutronic Center (L3), and Newport Center (L1). The 1600+ residential units in the area were among the highest priced in the city. The residential population of Area L in 1980 had the highest median income in the city. Area L2, Big Canyon, is the only predominantly residential area in Statistical Area L. Most of this area has been developed in single-family residences. Present residential development in Newport Center consists of a 67-unit medium density condominium project. A 132-unit condominium project is being built on 26 acres in the southwest corner of Newport Center: projected sales prices will begin at $500,000 per unit. The city's long-range plan includes the possibility of developing 933 additional residential units within Newport Center. Residential development has also been planned within the Ford Aeronutronic Center. Four hundred and thirty units are approved for 114.3 acres: projected sales prices for the Completed units range from approximately $120,000 to $1,700,000 per unit. One remaining vacant site within L3 will accommodate additional residential development: this is the North Ford Site, consisting of 79 acres with an approved 888 unit development. Vacant parcels are present north of this site and within Koll Center= however, all have been designated for uses other than residential development. STATISTICAL AREAS M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 HARBOR VIEW HILLS, SPYGLASS, JASMINE CREEK Statistical Area M is largely residential, developed in low -density, hillside neighborhoods. The area contains nearly 77% owner -occupied homes. The predominant household type is the married -couple family, 67% in 1980. In 1980, statistical Area M had the largest household size in the city. 82 I The median income in this area was the second largest of the city's 12 statistical areas in 1980. Housing prices were also among the highest in the city. This area experienced a 25% gain in residential development between 1976 and 1980. Various vacant parcels designated for additional low density residential development total approximately 80 acres and could accommodate the construction of close to 300 additional residential units. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I A �CD a Table 61 POPULATION BY STATISTICAL AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Group Quarters Total Population, Population, Household Population Statistical Areas 1976 1980 1976 1980 1976 1980 Al, A2 2,011 3,718 280 434 1,761 3,284 B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 7,992 7,657 9 0 7,983 7,657 Cl, C2 2,138 2,062 0 0 2,138 2,062 D1, D2, D3, D4 5,553 5,155 3 59 5,550 5,096 El, E2, E3 4,015 3,730 0 0 4,015 3,730 F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, FS 8,866 8,287 6 0 8,860 8,287 G1 1,173 1,622 0 0 1,173 1,622 H1, H2, H3, H4 4,934 4,747 6 2 4,928 5,380 Jl, J2, J3, J4, J5 8,992 7,954 0 0 8,992 7,964 K1, K2, K3 7,250 6,862 5 0 7,245 6,362 L1, L2, L3, L4 1,456 1,633 0 0 1,456 1,633 Ml, M2, M3, M4, M5 8,697 10,018 0 0 80697 10,018 CITY TOTAL 63,101 63,445 309 495 62,792 62,950 1. Includes West Newport Triangle, which was outside the city limits at the time of the 1980 Census. Source: 1976 Special Census for Newport Beach and 1980 Census. m" gas* m m m r m m fm r" WON r m m m r IN man M M 'ro Statistical Areas Al, A2 B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 Cl, C2 D1, D2, D3, D4 El, E2, E3 F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 G1 Hl, H2, H3, H4 J1, J2, J3, J4, J5 K1,•K2, K3 Ll, L2, L3, L4 M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 Table 62 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSEHOLD SIZES BY STATISTICAL AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Number of Householdsl 1976 1980 899 1,871 3,533 3,538 799 820 2,548 2,438 1,826 1,815 3,999 3,986 557 841 2,012 2,061 3,724 3,461 3,389 3,450 528 666 2,741 3,469 Total 26,553 28,416 Average Population per Household 1976 19801 1.96 1.74 2.26 2.16 2.68 2.51 2.18 2.09 2.20 2.04 2.22 2.09 2.11 1.93 2.45 2.29 2.41 2.31 2.14 1.99 2.76 2.46 3.17 2.88 2.36 2.21 1. Includes West Newport Triangle, which was outside the city limits at the time of the 1980 Census. Source: 1976 Special Census for Newport Beach and 1980 U.S. Census. Table 63 HOUSEHOLD TYPES BY STATISTICAL AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1976 Total Single- Single- House- Parent Childless Person Statistical Areas holds Family Couple Residence Large Families A2, A3 1,871 138 812 896 6 B2, B3, B4, B5 3,538 235 621 1,074 30 Cl, C2 820 --- --- 172 15 D1, D2, D3, D4 2,438 312 559 885 23 El, E2, E3 1,815 126 402 689 17 F2, F3, F4 3,986 402 559 1,313 37 G1 841 40 324 338 12 co m HI, H2, H3 2,061 196 56B 550 33 Jl, J2, (Part) JS 3,461 138 414 1,176 96 K1, K2 3,450 175 917 1,320 35 LI, L2, L3, L4 666 27 348 136 23 M1, M3, M4, M5 3,469 286 911 504 123 City Total 28,416 2,921 8,184 9,053 461 1. Information for some neighborhoods is unavailable because of partial suppression of data; therefore, neighborhood totals do not add up to city totals. 2. Childless couples refer to married couple families without children i8 years or younger living at home. 3. Six more related individuals, this is a subset of other household types and is not calculated in the total. Source: 1980 Census for Newport Beach, includes West Newport Triangle - No we we NO no IM an 00 as W 4'M =it 90 rM we s ,"M of �. .r M"r r"an r"r so r"""M M " M 0 Table 64 1980 POPULATION BY STATISTICAL AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH % of All Households Which are Low- or Moderite- Statistical Areas Median Income Income Households Al A2 $19,610 44.6% B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 $24,705 28.4% Cl, C2 $41,552 16.3% D1, D2, D3, D4 $19,960 46.0% El, E2, E3, $20,123 45.3% Fl, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 $33,340 33.2% G1 $37,022 19.9% H1, H2, H3, H4 $26,595 34.6% J1, J2, J3, J4, J5 $30,191 28.9% K1,. K2, I3 $25,396 35.2% L1, L2, L3, L4 $51,713 7.6% Ml, M2, M3, M4, M5 $42,842 16.4% City Total $27,516 32.4% 1. Defined as a household income which is below 80% of the area median household income. (1980 Orange County median income was $22,557. 80% x 22,557 = $18,046) Source: 1980 Census for Newport Beach. Table 65 1980 SPECIAL POPULATION GROUPS BY STATISTICAL AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Population Age Students Enrolled l 65 and Over in College Handicapped Statistical Areas $ # % # % Al, A2 742 19.6% 448 12.09 50 1.3% B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 514 6.7% 1,415 18.5% 121 1.6% Cl, C2 286 13.98 219 10.6% 7 0.3% D1, D2, D3, D4 607 11.8% 811 15.7% 134 2.6% El, E2, E3 476 12.8% 866 23.2% 42 1.1% Fl, P2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 1,151 13.9% 885 10.7% 196 2.4% G1 167 10.3% 154 9.5% 50 3.1% H1, H2, H3, H4 649 13.78 518 10.9% 94 2.0t m J1, J2, J3, J4, JS 894 11.2% 880 11.1% 137 1.7% K1, K2, K3 1,190 18.7% 601 9.4% 180 2.6% L1, L2, L3, L4 247 15.1% 176 10.88 33 2.0% Ml, M2, M3, M4, M5 606 6.0% 870 8.7% 134 1.3% Remainder of Area 6 10.3% City Total 7,529 11.98 7,849 12.4% 1,178 1.9% 1. Defined here as those individuals 16 and over with a public transportation disability. Source. 1980 Census f9r Newport Beach. mom"" M M Now" r" r man M Table 66 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY PROFILE BY CENSUS TRACT 0620.10p 0626.17p 0626.18p 0627p 0628 0629 0630.01p 0630.04 0630.05 ETHNICITY TOTAL* 31 White 31 Black Nat. Amer. Asian/Pac Other Spanish 1 origin AGE 62 Years+ PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL Persons 65+ Families 65+ Female HH w/ children INCOME STATUS Low Income Very Low FEMALE -HEADED HOUSEHOLDS Female HH ' 1 w/ children 3935 6678 7692 5155 2062 7362 5393 1622 3859 6450 7557 5022 2021 7133 5251 1591 7 4 10 13 1 39 10 7 3 12 16 22 11 5 20 1 46 156 62 34 12 123 66 12 20 56 47 64 17' 62 46 11 58 151 180 170 62 146 116 25 545 404 1281 742 378 1121 1421 223 85 221 550 552 81 380 41 57 15 6 69 74 12 43 70 10 16 48 64 72 15 58 58 10 6 5 6 10 11 25 53 16 8 42 33 4 25 53 9 8 16 33 113 235 732 533 98 531 600 120 166 245 912 810 87 712 796 109 78 210 336 i97 64 188 265 30 52 158 199 109 23 88 124 9 Table 66 (Con't.) CITY OF N91PORT BEACH COMMUNITY PROFILE BY CENSUS TRACT 0630.06 0630.07 0630.08 0631.011) 0631.03p 0634 0635p 0636.01 0636.03p ETHNICITY TOTAL* 3730 3009 111 9 592 4747 6074 559 3795 White 3620 2897 110 9 579 4633 5853 543 3683 Black 4 7 6 24 5 7 Nat. Amer. 5 9 6 22 17 14 Asian/Pac 55 44 1 5 57 77 5 50 other 46 52 2 29 103 6 41 Spanish 79 73 1 20 150 301 31 137 origin AGE o 62 Years+ 581 341 74 44 813 598 IZ 618 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL Persons 515 I11 24 247 671 86 235 65+ 26 12 12 17 34 -14 Families 29 24 7 45 33 13 37 65+ 7 Female HH 14 6 19 6 13 18 w/ children 5 6 12 6 13 12 INCOME STATUS Low Income 304 108 5 13 345 Sal 83 242 Very Low 641 96 11 24 530 734 33 416 FEMALE -HEADED HOUSEHOLDS Female HH 145 63 9 168 190 45 166 w/children 79 43 5 90 98 43 86 p = partial; entire census tract is not located within city boundaries * = columns may not add to due to partial suppression of data ow iwe:'"O G!se wtotal �Be Table 67 RELATIONSHIP OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE PATTERNS AND MEDIAN INCOMES BY STATISTICAL AREA IN NEWPORT BEACH Neighborhood Median Median Statistical 1979 Median Contract Home Area HH HH Income Rent Value 1 261 $25,045 $500+ $125,000 2 1,610 18,119 338 98,300 3 635 28,529 492 147,500 4 2,311 24,766 446 200,000+ 5 592 „ 20,370 359 200,000+ 6 820 41,552 500+ 200,000+ 7 1,817 17,662 368 200,000+ 8 621 26,801 489 200,000+ 9 1,815 20,123 415. 200,000+ 10 459 49,087 500+ 200,000+ 11 930 23,641 437 200,000+ 12 662 43,626 449 200,000+ 13 841 37,022 500+ 200,000+ 14 1,646 23,934 349 104,300 15 415 37,151 500+ 200,000+ 16 1,085 18,048 395 45,000 17 779 45,929 500+ 200,000+ 18 308 12,500 169 178,800 19 1,573 21,170 446 200,000+ 20 1,115 29,493 500+ 175,600 21 454 38,722 500+ 200,000+ 22 64 27,500 500+ 200,000+ 23 183 60,181 500+ 200,000+ 24 171 45,811 445 200,000+ 25 133 52,792 500+ 200,000+ 26 97 18,703 477 195,000 27 144 43,048 500+ 200,000+ 28 61 50,723 500+ 200,000+ 29 518 31,959 442 200,000+ 30 145 22,444 430 200,000+ 31 237 19,082 428 181,700 Remainder of City 43,630 375 - City Total 22,502 $27,516 $462 $200,100 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. I �I V111 Statistical Areas Al, A2 BI, B2, B3, B4, B5 Cl, C2 D1, D2, D3, D4 El, E2, E3 F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, FS GI HI, H2, H3, H4 J1, J2, J3, J4, J5 K1, K2, K3 L1, L2, L3, L4 M1, M2, M3, M4, 145 Remainder of Area City Total Table 68 HOUSING TENURE BY STATISTICAL AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1980 Occupied Units 1980 Rental 1980 Ownership % Rented % Owned Vacancy Rate Vacancy Rate 48.6% 51.4% 6.5% 14.0% 63.2% 36.8% 8.2% 3.1% 17.4$ 82.8% 13.3% 2.7% 60.2% 39.8% 7.7% 3.3% 61.0% 39.0% 4.3% 2.7% 48.0% 52.0% 4.6% 4.5% 67.7% 32.3% 7.8% 3.5% 32.5% 63.5% 2.8% 1.6% 43.3% 56.7% 15.6% 3.2% 50.4% 49.6% 3.7% 1.9% 27.9% 72.1% 5.6% 5.3% 23.5% 76.5% 2.5% 4.5% 78.9% 21.1% 0.0% 0.0% 47.0% 53.0% 6.8% 4.1% 1. Vacancy rate is defined here as the number of available vacant units in each category divided by the sum of the occupied and available units in each category. Source: 1980 Census. I I I I I V+.1M:I� HOUSING UNITS BY STATISTICAL AREA January 1984 Area Al Single Family 166 Duplex 8 Triplex 3 Fourplex 48 5+ du/lot 55 Mobile Home Group Total 280 A2 688 4 3 4 429 81 5 1214 A3 4 513 209. 726 A 858 12 6 52 997 290 5 2220 459 122 23 67 B2 210 438 27 4 54 733 B3 252 752 47 8 1059 B4 407 499 18 8 29 961 B5 258 158 25 �O 106 251 818 +10 misc. B 1586 1969 117 40 212 318 0 4242 +10 misc. Cl 295 46 54 26 421 C2 500 2 502 C 795 48 54 26 923 D1 208 225 103 73 85 60 754 D2 246 181 54 24 6 511 +2 misc. D3 432 336 110 48 228 1154 +2 misc. D4 559 49 17 12 24 661 D 1445 791 284 157 343 60 0 3080 +4 misc. 93 Table 69 (Con't.) HOUSING UNITS BY STATISTICAL AREA Single Mobile Area Family Duplex Triplex Fourplex 5+ du/lot Home Group Total E1 299 312 25 16 13 665 +1 misc. E2 296 538 9 843 E3 402 290 17 5 714 E 997 1140 51 21 13 2222 +1 misc. F1 409 4 33 45 491 +14 misc. L F2 419 362 27 14 822 F3 550 229 124 17 146 1066 , F4 650 573 30 4 1257 F5 169 34 72 6 281 F6 142 142 F7 143 143 F8 176 176 F 2658 1202 253 68 197 0 4378 +14 misc. 10 G 303 108 24 116 479 1030 +12 misc. H1 277 80 12 4 6 379 H2 688 20 3 69 780 +1 misc. H3 310 30 93 52 30 515 H4 258 228 25 511 H 1533 130 108 56 333 25 0 2185 +1 misc. 11 398 398 J2 217 32 6 52 1671 1978 J3 459 459 I 94 I 1! 1.1 It Table 69 (Con"t.) HOUSING UNITS BY STATISTICAL AREA Single Mobile Area Family Duplex Triplex Fourplex 5+ du/lot Home . Group Total J4 630 • 630 J5 417 2 419 J6 U N I N C O R P O R A T E D J 2121 34 6 52 1671 0 3884 K1 1 18 32 1255 291 1597 +14 mist. K2 1328 18 6 32 134 1518 456 456 K 1785 36 6 64 1389 291 0 3571 +14 mist. L1 7 4 9 36 61 117 L2 578 6 36 32 652 L3 90 32 122 L4 7 4 L 682 42 9 76 93 902 M1 585 120 705 M2 488 488 M3 42 3 88 501 634 M4 1043 1043 M5 876 48 924 M 3034 48 3 208 501 3794 Total 17797 5560 921 910 6254 984 5 32431 Total DU Incorporated + 56 mist. 32487 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1976 Special Census for Newport Beach; supplemented by Building Permits from the City of Newport Beach. 95 II. ROUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY DEMAND/SUPPLY ANALYSIS The principal factor to be considered in formulating a local housing policy/strategy is that of need. Unfortunately, however, the "state of the art" of measuring housing need is quite primitive. The primary reasons for this situation are as follows: 1) existing data are often unreliable or out -of -dates 2) original data is difficult to obtain because of its cost or because of inadequate cooperation from data sources - collectors and consumers; 3) the devices currently available for collecting data essential to public policy -making do not lend themselves to accurate forecasts; and 4) housing need is as much a political determination as it is a planning exercise. Another factor which frustrates local assessment of housing need is that of inconsistent interpretation of housing affordability indices on the part of governmental agencies - federal, state, and regional - and private market institutions. The most visible discrepancy is generally found in the gross income/housing expense ratio applied to housing consumers. For example, a governmental agency may employ one income standard, while private loan underwriters and landlords utilize a much higher figure. However, the federal government and many private lenders have moved toward a 30% standard affordability. In the final analysis, the most reliable barometer for measureing need is the determination of what housing consumers are willing to pay for residential facilities. If housing consumers elected, clearly as a matter of choice, to allocate 50% of their gross income toward housing, there would not be a housing "need" in most communities, from a market perspective. There would be a need, however, from a governmental view, because housing public policy is based on the premise that there are definable limits to what a household should pay for housing and yet have available for a satisfactory standard of living in terms of food, medical care, education, recreation, etc. A 50% gross income/housing expense ratio would stretch the limits of affordability in most governmental policy settings. it should also be noted that in many instances the consumer's choice to spend a disproportionate amount of income for housing may be an involuntary one. This is especially the case in housing markets where housing supply is grossly inadequate to satisfy demand. In these instances, the consumer may "choose" to spend 50% or more for housing because the alternative is a 120 miles of commute distance each day. if this choice impedes the ability of a family to reasonably feed itself, for example, then this family represents a housing need. on the other hand, if another family were faced with the same dilemma, and could solve the problem without sacrificing other living essentials, then that family would not represent a housing need. The above discussion illustrates that housing need is a function of many market factors - consumer willingness to pay and the budget management abilities of respective households, to name a few. A cursory examination of housing need in several communities indicates that governmental definitions of "need" generally yield a substantially greater magnitude of problem than the market perception. m It shall be the theme of this analysis to rely most heavily on circumstances which prevail within the Newport Beach housing market. This is based on the premise that housing affordability is a reflection of community standards, not federal or state. Market realities will be moderated, however, by local governmental definitions, particularly with respect to low- and Imoderate -income categories. ESTIMATION OF HOUSING NEED To estimate housing need in Newport Beach, a demand -supply model has been employed. The foundation of this model is the following formula: Demand minus Supply equals Need This model contrasts with other models which attempt to estimate the number of individual households which are inadequately housed within any one community. The supply -demand approach compares total population with total housing supply 1 to arrive at a community -wide "diagnosis" based upon the match between these two components of the housing market.' The strength of this model is that it can be based on available data, with updates to reflect current market conditions. It also focuses on an assessment of housing needs within different economic segments of the community. The weakness of this model, as with virtually all housing models, lies in the fact that it employs a rather loose definition of demand. In basic economic terms, demand is defined in terms of what the consumer is willing to pay for goods or services. In housing planning terms, however, demand is often defined in terms of total projected households. Ability to pay is usually interjected as a measurement of need, not demand. It must be emphasized, however, that demand is a function of the marketplace; it is not to be equated with the number of households in a community and the housing aspirations of those households. The distinction between "demand" and "need" must be_clearly drawn in any analysis of the Newport Beach housing market. The former is triggered largely by the community amenity factor, and is tempered only by -housing prices and quality. There is strong reason for believing, however, that housing prices could climb quite high and there would be little lessening of total demand; it is strong and deep in Newport Beach, and probably cannot be satisfied within the bounds of acceptable community standards of environmental preservation and fiscal integrity. Housing needs, on the other hand, lend themselves to reasonable and approximate quantification. Moreover, a framework can be established which allows the community to refine its fiscal and environmental mitigation measures so as to promote increased attainment of community housing needs. Demand is an economic interaction between supplier and consumer; the interpretation of demand is best left to the private housing industry. The assessment of need is a process involving the collaborative efforts of producers, consumers, taxpayers, community groups, and local government. Housing need in the final analysis, is a local government judgement based on economics, fiscal constraints and political acceptability. 1 97 n �I The three basic components of the model used herein are described below: HOUSING DEMAND: The measurement of "demand" in this model is based on the total number of households in the community divided into four household income categories. These four income categories represent four economic segments of the Newport Beach community and are based on the city median household income for the year in which the analysis takes place. The categories are as follows: 1. Household incomes which are below 50% of the city median. These households are characterized as "very low-income" by community standards ($13,760 in 1979 and estimated at $17,500 in 1983). 2. Household incomes which are between 50% and 80% of the city median, These households are "low-income" by city standards ($13,760 to $22,010 in 1979 and estimated at $17,500 to $28,000 in 1983). 3. Household incomes between 80% and 120% of the city median. These households are characterized as "moderatc-income" ($22,010 to $33,020 in 1979 and estimated at $28,000 to $42,000 in 1983). 4. Household incomes above 120% of the city median. These households are "upper -income" (Above $33,020 in 1979 and estimated to be above $42#000 in 1983). Demand, as it is used in this model, is more accurately characterized as "potential demand." Instead of counting just those , households which are in the market looking for housing, demand in this model also includes all households in the community, a majority of which are housed to their satisfaction under current conditions. In addition to the number of households in each segment of the market, housing demand includes the number of additional housing opportunities needed in each category, determined by applying a vacancy rate, in order for that segment of the market to operate effectively. SUPPLY: Housing supply is based on an inventory of the housing t stock by its cost. Four housing cost categories are defined on the basis of affordability to various income categories in the demand , side of the model. Rental and owner -occupied housing units are inventoried separately by their cost, and then added together. All units except those to seasonally -occupied and group quarters are counted. Ll LJ 98 1 I I 11 II u II II FJ 11 II [J �1 u II I1 It I 1r� L� Housing costs are based on the actual housing expense for the occupants of the units. In the case of rental units, housing costs for occupied units are reflected by the actual rents paid by tenants. In the case of owner -occupied housing, the actual monthly mortgage payment (plus additional housing expenses), is used to measure housing cost. An alternate to this approach would be to use the value of the property, or the monthly housing payment that would be required if the unit were purchased in the current market.. To use this latter measure would greatly exaggerate the affordability problem in Newport Beach. Using the current vacancy rate in the rental and owner -occupied segments of the market, the number of vacant units is estimated and added to the housing supply. Vacant units are allocated to different cost categories according to the price at which they are, available on the market. Housing units needing replacement, or units that have deteriorated beyond rehabilitation, are subtracted from the available housing supply. HOUSING NEED: Need is defined as the disparity between the demand for housing and the available housing stock. The available supply of housing in each cost category is subtracted from demand in the corresponding income 'category to determine either the amount of additional units needed to satisfy existing demand, or to determine the amount of units available in excess of demand. Negative numbers indicate a housing need, or an "excess demand" which is not satisfied by the existing housing supply. REGIONAL SHARE: The "regional share" in this model represents Newport Beach's share of the future housing needed to meet projected regional growth and is shown on line 10 of Table 71. Under current state law, each community's assessment of housing need shall include the locality's share of the regional housing need. CALCULATION OF 1983 - 1989 HOUSING NEEDS Because this housing element covers the period 1984 to 1989, the City's regional allocation in this element is projected to January 1989. The demand and supply factors on which the need assessment is based are explained in detail as follows: * Estimated 1983 market.vacancies (units for sale or rent) are based on historical patterns, estimated market vacancies are 1,670 units. It m * Estimated tenure is based on historical patterns, which have been remarkably stable between 1970 and 1983, the city estimates the 1989 tenure mix to be 538 owner -occupied and 47% renter -occupied. The aging of the Newport Beach population would tend to favor owner - occupancy over renter -occupancy, since older households tend to have a higher incidence of ownership than do younger households. Also, there will be a slight upward trend in family households with children. * Vacancy allowances for each income group are specified based on ownership versus renter patterns from 1980 Census data. The overall vacancy objective is 3.4%, which translates to 21A of the year-round housing stock for ownership housing and 5* of the year-round housing stock for rental housing. These objectives are common standards of what is considered to be a minimum rate of vacancy needed to assure adequate choice in the housing market. The 5% rental vacancy objective is also used in conjunction with the city's condominium conversion ordinance. * The number of market vacancies needed in 1989 will reflect the trend toward a reduction in vacation homes. These homes would thus provide additional year-round housing opportunities. (See Footnote 6 to Tables 70 and 71 for an explanation.) * The total number of housing units is estimated by the city to be 32,266 as of January 1983. The city estimates the number of dwelling units based upon its building permit records of net additions to the housing stock since April 1980, the month of the U.S. Census. * The needs assessments is distributed by income groups which are defined as a percentage of city median household income. 100 M" M r M r M r r M M "M" r M" s M Table 70 1983 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BASED ON CITY MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 1983 Demand 1 2 3 4 1. Household Income 0-50% 50-80% 80-120% 120%+ Total Categories as a of City Household Median Income ($35,000 in 1983) 2. Income 0-$17,500 $17,500-$28,000 $28,000-$42,000 $42,000+ 3. Number of Households 6,815 5,110 5,160 12,075 29,160 (January 1983) (23.4%) (17.5%) (17.7%) (41.4%) 4. Est. Tenure 25%/75% 30%/70% 60%/40% 75%/258 53%/47% Owner/Renter o a. Overall Vacancy Goal 2 .0425 .041 .032 .0275 .034 5. Vacancy Allowance 290 190 170 30 980 6. 1983 City Demand 3 7,105 5,300 5,330 12,405 30,140 1983 Supply 7. Affordable Housing $0-580 $580-$920 $920-$1,380 $1,380+ Payments/Mo. 8. Affordability Ratio 4 .30% 30% 33% 35% 9. Year -Round Units 5 31,800 (Est. as of Jan. 1983) a. Est. Available for 6 6,960 8,610 6,300 8,530 30,400 Occupancy (23.0%) (28.3%) (20.7%) (28,1%) 10. Surplus/Deficiency -145 +3,310 +970 -31875 +260 Table 71 1989 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BASED ON CITY MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 1 2 3 4 1. Household Income 0-5096 50-80% 80-120% 120%+ Total Categories as a % of City Median Household 7 Income ($49,200 in 1989) 2. Income $0-$24,600 $24,600-$39,360 $39,360-$59,010 $59,040+ 3. Number of Households 7,150 5,370 5,500 13,140 31,160 (23,08) (17.2%) (17.6%) (42.2%) 4. Est. Tenure 25%/75% 80%/70% 60%/408 75%/25% 53%/47% F Owner/Renter 0 N a. Overall Vacancy Goal 2 .0425 .041 .032 .0275 .034 S. Vacancy Allowance 300 220 180 360 1,060 6. 1989 City Demand 3 7,450 5,590 5,680 13,500 32,220 7. Less 1983 Demand 7,105 5,300 5,330 12,405 30,140 8. Additional Units + 345 + 290 + 350 +1,095 +2,080 (16.6%) (14.9%) (16.8%) (52.6%) 9. Less 1983 Surplus - 43 - 36 - 44 - 137 + 260 10. Total New Units Needed 302 254 306 958 1,820 r IM W M 0" M M M Wo r so M as SO 00 r 60 r M I 11 I I] u J r II II Footnotes to Tables 70 and 71 1. Household calculations are rounded to the nearest 10. 2. Vacancy allowance is based on the owner/renter tenure mix for each income group multiplied by the vacancy goal of 2% for ownership units and 5% for rental units. In the city's assessment of market vacancies, year-round units held for occasional use are excluded from the calculation. 3. City demand is the sum of households plus vacancy allowances. This demand figure applies only to year-round housing units. 4. The affordability ratios are based on new trends in government housing assistance and underwriting considerations by private lenders. The ratios are multiplied by gross monthly income to determine housing payments. 5. Excludes seasonal and migratory housing units. The needs analysis assumes no increase in the percent of seasonal units between 1980 and 1983. 6. in 1980, approximately 5% of the year-round housing stock was unavailable for occupancy. Such units may be held by the owners for occasional use;, may be rented or sold and awaiting occupancy, or may be boarded up or under repair. In 1970, the percentage of such unoccupied but unavailable units was 6.9%. If this trend toward a reduction in year-round units not available for occupancy continued, then by 1983 about 4.4% of the year-round housing stock would be kept off the market, and by.1989, only about 3.3% of the year-round housing stock would be not available for occupancy. In fact, a comparison of 1970 and 1980 Census shows a marked decline in the number of homes held for occasional use (1280 in 1970 and 1,031 in 1980). 7. Projected 1989 City median household income is based on the 1980 census and the 1983 federal estimate of County median family income of $33,700. This projection assumes an average annual increase in income of approximately 6% per year. S. Table 55 shows future housing needs both as a function of county and city median family income because city programs emply both standards. 9. Assumes the percentage in each income overpaying for housing is estimated for 1983. Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. FIVE-YEAR HOUSING NEEDS IN NEWPORT BEACH The needs assessment presented on previous pages, as well as the discussions in Part I of this housing element demonstrate that the Newport Beach housing market has traditionally served an economically diverse community. The older housing stock in the city as well as the large supply of rental housing have complimented primarily single-family neighborhoods in the evolution of a diverse housing stock. 1 103 Newport Beach's desirability coupled with high housing demand created by rapid regional growth during recent years have pushed ownership housing prices into the upper income housing market while rental housing prices have remained at significantly lower levels. Prices of new and existing single family homes have risen to the point where they are affordable primarily to those in upper income categories. In 1981, however, much of the existing housing stock -- rental housing and owner -occupied housing purchased before market escalation in the area -- continue to house families from a variety of income categories. For 1989, several possible scenarios exist. The first scenario is that housing costs stabilize relative to changes in income so that the percentage of housing units in each of the four cost categories remains unchanged, Scenario number two shows the following shift in housing cost under the assumption that the trend established between 1980 and 1983 continues through 1989: 1 2 3 4 15% 17% 18% 50% Scenario number three assumes that the distribution of all housing units, through turnover in tenancy, will approach that of units sold or rented to new occupants during 1983: 1 2 3 4 18% 16% 18% 48% This estimate is based on sample records of homes sold or rented during 1983. The likely outcome in 1989 would be a distribution somewhat in between the extremes represented in the three scenarios. Thus, some housing units will be lost in the two lower -cost categories between 1983 and 1989, but it is difficult to accurately predict the magnitude of that loss. Regional Housing Needs The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has prepared a Regional Housing Allocation Model (RHAM) to assess the new housing need for each jurisdiction within the region. This model was prepared for the five year period 1983-1988. The RHAM assesses Newport Beach's portion of the new units needed to satisfy the housing needs resulting from regional growth on the basis of regional characteristics such as County Median household income and a generalized "ideal" vacancy rate. SCAG estimates that 1,561 new units will be needed in Newport Beach by 1988. In order for the Housing Element and the RHAM time frames to coincide HCD and SCAG have agreed that the RHAM can be extended from 1988 to 1989 by multiplying the 1988 RHAM need projection by 1.2. This adjustment has been made in the RHAM and both the 5 year and 6 year need projections as well as the unit distributions for the various income groups are shown in the following table: 104 Table 72 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS Very Low Low Moderate Upper Total 0-50% 50-80% 80-120% 120%+ 5 year projection 225 310 272 754 1,561 1 6 year projection 270 372 326 905 1,873 SCAG has also estimated that 37 farm worker households, 23 in the very low income group and 14 in the low income group, will be eligible for assistance in 1988. Housing Needs Summary The RHAM assess Newport Beach's portion of the new units needed to satisfy the housing needs resulting from regional growth on the basis of regional characteristics. The demand/supply analysis assesses the new units needed to satisfy projected demand from all sources on the basis of city characteristics. The new housing needs resulting from the SCAG analysis are not additive to the new housing needs estimated by the demand/supply analysis. The results of the 1983 demand/supply analysis shows that there is a slight housing deficiency in the very low income group and a sizable deficiency in the upper income group. The analysis also shows that the low and moderate income groups have an excess supply of housing. In terms of the supply of housing., this analysis shows that the City has approved and developed a large 1 stock of low and moderate income housing over the years. This further indicates that the City's housing stock supplies nearly a sufficient number of very low and low income units and that the 3,924 households paying more than 30% of their income for housing is a result of a mismatch between units and occupants. When the SCAG RHAM analysis is projected to the year 1989, it shows that the ' City will need 1,873 new units over the six year period 1983-1989. When the six year new housing need of 1,820 new units as projected by the demand/supply analysis is compared to the RHAM the total housing need difference is 53 units over the six year period. The 1989 RHAM projection of future housing needed is slightly larger than the demand/supply projection. The unit allocations to income groups cannot be directly compared because one model is in County income and the other is in City income. The RHAM allocates more units to the low and moderate groups and less units to the very -low and low income groups than the demand/supply analysis. since the 1989 RHAM identifies the greater total housing need, the City shall use that number as its housing need and attempt to produce sufficient future -housing units to achieve that total number of units and that housing unit distribution. 105 r, III. CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING DELIVERY MARKET CONSTRAINTS Community Attitudes The citizenry in Newport Beach is well -organized through neighborhood homeowners associations and community environmental groups. In these circles, a strong public sentiment pervades with regard to preserving the suburban environment in the city. in the past, opposition has been voiced against increased commercial and office uses in the city and against expansion of the adjacent John Wayne Airport. Higher density residential development is also opposed by much of the populace in Newport Beach, due to concerns regarding traffic, congestion and perceived infrastructural limitations. There exists a growing public attitude in Newport Beach, as well as in the country as a whole, that government regulation of the marketplace should be limited. Therefore, housing policies which GUIDE development toward social goals rather than REGULATE development are generally more compatible with local public attitudes. The regulation of housing prices is an unacceptable area for government intervention for a majority of Newport Beach residents, Public sentiment is noted as a constraint because of its influence on local officials and because of the recent Supreme Court ruling that all zoning is a legislative process which can be modified by ballot initiatives (North Costa Mesa Homeowners Association vs. Arnel Development Company and South Coast Plaza). The implication of this case is that the use of undeveloped land can be decided through the initiative process, regardless of general plan designations. Market Impacts on Development Costs The growing market demand for housing in Newport Beach and the relatively small supply of remaining vacant residential acreage in the city has had a strong impact on the financial aspects of residential development in the city. The greatest impact of this market demand on cost of new housing is seen in the price of residential land in the city. Land costs vary as much within Newport Beach as they do within orange County. Generally though, they are much higher than land costs in other areas of the county, reflecting the desirability of the area for its proximity to amenities, and its reputation as a favored residential community. Professional real estate appraisers have indicated that raw land in the City zoned for multiple family residential use (20 units/acre), with a water orientation, has a MINIMUM market value of $600,000 per acre; and the market value of raw land in Newport Beach with similar potential land use, but without water orientation, is a minimum of $500#000 per acre. Information submitted to the City by developers in the course of processing residential development approvals further indicates that two prime water oriented parcels zoned for multiple family residential use were recently acquired for $1.8 million per acre and $1.98 million per acre, respectively. Another parcel of property, located in inland Newport Beach, and zoned for multiple family ME I residential uses, was acquired for $592,000 per acre in August of 1983. By way of comparison, available information indicates that a site zoned for high rise density residential uses (80+ units per acre) in inland Huntington Beach, and a parcel zoned for multiple family residential uses (20 units/acre) in Costa Mesa, were acquired for $650,000 per acre and $653,000 per acre, respectively during 1983. Although no information was available as of the date of adoption of this ' Element with respect to the market value of raw land zoned for single-family residential uses, marketing information on custom lots indicates that undeveloped single-family residential land in Newport Beach is quite costly. Custom lots in Belcourt Manor, ranging in size from 8,000 square feet to 11,265 square feet, were selling for between $375,000 and $535,000 in March of 1984. Custom lots in Belcourt Gallery, ranging in size'from 9,902 square feet to 28,699 square feet were marketed in a price range from $475,000 to $695,000 ' during this same period.. On a per acre basis, the subdivided custom lots in Belcourt Manor and Belcourt Gallery, neither of which have any water orientation, have a market value of $2.042 million to $2.068 million per acre, and $2.09 million to $1.055 million per acre, respectively. Density increases are often set forth as a method to decrease land cost components of housing costs. While density increases may or may not decrease land costs on a per unit basis, sales prices of units in project approvals granted by the City in recent years indicate that density increases do not necessarily have any effect on the cost of housing to consumers. For example, density increases allowed in two 1981 projects did not substantially decrease the cost of the units to an affordable level; in these instances, units ranging in size from 1,324 to 1,675 square feet, and built at a density of 25 units per acre, sold in a range of $179,900 to $199,900. The developer of a fourteen unit condominium project approved for development in early 1984 at a density of 29.2 units per acre proposed to market two -bedroom units of 800 square feet, 1,250 square feet, and 1,500 square feet for $145,000, $185,000, and $235,000 respectively. Higher, density project approvals that are not conditioned upon price controls thus do not substantially reduce the cost of housing to consumers in the City at least in the examples cited. ' in addition, high residential densities involving buildings taller than three stories will greatly increase unit marketability in many areas of the city because of the addition of a view factor. Regardless of square footage or density, a unit with a Newport Beach view can be marketed as a luxury condominium and will command an extremely high price on the market. ' Higher land costs in the city are the main factor in higher square footage costs for housing provision. High land costs also trigger higher costs in other areas of development. To balance the price of land, developers must increase amenities within the housing unit as well as within the community area in order to justify the higher prices paid for land. Thus, a higher land price is the factor that triggers increased development costs "across the board." Table 73 shows estimated land and construction costs for four ' projects. I 1 107 I Financing Constraints I The recent federal involvement in fighting inflation through restrictions on the cost and supply of mortgage capital has had an insurmountable impact on the housing market throughout the country since late 1979. Higher interest rates substantially reduce the home purchasing potential of homebuying households. New homebuyers especially find that the housing product they can , afford is substantially less than their expectation. The difficulty in producing housing which is affordable to first-time homebuyers is thus compounded. While the cost of production has increased, the purchasing power of customers has decreased. Because development costs in Newport Beach are higher than in other areas of the state, housing is even further out of the reach of first-time homebuyers. With savings and loan institutions and other home loan lenders experiencing higher costs in attracting funds, it is extremely difficult for the fixed rate, long-term mortgage to be used as the primary mortgage instrument for housing finance purposes. Consequently, variable rate mortgages, equity appreciation mortgages, and other techniques are being promoted. This smorgasbord of "creative financing" helped to maintain a higher level of capital for housing than might otherwise be available. Table 75 shows how changes in interest rates affect payments on a $100,000 loan. I I L� L 1 i CJ LJ 108 1 Table 73 COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR FOUR SIMILAR PROJECTS Average Sales Total Square Total Average Price Construc- Construc- No. of Footage Price of Price Land Construc- Per Cost per Cost per Project Units Per Unit All Units Per Unit Cost tion Cost Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 1317 E. Balboa Blvd. 4 2137 $1,180,000 $295,000 $250,000 $ 769,000 $139.50 $ 90.91 $120.46 Spinnaker Bay 10 1004 2,000,000 200,000 800,000 710,000 199.20 70.72 151.41 487 Morning Canyon Road 14 1293 2,810,000 200,714 950,000 1,434,600 155.25 79.26 131.75 F 0 311 Carnation Avenue 4 3390 2,579,000 644,750 810,000 1,428,000 190.19 105.31 165.04 Source: Tarantello & Company. Sales Price Category Direct Costs Land Site Improvements Community Amenities Construction Table 74 SALES PRICE COMPONENTS OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY Single -Family Detached Orange County Newport Beach Townhouses and Condominiums Orange County Newport Beach 12% 28% 11% 11% 13% 8% 11% 4% 28 0 5% 3% 51% 26% 51% 42% TOTAL 78% 62% 78% 60% Indirect Financing 5% 1614 6% 19% Sales & Marketing 43 9% 4% 58 Gross Profit 10% 8% 8% 12% Overhead and Contingencies 3% 5% 38 49z TOTAL 22% 38% 21% 40% Sources: 1) The Cost of Housing in Orange County, The Orange County Cost of Housing Committee, February 20, 1978. Total projects surveyed: 11. 2) Based on one single-family and one condominium project constructed and sold in Newport Beach in 1981. m r m s m = m Isom m" m m m m r m m m Table 75 THE EFFECT OF CHANGES IN INTEREST RATESI ON THE AFFORDABILITY OF A $100,000 LOAN Interest Monthly Income % Able 4 Rate Payment Needed to Afford ' 98 $ 910 $31,160 54.7% 10% $ 980 $33,660 51.0% 11% $1,060 $36,200 48.0% 12% $1,130 $38,800 45.1% 13% $1,210 $41,500 42.0% 14% $1,290 $44,200 40.3% 15% $1,370 %46,900 37.4% I I 1 C] 1 Assumes a 30-year, fixed rate mortgage. 2 Mortgage plus insurance and taxes. 3 Assumes a maximum of 35% of income is spent on mortgage payments, insurance and taxes. 4 Based on the estimated distribution of household income in Newport Beach in 1983. Source: County and Associates. Developers' Perceptions of Marketability Perceptions by developers of the market ability of newly -constructed housing units also constitute a constraint upon the development of housing for all income levels. In order to attract a specific segment of the market, developers frequently include in their housing developments a variety of amenities not required under the city's zoning, subdivision and. building codes. These amenities include increased amounts of open space; additional parking spaces, and lower densities than are required under city regulations. While the city can and does impose minimum requirements regarding amenities, it does not, and can not realistically, prevent developers from imposing more stringent requirements on themselves. As Table 76 shows, developers or larger residential projects in Newport Beach ' have historically chosen not to develop at the highest density permitted on their parcels: 1 11 III , Table 76 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED , DENSITIES AND ACTUAL DENSITY OF CONSTRUCTED HOUSING UNITS BY PROJECT Maximum No. of Constructed Permitted Units Units Per Project Date Acres Density Built Acre Westcliff 1952-1967 493.3 SRF (8/A) 1649 3.34 Cameo Shores 1958 64.1 SFR (8/A) 177 2.63 Irvine Terrace 1959-1963 152.5 SRF (8/A) 416 2.73 Harbor View West 1959-1967 97.6 SFR (8/A) 266 2.7 Cameo Highlands 1960 44.3 SFR (8/A) 142 3.2 Eastbluff 1963 165.33 SFR (8/A) 462 2.79 , Harbor View East 1966-1971 167.2 SFR (8/A) 490 2.93 Harbor View Homes 1968-1972 Big Canyon 1970-1972 321.2 165.2 SRF (8/A) SRF (8/A) 1169 476 3.64 2.88 , Spyglass Hill 1971-1972 155.6 SFR (8/A) 350 2.25 Jasmine Creek 1st Phase 1973 SFR (8/A) 379 4.39 2nd Phase 1973 10/A 346 4.0 3rd Phase 1976 10/B.A. 324 3.74 Broadmoor Seaview 1976 51.4 175 units 167 Harbor Ridge 1977-1978 166.3 4/B.A. 392 2.36 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Development approvals granted by Newport Beach in early 1984 indicate that developers are continuing to exceed city standards with respect to project amenities. The following table distinguishes between the level of amenities required by the city and those proposed by the developer, on three attached residential projects: ' 112 Table 77 COMPARISON OF REQUIRED AMENITIES AND AMENITIES PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER City Developer Project Amenity Requirement Proposal 406 E. Bay Ave. Parking Spaces 15 spaces 20 dovered sp. r (10 covered) Open Spaces 22,126 cu.ft. 59,346 cu.ft. ' 311 Carnation Density Up to 17 units 4 units Parking Spaces 6 spaces 9 spaces ' Open Spaces 14,040 cu.ft. 148,700 cu.ft. 487 Morning Cyn. Parking Spaces 21 Spaces 32 Spaces ' Lot Coverage Up to 60% 36% Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. ' As cited examples indicate, therefore, developers have historically imposed amenity requirements upon their own residential projects that are more stringent or restrictive than those mandated by city regulations. Whether this is done due, to marketing perceptions of for other reasons, these self-imposed amenity requirements are a constraint, over which the city has no ' control, to least -cost housing, GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Local Governmental Constraints This section of the Housing Element addresses actual and potential city governmental constraints upon the development of housing for all income levels. Examples of such constraints include land use controls (zoning), building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and local processing, and permit procedures. In many of these areas, localities have varying degrees of discretion to modify state standards for local implementation and/or conditions. r In addition to the above -mentioned constraints, land developed currently can, in many instances, be considered a constraint on the development of new housing. Land developed for commercial or industrial uses cannot realistically be used for housing purposes, and land developed as single family residences cannot generally be used for multi -family residential purposes. The following tables set forth the manner in which land in Newport Beach is designated for use, both as between residential and non-residential uses, and by intensity of residential use: 113 Table 78 DESIGNATION 0$ LAND IN NEWPORT BEACH BY USE Estimated Land Use Gross Acreage Commercial 1420.09 Institutional. 598.73 Residential 4,539 0-4 units/acre 20261 4-10 units/acre 1,185 10-15 units/acre 274 15-25 units/acre 566 25+ units/acre 253 Remaining uses and vacant 2202.93 TOTAL: 8,873.80 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Percentage of Total Gross Acreace in Cit 16.0% 6.75% 51.2% 25.5% 13.41k 3.1% 6.4% 2.9% 24.8% 114 :I ' Table 79 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE BY DENSITY CATEGORY Estimated Gross Dwelling No. of Units Residential Density Level Acreage Units Per Gross Acre 0-4 units per acre 2,261 6,770 2.99 4-10 units per acre 1,185 6,927 5.85 274 3,216 11.74 10-15 units per acre 15-25 units per acre 566 11,071 19.56 25+ units per acre 253 6,953 27.48 TOTAL 4,539 34,937 7.70 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department, Land Use Summary (January 1984). ' In Newport Beach, as previously mentioned in the discussion of site availability, there is a relatively limited supply of vacant land remaining for development. It is estimated that only about 4% of the developable land in Newport Beach remains vacant. This limitation on the supply of land, and the accompanying existing urban development patterns of the city, serve to shape its land use regulations. This analysis of the regulations is cognizant of these circumstances and provides comment as appropriate, in this regard. - ' The Planning Process A. General Comments - The City Planning Department is divided along traditional lines into sections for current and advance planning. The Current Planning section does zoning administration and related functions. The Advance Planning section concerns itself with the general plan, local coastal plan, and related types of activities. ' The organization of the department is rather typical and appears to function well, as the formal and informal coordinating methods facilitate ' communication and minimize redundancy. It should also be mentioned, that the Building Department recently became a separate entity. However, it appears that the essential communication between these now distinct departments has remained open. The critical relationship of. zoning administration and the building permit process is working well and does not cause undue delays in processing. 115 B. The City Council maintains a "Council Policy Manual" on a formal basis. This manual is comprised of Council Policies formulated on a motion of a council member and voted by a majority of the quorum present. The manual has no force or effect of law, however it does have a binding effect on the council and city staff. The manual allows the council to express policy regarding planning and land use issues without the formalities of an ordinance proceeding. while review for the purposes of preparing this element found no abuses of this policy -making system, the potential for the avoidance of due process in housing and land use decision -making should be noted. C. The Newport Beach General Plan includes Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Recreation and Open Space, Public Safety, Noise and Residential Growth Elements; all but the Residential Growth Element are mandated by State law. The Residential Growth Element, adopted in 1973, sets forth general policies regarding residential uses of vacant and developed land. Although the Residential Growth Element was adopted during a period of heightened environmental sensitivities at both the local and state level (the California Environmental Quality Act was adopted in 1970) and articulates strong concerns regarding the effect of increased residential densities upon environmental resources and infrastructural capacities in Newport Beach, many of these concerns have been rendered obsolete by recent State legislation regarding housing. The Newport Beach General Plan has been revised periodically since 1973. Its provisions receive frequent review, however, in the amendment process, and through adoption of related policies, documents, and ordinances such as the local coastal plan and the traffic phasing ordinance. The City General Plan Amendment (GPA) process is somewhat unusual. All amendments are initiated by the City, at the recommendation of a property owner. This system eliminates the need for a comprehensive application process and for an amendment fee. It also provides the City with substantial control over the amendment process. in practice, the major difference between the City's procedure and an application process is as follows. The City has the ability to decide if the amendment will be initiated (heard). This decision process need not include an exposition of the merits of the request for amendments. In the case of an application process, while ultimately the application may be denied, it cannot be summarily dismissed without a hearing on its merits. The application has paid a fee which entitles the applicant to a hearing through a specified process. The "recommending" property owner in the city has no such guarantee. It should also be noted, because GP amendments are city initiated, the time limitations of state law do not apply to this process. D. The Zoning Code of the city is complex but not atypical for an already highly urbanized community. The code uses a district concept which is appropriate to the diverse urban patterns and topography found in the city. 116 I1 lJ I II 1 The Zoning Code contains six basic zoning districts (excluding Planned Community districts and other specialized districts) to regulate residential uses within the city. These zoning districts are R-A (agricultural), R-1 (single family residential), R-1.5 (single family residential and duplex), R-2 (single family and duplex), R-3 (single and multi -family residential) and R-4 (single and multi -family residential). Table 80 summarizes the Zoning Code provisions for residential density, height, set -backs, and parking for the R-A, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts, as well as the Newport Shores Specific plan for comparison purposes. These density requirements closely follow the General Plan Land Use Element density policies. Maximum densities range from eight to sixteen units per net acre (excluding streets and unbuildable areas) in single family and duplex zones (R-1, R-1.5, R-2). The Zoning Code establishes different buildable area coverage standards for various residential districts within the city. within the R-1.5 District, gross floor area cannot exceed 1.5 times the allowable building area. The R-2 District allows -a 2.0 maximum coverage throughout most of the City; however, in Corona del Mar a maximum of 1.5 times the buildable area is permitted due to the existing high density and traffic congestion in the area. Although this may be restrictive to maximum residential usage, it is justified because of limited parking area and street capacities in these districts. Both districts permit duplexes. Maximum densities in the multifamily zones (R-3 and R-4) depend on the configuration of the lot, as lot area per dwelling unit restrictions apply. in the R-3 zone, a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 1200 square feet is required, which translates to a maximum density of 36 units per net acre. In the R-4 zone, the 800 square feet per dwelling unit requirement translates to a maximum density of 58 units per net acre. Table 34 provides examples of actual residential densities, which range from 6.59 to 49.1 units per gross acre, with an average density of 19.4 units per gross acre. The following hypothetical example shows how the various zoning requirements interact on an R-4 zoned lot. This example is intended for informational purposes, not as a typical probable outcome. Assume a flat site of one acre (43,560 square feet) square. The 800 square feet per dwelling unit requirement would allow the construction of 54 units. These 54 units would have to be placed in a building(s) which did not exceed yard setback requirements. in the R-4 zone, required setbacks leave a buildable area of about 34,200 square feet. A minimum of 81 off-street parking spaces are required. If parking is provided at grade, about 20,000 square feet of area would remain for the 54 units. These units would require about 15,300 square feet each are placed in a three-story structure. About 5,000 square feet of lot area would remain for common areas, on -site facilities, and interior landscaping. 117 F-A Zone (g.) Height 241/28' Min. Lot 6,000 sq,ft. Size Min. Lot 60 ft. Width Parking lk spaces/ F, Y unit m Floor Area Ratio Table 80 SUMMARY OF ZONING CODE PROVISIONS BY DISTRICT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH R-1 R-1.5 R-2 (S.F.) (S.F.) (Duplex) 241/28' 24'/28' 241/28' 5,000 sq.ft./ 5,000 Same as 6,000 corner sq.£t. R-1 lots 50 ft./60 ft. Same as corner lots R-1 Same Same Same 1.5/2.0 1.5 1.5/2.0 Lot Coverage 40% 100% less yard Front Yard 20 ft. 20 ft./ Same as (Min./Max.) 35 ft. R-1 Side Yard 10% of lot 3 ft. or Same as width (3' min./ 4 €t. R-1 6' max.) Same as R-1 Same as R-1 R-3 (Multi.) 28'32' Same as R-1 Same as R-1 Same 1.5/3.03 Same 5as R-1 Same 5as R-1 R-4 (Multi.) 28'/32' Same as R-1 Same as R-1 Same 1.5/3.03 Same as R-1 Same 5as R-1 Specific Plan 24'/28' 8% of lot width (3 stories or less) + 2% for each addi- tional story up to 25 ft. 2.0 5 ft.5 Same as R. l M ! = = M = = a i= i� M= M M� M 2 � ■r �r rr r r r ri r r� � r r r r ■� ' r r r Table 80 (Con't.) SUMMARY OF ZONING CODE PROVISIONS BY DISTRICT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F-A R-1 R-1.5 R-2 R-3 R-4 Zone (g.) (S.F.) (S.F.) (Duplex) (Multi.) •(multi.) Specific Plan Rear Yards 20% of lot 10 ft. Same as Same as Same as Same as 5 £t.5 depth (15' min./ R-1 R-1 R-1 5 R-1 5 25' max.) Minimum Open Space Lot Area Per N Dwelling N Lot width x height limit x 6 ft. 1200 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 10% of buildable 1200 sq.ft. (1 or 2 units) /1500 sq.ft. (3+ units) 1. Lower number is the basic height limit, which can be increased to higher number upon approval of a use permit in each case. 2. The 1.5 F.A.R. applies to Old Corona del Mar and Balboa Island only. In West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and Old Corona del Mar, F.A.R. does not include open decks, balconies, or patios. 3. Excludes building area used for parking. 4. Twenty feet, unless otherwise specified on districting maps. 5. Other special yard and building distance requirements may apply. Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The amount of space for on -site amenities could be increased to 16,000 square feet if parking is placed underground. Otherwise, the number of units would have to be decreased, probably to less than 40 units, in order to provide enough space for on -site amenities, In practice, the densities allowed under Newport Reach's land use regulations are high to moderate in comparison to many other communities of a similar size. This is evidenced by the larger percentage of multi -family housing in Newport Beach than in neighboring jurisdictions. Up until 1980, the City generally required a minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit in R-1, R-1, r-1.5, R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts, The current parking standards set forth in the Zoning Code generally require 1.5 off-street parking spaces (including one covered space) per dwelling unit in these districts. The amount of parking spaces currently required in residential districts under the Newport Beach Zoning Code appears to be appropriate in light of the lack of available on -street parking in those districts and the heavy traffic congestion throughout Newport Beach during the summer and holiday periods; this parking requirement also compares reasonably with residential parking standards mandated for similar residential districts by other municipalities in Orange County, and is lower than the parking standard generally imposed by the County of Orange. A standard of two parking spaces per unit has generally been included in Planned Community Districts. The Zoning Code establishes five height zones within Newport Beach: the 24/28 foot height limitation zone, the 28/32 foot height limitation zone, the 26/36 foot height limitation zone, the 32/50 foot height limitation zone, and the high rise (375 feet) height limitation zone. The high rise height limitation zone covers approximately 7% of the land within Newport Beach, including the Newport Center, Aeronutronic Ford, and portions of the North Ford parcels. The 32/50 foot height limitation zone permits structures of up to fifty feet in elevation, pursuant to an adopted Planned Community District text or a Specific Area Plan. A fifty foot height restriction allows development of residential structures with five stories. The 32/50 foot height limitation zone covers approximately 15% of the land in Newport Beach, including the Cal Trans West, Castaways, Westbay, Newport Village, Big Canyon - Areas 16 and 10, Harbor Ridge, Haywood, and Jasmine Creek parcels, and portions of the "West Newport Beach Triangle" and the Beeco and North Ford parcels. The 26/35 foot height limitation zone covers most of the coastal areas of the city, allowing development of structures at elevations up to 26 feet as a matter of right, and permitting structures of up to 35 feet with the adoption of a Planned Community District or Specific Area Plan, or with the approval of a use permit. All multifamily residential structures within the 28/32 and 32/50 foot height limitation zones can be constructed to a height of three stories without a use permit or other approval. Numerous multi -family residential structures in the city have been developed to a height of three Stories. Table 81 sets forth a partial inventory of these developments, as follows: u 11 r [1 I I �II _1 I 120 I II i I11 t I I 1 I Table 81 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVEL OF THREE.,OR MORE STORIES No. of Project Stories Units Per Acre Versailles 3 255 37.5 Lido Condominiums 9 54 49.1 621 Lido Park Drive 8 36 21.2 Caribe 6 48 36.9 Rendezvous 3 24 32.0 Oakwood 3 1450 44.9 Newport Center 3 460 12.1 Park Newport 4 1302 24.5 Promonitory Point 3 520 15.8 Balboa Bay Club 5 144 34.7 Villa Balboa 3 418 32.2 The Beachhouse 3 226 40.1 Las Brisas Apartments 3 '54 37.0 Seaview Lutheran Plaza 3 101 44.9 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The city's Zoning Code provides for a modifications committee made up of the Planning Director, the Public Works Director, and the Building Director or their designated representative. Whenever a strict interpretation of the Zoning Code, or its application to any specific case or situation, would preclude a reasonable use of property not otherwise allowed under the zoning regulations, the modifications • committee is authorized to modify requirements relating to building setbacks, encroachments, size and location of parking spaces, lot line adjustments, and related matters. The Zoning Code also provides a procedure under which variance from the zoning regulations may be granted whenever the affected property owner shows that practical difficulties, unnecessary hardship, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of the Zoning Code may result from the strict application of zoning regulations to the affected parcel. The requirements of the residential zones are amended through several special designations: * Planned residential development. * Planned community district in mapped coastal bluff Code). * Specific plan districts. (including special requirements areas identified in the zoning 121 * "B" Districts. , * Mobile Home Park Districts. , Planned Residential Development: This procedure allows the development of land of sufficient area to create a better designed development than under customary zoning regulations. Maximum lot coverage is set at 408, and minimum dwelling unit living area is established at 1,000 square feet in R-1 and R-2 ' districts and 600 square feet in R-3 and R-4 districts. Planned Community Districts: This procedure permits the development of large areas under a coordinated plan proposed by the developer. Non-residential and residential land uses may be combined in a single development. The plan may depart from underlying zoning standards as approved by the city on a ' case -by -case basis. Specific Plan Districts: These are area wide plans adopted by , the city, but not with regard to a particular development. Specific plans include development standards which may depart from or augment the underlying zoning. Specific plans have been adopted for Newport Shores and Mariner's Mile. , The Newport Shores specific plan permits single-family and duplex residences outright and multifamily residences subject ' to a use permit. "B" Districts: Where R-1, R-2, R-3 or R-4 districts are , combined with a "B" district, the development standards in Table 82 govern. Mobile Home Park District: These are overlay zones which may be applied to encourage, maintain and protect existing mobile , home park uses. Once applied, this overlay designation cannot be removed unless certain findings are made and a phase -out plan, including relocation assistance and programs to mitigate the housing impacts upon tenants with low and moderate incomes, who are elderly, or who are handicapped, have been approved by the City Council. An important part of zoning review is the city's traffic phasing ordinance, which directly impacts the allowable land uses in the community. The traffic phasing ordinance (TPO) was , adopted by the Council in response to growing community concern over traffic congestion at critical intersections, The TPO provides that each development which qualifies must be analyzed ' to determine which intersections it impacts and the level of impact. If the anticipated generation will produce a level "D" situation at the intersection, or increase traffic flow 1%, mitigation measures must be provided by the developer. The "qualifying" threshold which brings a development under the TPO is 10,000 covered square feet for a commercial or industrial development, or 10 dwelling units for a residential 122 I LI 1 1 1 1 1 subdivision. While the TPO is a rational method of dealing with exacerbation of intersection congestion, it should be reviewed periodically to insure that the trip end generation of the threshold qualifications remain relatively equal. Should an imbalance occur here, it is possible to subject housing to a higher level of scrutiny and possible mitigation than other development forms. Another component of the Zoning Code which impacts allowable land uses is the city's Condominium Conversion ordinance. This ordinance requires, in addition to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, a use permit for conversions. Chapter 20.73 of the Zoning Code specifies that no condominium conversions will be permitted on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet or under market conditions where the multifamily vacancy rate is less than 5%. -Overriding considerations are provided; however, these standards have acted to substantially limit the number of conversions in the city since adoption of the ordinance in 1979. Several affects of this ordinance have been observed within the Newport Beach housing market. * The ordinance acts to preserve concentrations of rental housing in older beach neighborhoods which are developed at higher densities and where infrastructure deficiencies are evident. * To make the rental of duplex housing financially feasible, owners frequently rent units at winter rates to students and at higher summer rates to vacationing households. To afford winter rates, students often "double up", causing overcrowded conditions. Parking demand is' also increased by this type of usage. Thus, beach area rental housing, and especially duplex housing, causes a higher rate of utilization and a greater demand on neighborhood services than owner -occupied housing. 123 Table 82 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN COMBINING "B" DISTRICT COMBINING Building Site Area Lot Width Lot Length Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Maximum Coverage B. COMBINING DESIGNATION B-1: Building Site Area Lot Width Lot Length Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Maximum Coverage COMBINING DESIGNATION B-2: Building Site Area Lot Width Lot Length Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Maximum Coverage COMBINING DESIGNATION B-3: Building Site Area Lot Width Lot Length Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Maximum Coverage MINIMUM SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: 6,000 Square Feet 60 feet ,80 feet 20 feet 6 feet 6 feet 60.percent 7,500 Square Feet 75 feet 90 feet 15 feet 7 feet 7 feet 60 percent 10,000 Square Feet 90 feet 100 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet 60 percent 20,000 Square Feet 100 feet 150 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet 60 percent R-2 R-3 R-4 B 3000 sq.ft. 1500 sq.ft. 1250 sq.ft. B-1 3000 sq.ft. 1500 sq.ft. 1250 sq.ft. B-2 3000 sq.ft. 2000 sq.ft. 1500 sq.ft. B-3 3000 sq.ft. 2000 sq.ft. 1500 sq.ft. Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 124 I The Subdivision Process ' The City of Newport Beach implements the State Subdivision Map Act through a local implementation ordinance. This appears as Title 19 of the City Code, and is titled, "Subdivisions." The basic text of the ordinance was published in January 1974 and revised in 1982. The ' basic provision of the Subdivision Code are similar to most jurisdictions of this size. The Code also contains design standards which provide minimum criteria for development. The standards set forth are not unreasonably restrictive and, as in the case of street width, provide for reductions of standards if appropriate. Such reductions are made at the Planning Commission level, subject to City Council approval based on a demonstration of justification for reasons of topography or the ' number of lots served. Such provisions allow flexibility in the enforcement of the ordinance and potentially reduce development costs. ' In addition to the above -described design standards, the Subdivision Code also addresses "Improvements". This section requires street trees, the undergrounding of utilities, and the use of ornamental street lighting. While such improvement standards may be deemed ' important for quality of life considerations, they are not essential to maintain minimum health and safety requirements and will add to the cost of development. Also included in the Subdivision Code is a provision for the dedication of parkland. The dedication of parkland and/or the provision of in lieu fees is a requisite to the approval of a final subdivision map. In 1983, the City amended its parkland' dedication provisions in response to changes' in State law regarding park dedications; the City's parkland dedication requirements, as amended ' in 1983, are substantially identical to the State statutory framework. Specific provisions of the city's subdivision and design controls which may constrain housing production are described below. Required Street Widths: 'right a) Major Streets or Highways. Minimum -of -way shall be 120 feet; minimum pavement width between curbs, 100 feet. ' b) Primary Streets or Highways. Minimum right-of-way shall be 100 feet; minimum pavement width between curbs, 80 feet. c) Secondary Streets or Highways. Minimum right-of-way shall be 84, feet; minimum pavement width between curbs, 64 feet. ' d) Local Streets. Minimum right-of-way shall be 60 feet; minimum pavement width between curbs, 40 feet. 1 125 I e) Cul-De-Sac Streets and Service Roads. when not over 350 feet in length, the minimum right-of-way shall be 60 feet; minimum pavement width between curbs, 40 feet. f) Two -Level Streets. Minimum right-of-way, 60 feet -- variable according to grade, pavement widths, two sections, each 20 feet curb face to curb face. g) Parkways. Parkways between curbs and sidewalks shall be required and established at a minimum width of 5 feet. Compliance with policies recommended by the Parks, Reaches, and Recreation Department, and adopted by the City Council, pertaining to parkways, shall be required. (1949 Code Section 9254.14 added by Ord. 650; October 8, 1951, as amended by Ord. (35; August 22, 1960.) h) Alleys. Minimum width shall be 20 feet in residential areas. -1 r Park Dedication Standards ' Units/Gross Avg. # of Persons Acreage Per Acre Per Unit Unit ' Up to 6.5 3.75 0.0188 6.6 to 15.5 3.20 0.0160 15.6 to 25.5 2.10 0.0105 25.6+ Formula:- Average # of persons per unit x 5 acres/1000. Example: A developer of a 50-unit garden apartment project with a density of over 25.6 units per acre would be required to dedicate ' 0.475 (about 1/2) acres of parkland. I I 126 1 Type of Park Activity park Community association park View park N v Nature park Bay beach Group Served All Ages All ages All ages School Children through adults All ages Table 83 PARK STANDARDS) Size Six to eight acres. Some existing activity parks are One to three acres One-half to three acres Three to ten acres One to three acres Area Served one-half mile radius. Within walking distance A specific community Entire city depending on size and parking Entire city Local or entire city depending on parking Travel Conditions No primay street crossings None None Location Adjacent to public schools when possible usually within a private or semi -private residential park On a bluff or near the water None In a canyon or. natural area None Adjacent to Bay waters Table 83 (Con`t.) PARK STANDARDS Travel Type of Park Group Served Size Area Served Conditions Location Play lot Ages 2 to 8 City building lot One -Eighth mile No crossing High density of collector areas where streets there is little or no yard space Paseo All Ages Linear - 10 to 50 Community Pedestrian Adjacent to and bicycles arterial, secondary and neighborhood streets Adopted - September 20, 1960 Reaffirmed - August 30, 1966 Reaffirmed - November 12, 1968 Reaffirmed - November 12, 1968 Reaffirmed - March 9, 1970 Reaffirmed - February 14, 1972 Reaffirmed - December 10, 1973 Amended - February 25, 1974 Amended - May 9, 1977 Amended - June 13, 1977* 1. The adopted park standard for Newport Beach is three to five acres per thousand population. Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. I ' Hillside Development Standards ' In order to ensure the preservation of natural topographic features within the city, the following criteria are used a general guidelines in the preparation and review of plans for any development on sloping land or near natural ' bluffs: 1. The proposed development should preserve the natural skyline and the significant topographic features of the site. Particular attention ' should be given to the number and distribution of structures, the design of the street system, and the location of open space. ' 2. The proposed development should protect and retain significant vegetation, particularly mature trees, on the site. 3. The proposed development should retain and create open space and view ' areas. 4. The proposed development should provide public access to view areas and ' other natural features. 5. The grading plan for the proposed development should address variable slope ratios and undulating slopes. 6. The proposed development must conform to all provisions of the Uniform Building Code on excavation and grading, including provisions for ade- ' quate setbacks from steep slopes, natural canyons, and natural bluffs in order to prevent structures from detracting from the visual character of ' these areas and in order to ensure the safety and stability of these areas. 7. The proposed development and grading plan should include specific ' provisions for the control of all surface and subsurface drainage from the site paying particular attention to the quality of water entering the bay and ocean. All on -site water shall drain to public relief areas without crossing private property unless written consent is obtained from ' adjacent owner. 8. The proposed development should retain the natural topography and should minimize successive padding and terracing of building sites. ' Permit Process and Development Fees The city's permit process is not perceived by developers to be a significant ' constraint to the production of housing. Zone change requests can be handled in as little as 60 days if no environmental impact report (EIR) is required. For those rezonings requiring an EIR, up to eight months may elapse until a ' decision is rendered, still well within the one-year time frame set by state law. Conditional use permits and subdivision parcel maps can typically be approved t in seven weeks, again provided that an EIR is not required. Planning Commission decisions on zoning change request, parcel maps, and conditional 1 129 use permits are final unless appealed within 21 days to the City Council or unless the City Council decides itself within 21 days to review the Planning Commission decision. Jurisdiction Newport Beach Costa Mesa Irvine Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Laguna Beach Orange County Table 84 PROCESSING TIME BY JURISDICTION G.P. Change Zone Change Tent Map Final Map 5-6 months 2 months 2 months 6 weeks 3-5 months 2-3 months 4-6 months 1 month 3-6 months 3-6 months 2 months 1 month 3-6 months 3 months 6 weeks 2 weeks 3-4 months 3-4 months 3-6 weeks 2-6 weeks 3-4 months 3-4 months 6 months 6 months 13 months 3-4 months 4 months N/A Sources: The Planning, Community Development, or Environmental Management Departments of the above named jurisdictions. Table 85 A COMPARISON OF PERMIT FEES Jurisdiction Use Permit variance Appeal Fee Newport Beach $640 $640 $240 Costa Mesa $25/comm $50 $25 $12.50/comet $25 Irvine $300 $300 $300 Huntington Beach $302 $247 $165 Fountain Valley $250 $250 $125 Laguna Beach $175 $250 $50 Orange County $560 $310 $115 Sources: The Planning, Community Development, or Environmental Management Departments of the above named jurisdictions. 130 ITable 86 ' NEWPORT BEACH PERMIT'FEES Use Permit $ 640 Variance 640 ' Rezone 1,305 Modification Application 185 Planning Commission Appeal 450 ' ' City Council Appeal 240 Specific Plan Site Review 600 PRD Use Permit 3,020 Amendment 1,305 Community Plan Application 3,020 Amendment 1,305 Tentative Map 1,320 or $45 per lot Resubdivision 330 Offsite Parking Agreement 550 Coastal Residential Development Permit 750 or $250 per unit' Feasibility Study for Coastal Permit 1,000-2,000 Coastal Conceptual Approval 22 Traffic Phasing Study 300 Residential Building Inspection 22 Sign Exception 220 Source: City of Newport Beach Planning.Department, based on annual fee study evaluating actual time and cost for each type of permit. In addition to the above fees, there is a $240 charge for Planning Commission appeals and an EIR fee of 10% of the consulting fee charged to the City. All of the above fees may be waived for projects containing low and moderate income housing in the percentage that such units are provided in the proposed project. The Building Permit Process The Building Department of the city has recently undergone a number of changes in organization and procedures. The Building Department is currently using the following codes: Uniform Building Code 1979 Uniform Housing Code 1976 Uniform Mechanical Code 1973 National Electrical Code 1975 Uniform Plumbing Code 1976 City code requirements exceed State standards in the following respects, all ' of which were determined to be reasonable and relatively inexpensive: 1 131 Building Code - Requires pressure treated wood shingles rather than conventional "shake" to increase fire safety during wind-swept fires caused by "Santa Ana" wind conditions. - Requires spark arrestors on all chimneys to increase fire safety during wind-swept fires caused by "Santa Ana" wind conditions. - Requires erosion control measures during grading to minimize siltation and pollution of Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Plumbing Code - Requires non-combustible drainage, vent and rainwater piping to increase fire safety in densely populated areas. - Requires 1" minimum water piping supply line to provide more volume and overcome low water pressure conditions that exist in Newport Beach. - Requires drip pans under water heaters when a hazard to habitable areas exist. Electrical Code - Requires that aluminum wiring, if used, be a minimum size of #6 AWG, to increase dependability and fire safety. - Requires undergrounding of conductors between structures on same lot to decrease hazard of electrical shock from physical contact. - Requires same minimum wire sizes for garage and carports as main house for fire and safety reasons. - Requires separation of lighting and receptacle circuits for fire safety. - Requires single fusible switch or automatic circuit breaker for fire safety. - Requires additional methods of grounding panels to prevent electrical shock. - Requires continuity of conductors (pigtailing) for fire safety. - Requires that metal clad cable (BX) not be used in new construction for fire safety reasons. - Restricts use of non-metallic sheathed cable as exposed wiring to prevent electrical shock. - Restricts use of thin -walled metallic tubing where exposed to outside air or weather to prevent fire and/or electrical shock. - Restricts use of flexible metal conduit where exposed to outside air or weather to prevent fire and/or electrical shock. 132 - Requires light switches rather than pull chains in closets to prevent electrical shock. - Requires major appliances (garbage disposal, dish washer, washing machine, etc.) to be on separate circuits for fire safety reasons. State Law requires that the most recent edition of the model codes be adopted at this time. The above named codes do not represent the most recent edition ' of the codes and the city is therefore not in compliance with state law. As a part of the current revisions to the departmental procedures, the codes will be updated to the state requirements. The fee schedule of the building department is provided in the 1979 edition of the Uniform Building Code. This schedule is well accepted throughout the state and is generally believed to put a department or a "break even" basis with regard to revenues and expenditures. STATE LEGISLATURE CONSTRAINTS In recent years, the State Legislature has enacted numerous laws relating to land use planning and development. While these statutes serve a variety of laudatory social goals, they frequently require inconsistent local implementation activities, inhibit local discretion and flexibility in residential planning, and serve as constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing for all income levels. An example is the State requirements regarding General Plans. In addition to a housing element, Newport Beach and other localities must also adopt elements relating, to circulation, noise and seismic safety, to name a few. In its Noise Element, the city is required, among other things, to set forth mitigating measures and possible solutions to existing and foreseeable noise problems; given that the Orange County Airport flight path is over much of Newport Beach, and because a number of major roadways providing beach access run through the city, the city's required programs to mitigate the noise impacts from these factors necessarily constrains the development of housing adjacent to . major thoroughfares and under the airport flight path. Likewise, the State mandated open space element, which must contain programs to conserve and preserve open space within Newport Beach, constrains housing development. Thus, while State mandated general plan elements serve important goals, they simultaneously III impact upon the delivery of housing within Newport Beach. Other State legislation restricts the city's discretion to plan the physical development within its boundaries. For example, State law mandates that the Newport Beach General Plan be consistent with an airport land use plan for airports adjacent to the city. Modification of the city's general plan to achieve consistency with airport land use policies necessarily restricts the city's discretion and flexibility in planning residential as well as non-residential development. Public hearing requirements can also serve as a State legislative constraint to housing. State law mandates that public hearings be held prior to the approval of any land use entitlement, including general plan amendments, rezonings, tentative subdivisions, use permits and variances. while public hearings serve the important governmental purpose of permitting interested 1 133 persons the opportunity to voice their concerns and objections to proposed projects, public participation can both delay project approvals and result in project modifications. General plan amendments and planned community district regulations for the Beeco and North Ford parcels were modified and delayed as a result of citizen input received in the numerous public hearings which preceded these project approvals in 1982 and 1983, respectively. In addition, public hearings conducted on controversial projects often tend to politicize the planning process. Consequently, while State mandated public hearings on land use development proposals represent an important and tangible part of the local democratic process, they too have an impact upon the delivery of housing. While numerous State statutes serve as governmental constraints, the legislation which has had the greatest impact upon housing and land use in Newport Beach relate to environmental quality and coastal policies. THE CEQA PROCESS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970, and requires governmental agencies which propose to approve projects to undertake an analysis of the environmental impacts resulting from that project. California courts have interpreted CEQA to mean that virtually all land use and housing actions and regulations are projects which require environmental analysis prior to their approval by the governmental agency. This environmental review must describe the project and the resources affected by the project, including physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, health and safety problems caused by the proposed physical changes, changes in population distribution and concentration resulting from the project, and impacts upon other aspects of the resources, such as water, scenic quality and public services. Where significant and detrimental impacts are discovered in the environmental review process, measures must be proposed to mitigate them. Under certain circumstances, where detrimental impacts cannot be mitigated, the governmental agency must, if it wishes to approve the project, adopt a statement of overriding considerations to justify the project approval in light of the known environmental impacts. The CEQA process undeniably preserves environmental resources by requiring all governmental agencies approving projects to weigh environmental concerns and sensitivities, and to consider project modifications which result in a lesser impact upon the environment. However, this environmental reporting and review process is not without cost, both in terms of time and money. The CEQA process can be a lengthy one, and project delays can increase costs to developers. Likewise, the financial best to prepare the environmental documentation necessary to satisfy CEQA can be quite high, and traditionally is borne by the project applicant. The CEQA process particularly affects Newport Beach, due to the rich natural resources in the area. Concern for the protection of natural resources within Newport Beach has in the past required, and will continue to require, modifications to the intensity of residential development and the design of projects in the city. Environmental issues which generally affect residential development in Newport Beach include: 134 i U i i e i i 11 I 11 u I li 11 i - Sediment flows into the Upper Newport Bay, usually due to the denuding of development sites as natural ground covers are removed. - Water pollution resulting from surface runoffs from subdivision streets, which waters flow into the Upper Newport Bay. - Preservation of riparian habitats and archeological sites, and protection of endangered species of flora' and fauna, on portions of many of the undeveloped parcels of vacant land in the city. - Preservation of ocean views, which may require the limitation of building heights on specific areas. - Reduction of air pollution caused in large part by traffic congestion on arterial streets and major roadways during the summer and holiday periods. It should be noted that the city's environmental review process is responsive and well coordinated, and meets CEQA requirements. The review of this environmental reporting process for purposes of the preparation of this element illustrates that it is not excessive or overly restrictive, at least in terms of what is required by State law. COASTAL ACT REQUIREMENTS Another governmental constraint to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing in Newport Beach is the California Coastal Act of 1976. The basic goals of this State legislation are to protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment; to assure orderly and balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources; to maximize public access and public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone; and to assure priority for coastal -dependent and coastal -related development over other development in the coastal zone. Approximately 3800 of the 10,000 acres of land within Newport Beach (or almost 40% of the City's land area) is within the coastal zone and subject to the California Coastal Act of 1976. The California Coastal Act of'1976 requires each municipality to prepare a Local Coastal Program, including a land use plan, for those areas of the City which are within the coastal zone, for submission to and certification by the California Coastal Commission. The Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program was adopted by the City on April 23, 1981, and certified by the California Coastal Commission on May 19, 1982. The Land Use Plan sets forth sensitive habitat areas and unique coastal resources, new development of visitor serving facilities and coastal dependent uses, and land use designations for residential, commercial, public (including semi-public and institutional), and industrial uses within the coastal zone.• The Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program sets forth detailed regulations regarding the development of coastal bluffs, of areas where archeological, paleontological and historical resources are located, and areas affording coastal views, as well as policies which promote visitor serving and coastal dependent uses over all other uses within the coastal zone; these regulations and policies are binding upon the city. By its adoption by the City and certification by the California Coastal Commission, the land use plan of the 135 Newport Beach Local Coastal Program establishes land use designation for vacant sites within Newport Beach, as follows: Table 87 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR VACANT LOTS WITHIN NEWPORT BEACH Site Acres LCP Land Use Desiqnation Westbay 65 Approximately 40 acres of this site are designated for a mixture of low density residential (4 du/buildable acre) and Recreational and Environmental Open Space, with 75% of the units to be transferred to Newport Center; any development must protect environmentally sensitive areas. The remainder of the site, including a 6.4 acre dedicated park site, a 6 acre County -owned flood control parcel, and bluff -top easements, is designated Recreational and Environmental open Space. Eastbluff Remnant 8 Open Space (Low Density Residential, at 4 du/buildable acre, all units to be transferred to Newport Center). Newporter North 88 Low Density Residential (4 du/buildable acre), with 25% of the allowable units to be transferred to either Newport Center or North Ford. Structures must be clustered to accommodate archeological and marsh sites, and environmentally sensitive areas must be buffered and protected, Castaways 65 Retail and Service Commercial on five acres; low density residential, at 4 du/buildable acre, on 60 acres; any development must be designed and sited to protect and buffer environmentally sensitive areas. Cal Trans East 25 Recreational and Environmental Open Space (Permitting expansion of Hoag Hospital facilities). Bayview Landing 19 Recreational and Environmental Open Space and Retail and Service Commercial. Mouth of Big Canyon 48.5 Recreational and Environmental open Space. Jamboree and MacArthur 2 Governmental, Educational and Institu- tional Facilities (public works reserve). 136 I IBuck Gully/Morning Canyon 49.07 I I li I It It 11 I Recreational and Environmental Open Space (to be preserved in a natural state). Coast Highway/Jamboree 12 Recreational and Marine Commercial (office use may be permitted). Source: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Given that the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program has been certified, the above land use designations may not be modified without the approval of the California Coastal Commission. Consequently, the City does not have complete authority to redesignate land uses on the 393 acres of vacant land described above. In 1981, the California Legislature enacted S.B. 626 '(Mello), which added Government Code Section 65590, eliminating certain provisions of the California Coastal Act which had required local coastal programs to include housing policies and programs; Section 65590 further mandates that coastal communities require both the inclusion of low and moderate income housing as part of new residential developments, and the replacement of low and moderate income housing eliminated as a result of the demolition of existing housing, within the coastal zones of those communities. On August 19, 1982, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Council Policy P-1, establishing administrative guidelines and implementation procedures to administer Section 65590 within the coastal zone areas of the City. Council Policy P-1 was subsequently amended on September 12, 1983. Under Council Policy P-1, any person seeking to construct a housing project within the coastal areas of Newport Beach must, where feasible, provide and maintain a portion of the project units as affordable to low and moderate income families for a period of at least 10 years. In addition, any person seeking to demolish or convert structures containing three or more dwelling units must provide and maintain replacement housing units for low and moderate income families for a period of at least 10 years if the demolished units are located in the coastal zone and are, or within the preceding twelve months have been, providing housing to low and moderate income persons, whenever feasible, new and replacement affordable units must be constructed on -site; alternatively, the affordable units may be constructed off -site and within three miles of the coastal zone, but within the boundaries of Newport Beach. Pursuant to Council Policy P-1, the construction, demolition or conversion of housing within the coastal zone may be accomplished only after the City issues a Coastal Residential Development Permit to the developer. During the period from January 1, 1982, through April' 1, 1984, four new housing developments were approved by the City under Council Policy P-1 for construction within the coastal zone. Of the 215 housing units within these developments, 33 units were required to be developed and maintained as housing affordable to low and moderate income persons pursuant to Section 65590 and Council Policy P-1. During this same period, the City permitted landowners to demolish two housing projects within the coastal zone. Of the 13 units demolished, five were occupied by low and moderate income persons. In so doing, however, the City required the developers and landowners to provide two units of replacement housing for low and moderate income persons; of the two 1 137 I housing units required as replacement units, both were required to be provided on the original site as redevelopment occurred. A total of 24 housing units were approved for construction on the redeveloped sites. Thus, in this 28 month period, the city approved the construction of 239 units in new housing developments in the coastal zone, for a total net increase of 226 dwelling units, and net increase of 30 affordable to low and moderate income families. I I I I I i I I I I I 138 T IV. HOUSING PROGRAM/STRATEGY In earlier sections of this element, the major characteristics of the Newport Beach housing market were identified, as were the principal constraints which interfere with the ability of the housing industry to respond to the housing demand and needs of Newport's population. Earlier discussions also centered upon unmet housing needs, as well as the powers and limitations of the city with respect to influencing the provision of housing. A summary of the principal findings of earlier chapters is provided below: Community Housing Market Analysis Because of a strong employment base, well -planned residential neighborhoods, and an attractive coastal environment, Newport Beach is a community of intense demand for housing. There is inadequate supply, however, to satisfy that demand. As a result, housing costs are among the highest of any area in California. There are also significant demographic factors which shape the Newport Beach housing market. Specifically, household sizes have decreased; the population of 65 years of age and older remains high; and a substantial increase is occurring within the 18-34 year old population category. In recent years, the housing production industry has responded to these household characteristics by marketing a higher proportion of multi -family units than is developed on a countywide or statewide basis. Although housing costs are high in Newport Beach, incomes are also high for a large segment of the population. This fact, coupled with other indices, seems to suggest that housing affordability is being handled reasonably well by existing homeowners, low-income tenants who share housing expenses, and market rate households willing to allocate 30-35% of their incomes for housing. The greatest difficulty with regard to housing affordability is among new entrants to the ranks of homeownership and very low-income households, generally. Housing Needs Assessment As of 1983, the housing supply affordable to households in the low - and moderate -income categories has been and is currently sufficient to meet city demand. However, there is a slight deficiency of 145 housing units affordable to very low-income residents and a sizable shortage of 958 units in the upper income group. By 1989, 302 new units will be needed in the very low-income group, 254 new units in the low-income group, 306 new units in the moderate -income group and 958 new units in the upper income group. Renters paying more than 25%"of their income for housing constituted 54.5% of all renters while 35.2% of all renters paid over 35% of their income for housing. Homeowners paying over 25% of their income for housing constituted 34.7% of all owners while 22.7% of all owners paid over 35% of their income for housing. 139 Household at or below 80% of County median income paying more than 30% of their income for housing totaled 3,924. Of these households 2,325 were below 50% of the County median household income and 11599 were between 50% and 80% of the County income. Of the original 3,924 households, 760 were owners and 3,164 were renters. The 3,164 renter households were divided into 1,835 very low-income households, below 50% of County median household income, and 1,329 low-income households, between 50% and 803 of the County income. Of the 760 homeowners, 490 were very low-income and 270 were low-income. Approximately 320 of the nearly 32,000 housing units in the City were substandard. only three areas of the City contain slight concentrations of substandard housing. Five and one -tenth percent of all housing units on Balboa Peninsula were in substandard condition, while 2.5% and 2.6% of all units on Balboa island and in Newport Heights (Statistical Area H) respectively, were in substandard condition. Governmental and Market Constraints There are five principal factors which impede the ability of the city and the housing industry to satisfy identified housing needs. They are as follows: 1. Land Availability It is estimated that there are only 152.48 acres of buildable, residentially -zoned land in Newport Beach (this does not include land currently being developed or being processed for development). All vacant, non -committed gross acreage totals 305 acres, or 3.4% of the total acreage in the City. in effect, Newport Beach is rapidly approaching its residential land development capacity ("build -out"). 2. Housing Finance The economy, in general, and the housing finance sector, in particular, are experiencing substantial disruptions. A high rate of inflation, confusion about mortgage instrumentsr a shortage of mortgage capital, and high interest rates are the conditions which characterize the housing market over the past three years. With the deregulations of financial institutions and the increasing use of mortgage -backed bonds, capital for home loans should be available to meet the demand for such loans, but at continued high interest rates. 3. Fiscal Considerations As the number of households that are unable to participate in the housing market without governmental assistance increases, the amount of public resources available to assist those in heed is on the decline. At 140 I the federal level, budget cuts have curtailed federal expenditures for housing assistance programs. At the state level, few forms of assistance are available, and those which are on the books are burdened with program deterrents and fiscal limitations. Local tax-exempt bond financing should be available through 1988. At the local level, the effects of the 1978-79 tax revolt in California are evidencing themselves, as local jurisdictions, including Newport Beach, weigh which programs to eliminate; new programs, however worthy, cannot be undertaken in such a fiscal atmosphere. 4. Land Costs The cost of land in Newport Beach is extremely high. On two recent projects, land costs ranged from $62,500 to $202,500 per unit, with an average of $87,800 per unit. The cost of land becomes a very significant component of development expenses, and reduces the developer's flexibility in producing all housing product types. 5. Environmental Considerations The proximity of Newport Beach to the beach and the upper and Lower Bays causes environmental considerations to emerge. The location of the city - surrounding 1,216 acres of bay and bordering 6.1 miles of ocean beaches - makes it a popular recreational site for tourism, which increases traffic congestion in the area as well as the regional demand for recreational and commercial facilities. The coastal access issue and concern for preservation of the coastal environment, including wetlands, riparian areas, and archaeological sites, limits the extent to which housing can be produced. Therefore, major increases in residential densities are not housing development alternatives available to the city. Additional discussion of environmental constraints is provided in the Environmental Constraints Section of Part III of this document. Housing Goals, Policies and Objectives The city's goals for housing are formulated around a two -fold purpose. First, the physical and visual character of the city's residential neighborhoods are the key to the provision of a quality living environment. Therefore, one city goal is: 1. To promote quality residential development through the application of sound planning principles, and through policies which encourage preservation, conservation, and appropriate redevelopment of the housing stock. 141 I Secondly, the city's housing stock must provide for the housing needs of all present and future residents of the city. Market forces have increasingly identified Newport Beach as an upper -income housing market. Therefore, it is a city goal to encourage diversity in the housing stock, through development of all types and designs of housing for all economic segments of the community, and through the preservation of the housing stock, where appropriate, to serve an economically diverse community. In this regard, city goals are: 2. To provide a balanced community, with a variety of housing types and designs and housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community: very low- and low- income as well as moderate- and upper -income households. 3. To extend ownership opportunities to as many households as possible, particularly those of moderate and upper incomes. This is where the greatest demand is projected, 4. To preserve and increase affordability: through rental housing, for very low- and low- income households. The four basic policies which describe the city's role in the attainment of these goals are as follows. The city's role will include: 1. Enabling private industry to function more effectively, as a result of constraints being eliminated, Wherever feasible, and allowable density being increased. 2. Providing governmental cooperation and leadership to assist the industry in producing a variety of product types and uses that are most responsive to the emerging demography of the community. 3. Providing incentives and direct assistance to industry, within the limitations of available resources, to facilitate the provision of housing for very low-, low- and moderate -income households. 4. Providing incentives and direct assistance to property owners, within the limitations of available resources, to facilitate the rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. Program Objectives The city acknowledges its responsibility to adopt a housing element consisting of "standards and plans for the improvement of housing and for provision of adequate sites for housing." In addition, the city recognizes that its housing element must "make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community" (Section 65302(c) of the Government Code), it is within the context of this general mandate, and the community assessments which have been discussed previously, that the following housing , program objectives are adopted responsibilities are assigned for implementing those objectives and target dates are established for undertaking the various activities outlined. 142 1 A. objective 1: To promote and facilitate the improved capability of the private housing industry to produce and provide housing for the population of the city. 1. Finding: The production and provision of housing is primarily a private sector activity. Although government has a significant effect on certain aspects of the housing delivery system, there are definite limitations on the positive contributions which government can make in this field. in fact, the contention has often been made that government has a greater capability to negatively influence the housing market than to do otherwise; this results essentially from its regulatory powers affecting land use and development review. Various segments of the community have acknowledged that the housing market has entered a difficult period of readjustment, and that one of the components of the housing delivery system which will require continuing assessment and revision is the role of city government in the housing market, consequently, it is apparent that a device must be established to better enable the city to monitor activities of the housing market, and to be responsive to the need for governmental actions which will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of that market. 2. Implementation Plan: The Advance Planning Administrator is assigned the responsibility of continually monitoring the housing delivery system. The primary approach to be utilized shall involve this staff member maintaining liaison with major segments of the housing industry - developers, realtors, and lenders, for example - and when appropriate submitting a housing report to the City Council outlining the basic needs of the industry, and recommending actions to be taken by the city to assist the industry in meeting its objectives. This staff member shall also attend initial conferences with developers prior to the formal submission of residential development proposals, in order to explain local and state planning regulations which may impact on the proposed development; during this initial conference, the staff member will work with the developer to increase the efficiency of the review process with respect to that development proposal. 3. Target Dates: Housing reports regarding proposed residential projects shall be submitted to the City Council when appropriate. Project proposal conferences shall be held as residential development proposals are brought to the attention of the Planning Department. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: City Advance Planning Administrator. B. Objective 2: To participate in an energy assistance grant program to encourage owners of rental property to install energy conservation 1 devices. 1 143 I 1. Finding: Energy costs represent a substantial and growing percent of the total housing cost for renters. Most older units have few or no energy conservation devises. Monthly energy costs for a two -bedroom apartment can be $60 or more. If owners of rental property could be encouraged to install energy conservation devices, the resulting savings to renters could substantially increase the affordability of housing in Newport Beach. 2. Implementation Plan: The City of Newport Beach will seek to participate in the California Energy Commission's energy technical assistance program either through a direct application or through a local "umbrella" group that will conduct energy conservation seminars. This program is oriented toward the smaller owners of rental property (10 units or fewer or 5 units or fewer per property) and seeks to assist property owners in identifying and arranging sources of financing for energy conservation measures. It is anticipated that the assistance would be in the form of an energy -consultant type of service. The City would also work to monitor the level of energy savings resulting from the program's conservation measures. 3. Time Frame: Within 60 days of the adoption of this element the City shall prepare an application or work with an existing group that has received a grant for this program. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: Planning Department. 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 I I I 144 I I I I1 I 11 It 11 Ll I1 Il 11 11 IT I 1 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 and design, not rates of development. 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. Since the adoption of the Housing Element as General Plan Amendment 81-1(H) on September 28, 1981, the Planning Commission and City Council have held General Plan Housing Element Implementation hearings which have resulted in the approval of the following Land Use Element amendments and rezonings (through the adoption or amendment of Planned Community District texts), with respect to residential densities: 145 General Plan Amendment 81-1 81-2 81-2 82-1 82-2(b) 83-1(e) Table 88 PARCELS WITH INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Prior Approved Adoption Resid. Resid. Zoning Adoption Date Parcel Density Density Increase Entitlement Date 03/12/82 Mobil/ 226 406 +180 Ord.# 03/12/82 Armstrong 82-03 05/09/83 Cal 0 152 +152 Ord. # 05/09/83 Trans West 83-20 05/09/83 Fwy. Rev. W. 0 80 + 80 Reso.# 03/26/84 -- Big Canyon 84-23 84-23 Area #16 10/24/83 North Ford/ 120 888 +768 Ord.# 10/24/83 San Diego 83-25 - Creek So. 10/24/83 Aero. Ford 33 168 +135 Reso.# 10/24/83 Area #8 93-110 Belcourt 10/24/83 Newport 704 1,132 +428 Ord.# 10/24/83 Center 83-27 TOTAL: 11083 2,826 +1,743 Source: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department. II li 146 [J II is li Id I 11 li IT U li li li I 1_] The City has also rezoned the "West Newport Triangle" area consistent with the land use designation adopted by General Plan Amendment 80-2. G.P.A. 80-2, which was adopted on September 22, 1980, 'increased the allowable residential density within the West Newport Triangle from 15 to 20 dwelling units per acre. On April 11, 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 83-19, rezoning the West Newport Triangle to 20 units per acre, consistent with G.P.A. 80-2. Given the fact that the vast majority of developed land within Newport Beach is either developed or committed to development, one way in which the City can actively encourage and facilitate the development of additional residential supply uses' is by permitting new housing uses on lots where housing units already exist. The concept has been recognized by the California Legislature in the enactment of Government Code Section 65852.2, authorizing "second units" under certain circumstances in residentially designated zones. Older beach areas of the City were zoned, subdivided and developed prior to the adoption of the Newport Beach General Plan. These older areas of the community, which have been developed at the City's highest residential densities, represent a major source of rental housing in Newport Beach and provide a significant supply of housing affordable to low and moderate income families. There are many underdeveloped areas in the City where the General Plan and Zoning (R-2, R-3, R-4) permit residential densities in the range of 36 to 54 du's per buildable acre. 2. Implementation Plan: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of this objective: a. The City shall maintain an inventory of undeveloped sites identified as adequate sites which have been made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels. Currently, this inventory is comprised of the following sites: Ii 147 Table 89 UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL SITES INVENTORY Estimated General Approved Site Area Buildable Plan/Zoning Resid. Parcel (Acres) Acreage Designation Density Miscellaneous Westbay 65.0 33.84 Mixed: Low 40 Environmental, Den.j Rec. coastal, archeo- and Enviro, logicalp and Op. Sp./P-C noise constraints Newporter 88.0 58.24 Low Den- 212 Environmental North sity/P-C (est.) coastal, arche- ological, and noise constraints Castaways 60.0 34.8 Low Den- 151 Environmental, (resid.) sity/P-C (est.) coastal, paleo- tological, and noise constraints Fwy. Rsv. W. 10.9 8.7 Medium Den- 80 8 Low and Mod. -- Big Canyon city/P-C income units Area #16 Cal Trans 13.6 10.16 Multiple 152 45 Low and West Family/P-C Mod. income units Mobil/ 45.2 28.0 Multiple 406 Low and Mod. Armstrong Family/ income units (resid.) P-C to be determined at subdivision stage (41 estimated) North Ford/ 79 65.57 Multiple 888 222 Low & Mod. San Diego Family/P-C income units Creek So. (resid.) Newport 37.9 28.2 Low Den- 933 150 Low and Mod. Center sity and income units Multiple Family/P-C TOTAL: 399.6 267.51 21862 Source: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 148 b. The City of Newport Beach shall conduct General Plan Amendment Hearings and/or rezoning hearings to consider increased residential densities on the following sites: Table 90 RESIDENTIAL SITES FOR INCREASED DENSITY CONSIDERATION Estimated Site Area Buildable General Plan/Zoning Parcel (Acres) Acreage Designation Fifth Ave. 13.2 10.0 Low Density Parcel Residential/R-1-B Marguerite 9.6 6.8 Low Density Parcel Residential/R-1-B Fifth & 6.4 5.64 Low Density MacArthur Residential/P-C TOTAL 29.2 22.44 source: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The hearings shall be conducted in conformance with the Planning and Zoning Law, California Government Code Section 65356.1. Necessary environmental documentation shall also be prepared, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. c. The Planning Commission shall continue to conduct public hearings to determine which if any of ,the remaining non -committed sites will be appropriate for increased levels of allowable density without engendering adverse environmental, infrastructural and related conditions. d. The City shall utilize Government Code Section 65852.2 to govern the construction of "second units." Planning Department staff shall monitor "second unit" activity and report its findings to the City Council. Based on these findings, the Planning Department shall make recommendations, regarding the regulation of "second units." 3. Target Date: a. Ongoing. b. The General Plan Amendment hearings identified in 2b shall be conducted by January 1, 1985. c. Public hearings shall be conducted within nine months after the completion of the General Plan Amendment hearings 149 I described in 2b above, and recommendations for further action shall be submitted to the City Council within six months after the completion of the public hearings. d. The first report shall be completed for the May 14, 1984 Council Meeting. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: a. Planning Departments City Council. b. Planning Commissions City Council. ` Planning Commission. d. Planning Department; City Council. 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 basis 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 to encourage such patterns, as a policy matter, when it is feasible to do so. The City has a Commercial - Residential Zoning District (Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 20.33) which provides for a mixture of commercial and residential uses. This Zoning District is utilized on small parcels in appropriate locations throughout the community. The General Plan and the Planned Community zone (Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 20.81) are used on larger parcels to accomplish mixed use development. I 150 1 One example of balancing residential and non-residential uses on the same site is Newport Center; existing residential units and land use approvals permit the development of 1,132 residential units in Newport Center, together with office, commercial, theater and cultural uses, within the Newport Center complex. The City also encouraged mixed use development on the Beeco site in West Newport Beach. Subsequent to the adoption of the housing element as General Plan Amendment 81-1(H), the City amended the Land Use density Element designation for this 75 acre parcel from low residential (226 dwelling units) to a mix of medium density residential (406 dwelling units), industrial and office uses. 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. 1 3. Time Frame: Ongoing. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: Planning Department. E. Objective 5: To achieve an appropriate balance between employment and housing. 1. Finding: Employment population and housing supply are the principal factors to be considered in assessing the growth of Newport Beach. These factors are interrelated; they influence each other as well as the overall character and magnitude of growth in Newport Beach. Orange County experienced phenomenal growth in employment during much of the 19701s. Newport Beach was a leader in the county's emergence as a major employment market. Employment development proceeded, however, with little attention being 'given to its relationship to and impact upon housing supply and affordability. The lack of attention to the correlation between employment and housing is the principal factor creating the jobs/housing imbalance that characterizes certain regions of California. The imbalance in Newport. Beach is not only one of an absolute shortage of housing, it is also an imbalance in terms of the existing housing supply and its price accessibility to the labor force. The clear lesson to be learned is that local governments must more properly plan for housing. While it should not be the city's objective to slow the economic growth of the region, it is important that such growth be placed in a rational planning context and, that housing needs be a major part of that context. Housing impact should be a fundamental city concern regarding major proposed commercial/industrial projects. 1, ` L] 1 151 Two land use approvals granted by the City subsequent to the adoption of the housing element as General Plan Amendment 81-1(H) illustrate recent efforts to achieve an appropriate balance between employment and housing. By the adoption of the General Plan Amendment 82-1. the City increased the allowable residential development on the North Ford site from 120 to 888 units, of which at least 222 units must be affordable to households of low and moderate income. The increased residential density on the North Ford site is expected to provide housing opportunities for employees in the office, commercial and industrial areas adjacent to the North Ford site. Likewise, by the adoption of General Plan Amendment 83-1(e)i the City increased the allowable residential development within Newport Center from 704 to 1,132 units of which 150 units of the additional 428 units must be affordable to low and moderate income households. These units are expected to provide housing opportunities for a variety of employees who work in the office and commercial facilities within the Newport Center complex. 2. Implementation Plan: The Planning Commission and the developer of proposed major commercial/industrial projects shall assess the housing impact of such projects during the development review process. Prior to project approval, a housing impact assessment shall be developed by the City, with the developer's active involvement. Such assessment shall indicate the magnitude of jobs to be created by the project, where housing opportunities are expected to be available, and what measures - public and private - are necessary, if any, to ensure an adequate supply of housing for the projected labor force of the project. 3. Time Frame: Ongoing. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: Planning Commission. F. Objective 6: To encourage the housing development industry to respond to the housing needs of the community as well as the demand for housing as perceived by the industry. Finding: While the concept of "community planning" implies a governmental role in land development decision -making, the basic decisions about housing have traditionally been considered the exclusive province of private industry. The role of local government has been viewed as one of protecting the environment and ensuring compliance with community development standards. The typical expression of this role is to "preserve the character of the community." it is obviously the responsibility of the city to perform the functions described above. The city recognizes, however, that "preserving the character of the community," in a strict sense, may result in a development posture that resists change and responsiveness to emerging situations. The city seeks to avoid a planning process that is static and inflexible to changing needs and market demand. 152 The city hereby acknowledges its responsibility to actively participate with the housing industry in determining the type of development which is most appropriate for the community. This approach, often called "negotiated development", has the potential to yield housing products and prices that respond to community needs, instead of solely demand. "Negotiated development" should be used judiciously, however; it should not unreasonably prolong the development review process and it should not superimpose the local government perception of need unreasonably on private industry. "Negotiated development" is not to be confused with "inclusionary housing". Negotiated development does not mandate a fixed product mix for all residential projects, but rather, includes a negotiation stage within the development review process. Negotiated development gives the City discretion in suggesting when and where low- and moderate -income housing is desirable. During negotiations, the city's housing goals are presented, and development incentives are offered. Since the City can not require production of any project that is not financially feasible, the developer determines whether or not the city's low - and moderate -income housing requirements and incentives will result in a ,financially feasible project. If the developer provides the City with sufficient information showing that the project is not financially feasible, negotiations are continued until an acceptable project is proposed. The city may elect to transfer low- and moderate -income units to other sites. The process of negotiation and site transfer is particularly amenable• in Newport Beach because most vacant residential sites are held by one landowner. Since the adoption of the General Plan Amendment 81-1(H) on September 28, 1981, the City has engaged in negotiated development with landowners requesting Land Use Element amendments, subdivision approvals, and/or rezonings to increase allowable residential density on their properties. The result of negotiated development on these projects is set forth as follows: 153 Table 91 IOW AND MODERATE INCOME RESIDENTIAL PARCELS Prior Land Use Resid. Entitle - Parcel Density went Mobil/ 226 GPA 81-1 Armstrong Fwy. Resv. W. 0 -- Big Canyon Area #16 Cal Trans West 0 Aero. Ford 33 Area #8 -- Belcourt North Ford 120 Newport 704 Center Allred 0 Morgan -- Sea- 0 shore Townhomes Big Canyon 32 Area #10 Wale 7 Morning Cnyn. Rd. 6 Gfeller -- 0 Carnation School Project Apprvd. Resid. Date Density Incrse. 03/12/82 406 +180 GPA 81-2 05/09/83 GPA 81-2 05/09/83 GPA 82-2(b) 10/24/83 GPA 82-1 10/24/83 GPA 83-1(e) 10/24/83 Tr 11935 Tr 11906 O6/13/83 O6/27/83 Tr 10814 12/12/83 Tr 12035 01/23/84 Tr 12709 02/13/84 GPA 83-2(a) 03/12/84 80 +80 152 +152 168 +135 888 +768 1132 +428 50 +50 17 +17 21 --- 10 +3 14 +8 41 +41 TOTAL: 1,128 2,979 +1,872 Source: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 154 Low & Mod $ LOW Income and Units Mod. 41(est) 20 8 11 45 30 i 33 20 222 25 150 13 5 10 2 12 2 10 1 10 1 7 4 SO 514 17% I I I LJ 2. Implementation Plan: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of this objective. a. The City of Newport Beach shall take all feasible actions, through the use of development agreements, expedited review of subdivision approvals, and expedited processing of grading, building and other development permits, to encourage the construction and occupancy, at the earliest practicable opportunity, of the low and moderate income housing units approved for development on Cal Trans West, Big Canyon - Area 16, North Ford, Belcourt, Newport Center, Allred, Morgan, Wale, Morning Canyon, Gfeller and all other projects upon which low and moderate income units are approved pursuant to this Objective 6. b. Given the considerations of proper general planning, the California Environmental Quality Act, project location, size, incentives, and government financial assistance, the Planning Commission, in proposed developments of 10 or more units, shall continue to allocate, where feasible, at least 10% of the annual production to housing affordable to City and County low and moderate income households. Through the negotiated development process at least 10 - 51% of the total units in a residential project shall be affordable to low and moderate income households, either on or off site. The percentage of low and moderate income units and their proportionate mix within a development shall be determined by project location, size, incentives, and government financial assistance. These units may be rental or ownership at the option of the property owner/developer. Depending on project location, size, incentives, and government financial assistance the City may also make requirements for residential units above the moderate income level to ensure that housing is being provided for all income levels. Affordable shall mean that the rental expense, contract rent, or the ownership expense including principal, interest, taxes, insurance, utilities and homeowners dues less income tax savings shall not exceed 30% of gross income for the very low- and low-income groups, 33% for the moderate -income group and at market rates for the upper -income group. The maximum allowable rent or selling price (on an ownership units) established by the following standards, assumes a three bedroom unit. These maximums will be adjusted downward by 5% in the case of a two bedroom unit, and 10% in the case of a one bedroom unit. For purposes of defining income groups, the following percentages shall be applied to the prevailing City or County median family income. 155 Very low income group - 0 - 50% of Median family income Low income group - 50 - 80% of Median family income Moderate income group - 80 - 120% of Median family income Upper income group - 120% + of Median family income To the extent feasible, these units shall be allocated in accordance with the following criteria: (1) Residential developments with development incentives and without government financial assistance that provide low - and moderate -income rental units shall provide 10 - 30% of the total project units in the following proportions for a minimum of ten years. 70 - 100% affordable to City low income 0 - 30% affordable to County low income (2) Residential developments assisted with tax exempt mortgage revenue bond financing that provide low- and moderate -income rental units shall provide 20 - 30% of the total project units in the following proportions for a minimum of ten years or the term required by the Bond program whichever is greater. Low- and moderate income units in excess of 20% shall be required only when development incentives are granted. 70 - 100% affordable to County low income 0 - 30% affordable to City very low income if the City very low income standard exceeds the County low-income standard, 100% of the low and moderate income units shall be affordable to County low-income. (3) Residential developments assisted with CDBG funds that provide low- and moderate -income rental units shall provide at least 51% of the total project units in the following proportions for a minimum of ten years. Additional development incentives may be provided in addition to the CDBG funds. 70 - 100% affordable to County low income 0 - 30% affordable to City very low income if the City very low income standard exceeds the County low-income standard, 100% of the low and moderate income units shall be affordable to County low-income. 156 I'l I1 It II U I I In addition, a portion of these units shall be required to meet section 8 income limits in order to satisfy the City CDBG Housing Assistance Plan goals. The number of "HAP" units shall be determined by the proportion of CDBG funds expended on the project. (4) Residential developments with development incentives and without government financial assistance that provide low - and moderate -income ownership units shall provide 10% - 30% of the total project units in the following proportion for a minimum of ten years. 20 - 60% affordable to City Moderate income 40% affordable to City Median income 0 - 40% affordable to County Median income (5) Residential developments assisted with tax exempt mortgage revenue bond financing that provide low- and moderate -income ownership units shall provide 20% - 30% of the total project units in the following proportions for a minimum of ten years or the term* required by the Bond Program, which ever is greater. Low and moderate income units in excess of 20% shall be required only when development incentives are granted. 0 - 33% affordable to City moderate income 67 - 100% affordable to County moderate income if the City very low income standard exceeds the County low income standard, 100% of the low and moderate income units shall be affordable to County low income. (6) Residential developments assisted with CDBG funds that provide low- and moderate -income ownership units shall . provide at least 51% of the total project units in the following proportions for a minimum of ten years. Additional development incentives may be provided in addition to the CDBG funds. 100% affordable to County low income c. In projects where government funding is not available or acceptable to the developer, and planning considerations and/or physical constraints do not permit sufficient incentives to achieve low- and moderate -income units as described in bl through b6, up to 10% of the total project units may be required as City low- and moderate -income units. 3. Time Frame: a. Program 6a: On -going. I 157 b. Program 6b: On -going. c. Program 6c: On -going. A. Responsible Official/Agency: a. City Council; Planning Department. b. Planning Commission. c. Planning Commission. Objective 7: To promote and assist in the development of housing for low and moderate income households. 1. Finding: For a variety of reasons, the private housing market does not provide an adequate choice of affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. Such opportunities are not available in the supply of new housing construction, and they are becoming increasingly less available as a result of the "filtering process" - the traditional process by which older housing is "handed down" to households of lower incomes. The underlying premise of this process is that the upward mobility of middle and higher income households triggers the release of their housing; upon their purchase of new housing, to households of lower incomes. The validity of this concept weakens considerably in housing markets where there is intense higher income demand and extreme shortage. Newport Beach is such a market. If the housing needs of low and moderate income households are to be adequately addressed, in most housing market areas of California, it will be necessary for local governments to design and implement a comprehensive strategy for achieving this objective. This strategy must not only seek to guide and encourage the private market to respond to the needs of low and moderate income households, it must provide a framework for the judicious, affirmative, and cooperative use of local regulatory powers to achieve such objective, While it is clear that local government must affirmatively use its powers to help provide for the housing needs of lower income segments of the community, it is not clear at what point local government can intervene in the housing market without causing serious disruptions in the marketplace. 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. 158 It I It I 11 It 1 The "economies of scale" principle, which holds that small size new construction projects should be treated differently in the face of certain governmental regulations, does not dissipate once new construction is completed. The inability to absorb the impact of government regulations which may require the provision of private market housing "subsidies" is no less for the owner of an existing project than, for the developer of a new one. In fact, the builder may be able to redesign the project or utilize government incentives to mitigate the adverse effects of regulations; the owner of existing units has no such options. Governmental efforts to provide housing for low and moderate income households through the regulation of private property, such as rent control, inclusionary housing programs, and prohibitions on the conversion of rental units to ownership, have one thing in common: they attempt to control housing prices within the private market. Regardless of the social or political merits of such efforts, they are not without economic consequences. In housing markets of extreme shortage and intense demand, conditions which exist in most coastal communities, any governmental efforts to benefit one segment of the community are likely to adversely affect another. To illustrate: rent controls may result in affordable housing for renters, but they may also result in financial hardship -for property owners. Inclusionary housing programs may provide affordable housing for low and moderate income households, but such programs may also reduce developers' profits, and increase housing costs for households that do not qualify for the inclusionary units. Ironically, such programs may benefit low income households and diminish housing opportunities for moderate income households, and vice versa, at the same time. Policies restricting changes in housing tenure, such as the conversion of rentals to ownership, may preserve affordable rental housing for some low and moderate income households, but such prohibitions may also limit ownership opportunities for low and moderate income households who are capable of entering the housing market through the conversion process, and who would benefit from ownership as a result of the tax policies which favor ownership. 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. Ii 159 Federal financing and subsidy programs have been used in the City of Newport Beach since the mid 1970's. The City of Newport Beach used Community Development Block Grant funds to acquire land and construct a senior citizen center to provide services for a large identifiable lower income segment of the community needing services not otherwise provided. Since the adoption of the Housing Element as General Plan Amendment 81-1(H) in 1981, the Planning Commission and City Council have held General Plan Implementation hearings which have resulted in the formation of the Housing Task Force on Government Funding. The City Council and Housing Task Force identified the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds as a source of assistance for low and moderate income households within the Community , and determined to apply for Community Development Block Grant funds in August of 1982. The City has also received Community Development Block Grant funds for fiscal year 1983-84, as well as an additional CDBG entitlement pursuant to special Congressional legislation. The Community Development Block Grant funds which have been allocated to the City of Newport Beach, comprising approximately $1.2 million as of the spring of 1984, will be used to develop new housing within Newport Beach for low and moderate income persons. In addition to being identified as sites for increased residential densities, the North Ford, Cal Trans West and Newport Village sites have been approved as sites containing significant amounts of housing affordable to low and moderate income households. As a result of the adoption by the City Council of General Plan Amendments 81-2, 82-1, and 83-1(e), a minimum of 417 dwelling units affordable to low and moderate households have been designated for development on the Cal Trans West, North Ford and Newport Center sites. Since 1977, the City of Newport Beach has worked in cooperation with the orange County Housing Authority, which is the locally delegated governmental agency authorized to administer the federally -funded Section 8 Rent Subsidy program in most areas of Orange County, The Section 8 Rent Program subsidizes rental payments for low and very low income households. The Section 8 Program currently subsidizes 30 low income renters in Newport Beach, approximately 75% of whom have very low incomes. At the urging of the City of Newport Beach and orange County Housing Authority, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development acted in 1982 to increase the maximum allowable rents against which Section 8 rent subsidies may be applied, thereby increasing the availability of Section 8 usage in Newport Beach. There has been a 30% increase in utilization of the Section e Federal Rent Subsidy Program within Newport Beach since the adoption of the Housing Element. I I I I I I 160 1 I I I I it II I LI II I I II d 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 Section 202 construction loan from the Federal Government. This senior citizen housing project, which was developed at a density of 44.9 units per acre, was completed in July of 1982. The 101 tenants of the project receive Section 8 rental assistant to reduce their rental costs. Pursuant to the housing element, the City of Newport Beach voted in April of 1983 to participate with the County of Orange in the issuance of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to facilitate the development, construction and financing of housing for low and moderate income households. One residential project which has been specifically identified for receipt of funds generated by the mortgage revenue bond program is the Baywood Expansion project, a 68-unit rental apartment development. Developer interest also indicates that tax exempt 'mortgage revenue bonds could be utilized on the North Ford and Newport Village projects, whose development approvals include the construction of 222 and 150 dwelling units respectively, which will be affordable to households of low and moderate income. 2. Implementation Plan: The following activities will be undertaken in support of this objective: a. The City shall continue to apply for, and use, its entitlement funds under the Community Development Block Grant program to facilitate the development and construction of housing for low and moderate income households. To the extent that developers and landowners are willing to cooperate in this endeavor, the highest priority for the use of these funds shall be for the development and construction of housing affordable to "very low income" households. This may be accomplished by using the City's existing and future Community Development Block Grant funds for the acquisition of land for the development of housing for very low income households, or by "writing down" the cost of land for developers who have agreed to develop low and moderate 'income housing. In this regard, the Newport Beach Planning Department shall negotiate with the interested landowners and developers to determine the availability of appropriate vacant sites for potential acquisition as very low income housing sites. b. The City shall continue to participate with the County of Orange in the issuance of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to facilitate and assist in the financing, development and construction of housing affordable to low and moderate income households. City staff shall seek to encourage the hi 161 I developers of the Baywood Expansion, North Ford, Cal Trans West and Newport Village residential projects to use tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds to facilitate the construction of low and moderate income housing on these sites. In addition, the Planning Department staff liaison official designated in Program Objective 1 shall encourage other developers to use the tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds program to increase the availability, of housing affordable to low and moderate income households. c. The City shall continue to participate as a member of the OCHA Advisory Committee and work in cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance to residents of the community and shall _ ensure the retention of the modified fair market rent structure limits applicable within Newport Beach to increase the number of housing units within the city which will be eligible to participate in the program. The Newport Beach Planning Department further shall prepare and implement a publicity program both to educate and encourage landlords within the city to rent their units to Section 8 Certificate holders, and to make low income households aware of the availability of the Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance Program. d. For new developments proposed in the Coastal Zone areas of the City (comprising approximately 40% of Newport Beach), the City shall require the provision of housing affordable to persons or families of low and moderate income, where feasible. Whenever practicable, the City shall require the units be located on -site t alternatively, the City may permit the developer to locate the units off -site but within the Coastal Zone, or within three (3) miles of the Coastal Zone (within Newport Beach). All residential developments of three units or more within the Coastal Zone shall require a Coastal Residential Development Permit. Determinations of feasibility, and the procedures relating to the provision of low and moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone, shall be governed by Newport Beach City Council Policy P-1, adopted on August 19, 1982, and amended on September 12, 1983. e. The City Council shall have the discretion to review and waive planning and park fees for developments containing low and moderate income housing in proportion to the number of low and moderate income units in the entire project. f. When a developer of housing agrees to construct at least 25 percent of the total units of a housing development for person and families of low and moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the city shall either (1) grant a density bonus 162 1 I I I II II I I H. Ii I or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65915, et seq. 3. Time Frame: a) Program 7a: Participation in the Community Development Block Grant is ongoing; determinations as to use of funds and negotiations with affected developers and landowners shall be completed by December 31, 1984. b) Program 7b: Ongoing. c) Program 7c: Membership in, and cooperation with, the Orange County Housing Authority is ongoing; the Section 8 publicity program shall be prepared, and the implementation should commence, by October 31, 1984. d) Program 7d: Ongoing. e) Program 7e: This program shall be implemented as applicable projects are proposed. f) Program 7f: This program shall be implemented as applicable projects are proposed. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: a) Program 7a: City Council; Planning Director. b) Program 7b: City Council; Advance Planning Administrator. c) Program 7c: City. Manager; Planning Director. d) Program 7d: Planning Commission; Planning Director. e) Program 7e: City Council. f) Program 7f: City Council. Objective 8: To improve the efficiency of the development permit process. 1. Finding: While the city's permit process has been applauded by many users as being relatively efficient and free from obstacles, there were several observations that the process could be improved if a single, comprehensive document were made available to the development industry explaining the various procedural steps involved in development review and the anticipated time frames. Although such,a document is not likely to be of value to large development firms, or those which have a history of involvement with the city, there may be merit to such a document for smaller, less informed developers. I-1 163 r I. [1 In the course of implementing its housing program, the City determined that residential development processing could be made more efficient if one staff official were designated to coordinate the review and decision -making of all permits and applications required with respect to residential development proposals. As a result, the City acted on March 14, 1984, to adopt Resolution No. 83-26, vesting in the Current Planning _ Administrator the responsibility to coordinate the review and decision -making, and provide information regarding the status, of all permits or applications required by the City relating to the construction of housing within Newport Beach. ' 2. Implementation Plan: The following activities shall be , undertaken in support of this objective. a) The Current Planning Administrator is designated to coordinate the review and decision -making with respect to, and to provide information regarding the status of, all permits and applications required for residential developments by the City. b) The Planning Department shall develop a Development Review Procedural Guide which outlines and explains the various steps and time demands of the City's housing development review process. 3. Time Frame: a) Ongoing. b) To be completed by December 31, 1984. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: , a) Current Planning Administrator. b) Planning Department. 1 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 housings 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 households who find themselves priced totally out of the new home market. 164 1 I IBecause 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 1 which are characterized by physical blight, and which give indications of future deterioration, have a high incidence of rental properties and absentee ownership. Increasing the rate of homeownership is often all that is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating neighborhood and to redevelop that neighborhood. While the foregoing findings apply generally to all housing within Newport Beach, the City's acknowledged responsibility to conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock requires programs that relate not just to the conservation of physical structures, but also to the preservation of houses as shelter for low and moderate income households. Because the conservation of housing affordability cannot reasonably be effected by the private sector, governmental intervention is required to ensure that existing affordable housing remains available in the years to come. In order to conserve housing affordability, the City has adopted regulations to restrict the conversion of rental units to ownership tenure whenever the rental vacancy rate falls below 5%. To determine this rate, an annual survey of at least 15% of the City's rental units is conducted by telephone for the large, I 165 reality -identifiable apartment complexes and by a mail -out mail -back questionnaire for small rentals. Since the questionnaire has some response uncertainty, a sufficiently large survey sample, randomly selected by a computer, is used to ensure a 15% sample for each unit type (duplex, triplex, fourplex, and five or more units per site) . Mobile homes and single family rentals are excluded from the survey since they are a portion of the rental housing stock that cannot be converted to condominiums. In addition, units owner -occupied and vacant but not available for rent, such as seasonal homes for live -sways, are removed from the response total(s). The results are adjusted to ensure that the combined vacancy rate for all remaining rental types is not biased because of a larger number of responses for a particular unit type, and totaled for an overall wighted rental vacancy rate. These regulations, which are codified in Chapter 20.73 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, further control condominium conversions by requiring property owners seeking to convert their units to comply with notice and relocation requirements, and current zoning, building and subdivision standards. The City has also adopted a Mobile Home Park Zone as Chapter 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, to preserve- and encourage existing source of low and moderate income housing. Since the adoption of the Housing Element as General Plan Amendment 81-1(H) in September of 1981, the City of Newport Beach has, pursuant to the Mobile Home Park Zone ordinance, conducted rezoning hearings and applied the Mobile Home Park designation as a overlay zone on four mobile home parks within Newport Beach. These four mobile home parks comprise, in the aggregate, 401 existing mobile home spaces. In August, 1982, City Council Policy P-1 was adopted, providing for the administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition and conversion of existing low- and moderate -income residential units within the Coastal Zone. The policy is designed to maintain the pool of housing available to low- and moderate -income households as older areas of the city redevelop. In accordance with City Council Policy P-1, the City requires that developments entailing the demolition of low- and moderate - income residential units include low- and moderate -income replacement units. 2. Implementation Plan: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of this objective: a) The City shall vigorously enforce all building and zoning codes in order to conserve the habitability of the existing housing stock. b) The City shall maintain rental opportunities by restricting conversions of rental units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental housing is 5% or 166 i higher for four consecutive quarters, and unless the property owner complies with the condominium conversion regulations contained in Chapter 20.73 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. i c) The City shall continue to evaluate mobile home parks to determine which additional mobile home parks should be rezoned with the Mobile Home Park Zone overlay designation (Chapter 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code), in order to preserve mobile home park land uses. d) The City shall require the replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone areas of Newport Beach when the housing to be demolished is, or within the immediately preceding 12 months has been, occupied by low and moderate income households. The City shall further require that no such demolition be accomplished unless a Coastal Residential Development Permit has been issued. The specific provisions implementing these replacement unit requirements are contained in Newport Beach City Council Policy P-1, adopted on August 19, 1982, and as amended on September 12, 1983. 3. Time Frame: a. Program 9a: Ongoing. b. Program 9c: Ongoing.. c. Program 9d: Ongoing. d. Program 9e: Ongoing. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: a. Program 9a: Planning Department; Building Department. b. Program 9c: City Council; Planning Commission. c. Program 9d: City Council; Planning Department. d. Program 9e: Planning Commission; Planning Director. Objective 10: To promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, natural origin, or color. 1. Finding: Substantial legislation has been adopted at the federal government level to prevent discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. Such legislation includes the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Executive Order 11063. The State has also enacted anti -discrimination legislation, including -the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Fair Employment and I 167 i 2. Housing Act. The City supports these federal and state actions to promote housing opportunities for all persons. At the same time, the City recognizes that the goal of equal housing opportunities will not significantly be advanced through the creation of a redundant local enforcement agency, with limited fiscal and investigatory resources, that cannot realistically , complement the anti -discrimination enforcement agencies of the state or federal governments. Accordingly, the City perceives its most appropriate and effective role is in assisting these state and federal agencies in the enforcement of enacted legislation to prevent housing discrimination, and in disseminating information informing residents of their civil rights with respect to the purchase or rental of housing, and the administrative and legal remedies available to them. Implementation Plans , a. The Planning Department shall assign to the City's staff liaison identified in Objective 1 the responsibility for lodging and referring to the proper agency all complaints transmitted to the City regarding discrimination in the sale or rental of housing in Newport Beach. Depending upon the nature of the complaint, the staff liaison shall refer the ' complainant to the more appropriate of the following enforcement agencies: (i) State of California Department of Fair i Employment and Housing 28 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 558-4159 (ii) United States Department of Justice Office of the United States Attorney 312 N. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 688-2434 The staff liaison shall provide the complainant with the address and telephone number of each of these agencies, explain the applicable filing procedures to the complainant, ande if requested, assist the complainant in forwarding information to the appropriate agency. b. The staff liaison shall maintain records on all housing discrimination complaints forwarded to the City and referred by the complainant to enforcement agencies, and shall request information from the appropriate enforcement agencies in order to monitor the progress, status, and resolution of such , housing discrimination complaints. c. The staff liaison shall prepare and submit quarterly reports to the Planning Director listing the number of housing , discrimination complaints forwarded to the City and, 166 1 utilizing data provided by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing or the United States Department of Justice, describing the status or resolution of these complaints. This information shall be used to determine the progress of equal opportunity efforts in Newport Beach, and will be made available to anti -discrimination enforcement agencies and groups and persons interested in equal housing opportunities. d. The City Attorneys shall assist in the investigation and prosecution of housing discrimination complaints lodged with the City. e. Upon request, the City shall provide, free of charge to any interested person, informational material explaining federal and state civil rights with regard to the purchase and rental of housing. f. The City will cooperate with the Newport Mesa Board of Realtors and the local apartment owners association to educate their members on fair housing laws. 3. Time Frame: a. Program 10a: Ongoing. b. Program 10b: Ongoing. c. Program 10c: Ongoing. d. Program 10d: This program shall be implemented upon request from the applicable enforcement agency. e. Program 10e: Ongoing. f. Program 10f: This program shall be implemented by January 1, 1985, and will be conducted at least once every 18 months thereafter. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: a) • Program 10a: Advance Planning Administrator. b) Program 10b: Advance Planning Administrator. c) Program 10c: Advance Planning Administrator; Planning Director. d) Program 10d: City Attorney. e) Program 10e: Planning Department. f) Program 10f: Planning Department. 169 K. objective 11: To promote a greater choice in housing opportunities for elderly residents of the community. 1. Finding: Elderly persons comprise a substantial segment of the population of the community. As discussed earlier in this element, many elderly residents of the City are long-time residents who live in homes purchased during the child -rearing stage of their lives. These persons in many cases, are living on low, fixed incomes, and although their homes have escalated greatly in value since the time of purchase, maintenance, utility, and property tax expenses may be beyond their present financial capacity. Moreover, the occupied housing unit may not match their present housing needs in terms of square footage, location in respect to community facilities, and maintenance requirements. in most cases, these persons desire continued residence in their same neighborhood or community, but not necessarily in the same dwelling unit. Alternative living arrangements are desired, such as smaller, attached condominiums located approximate to transportation and commercial facilities, and offering some social and medical services. Such housing opportunities would serve the needs of elderly residents and would also promote greater utilization of the existing housing stock, as homes occupied by elderly residents would become available for other families. , A senior citizen housing project of 101 units has been developed as a cooperative effort between the City of Newport Beach and a non-profit corporation. 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. This senior citizen housing project, which was developed at a density of 44.9 units per acre, was completed in July of 1982. The 101 tenants of the project receive Section 8 rental assistance to offset their rental costs. Two additional locations which might be appropriately developed , as housing designed for elderly residents are the Fifth Avenue and the Fifth and MacArthur parcels. The Fifth Avenue Parcel is located in close proximity to the oasis Senior Citizens Center, which the City of Newport Beach developed in the mid-1970's with the use of federal funds made available through the Community Development Block Grant program. The Fifth and MacArthur parcel is located approximately one third of a mile from the Senior Citizens Center. 2. Implementation Plan: The City will take a facilitator role in , encouraging the development of increased housing opportunities for the elderly through the following actions: 170 1 ' a. Planning Department staff shall meet with groups in the community which represent the interests or serve the needs of elderly residents, in order to determine the housing needs of the elderly residents. b. The City shall encourage the owner of the Fifth Avenue and Fifth and MacArthur Parcels to develop housing on those sites which satisfies the physical and' social needs of elderly residents. To the extent that the owner of these sites is amendable, the use of available state and federal housing resources will be encouraged to develop housing for elderly residents. 3. Time Frame: a) This program shall be conducted in conjunction with the submission of applicable land use proposals. b) This program shall be completed by January 1, 1985. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: a) Planning Department. b) Planning Department. L. Objective 12: To provide for the development of a variety of housing types and products for all income levels of the community. ' 1. Findings: If the housing goals of Newport Beach are to be attained, the producers of housing must be allowed to exercise maximum flexibility in the design and development of product ' types. While the decision to develop certain housing products, such as rental housing, mobile homes, or manufactured (factory -built) housing, is primarily a function of the ' interaction between producers and 'consumers, there is a significant role which the California Legislature believes local governments can perform in this regard. ' For many years, the City of Newport Beach has had no law in effect which prohibits or restricts the placement of mobilehomes, modular housing or factory -built housing on any lot zoned for single family residential purposes. Consequently, and because of extremely limited supply of undeveloped land in Newport Beach, it would not be appropriate for the City to zone that limited supply for the specific products identified in Section 65583. According to housing producers doing business in the City, such an approach would frustrate, not facilitate, the production of varied housing types. The market place, not the City,' can best determine whether a specific site should be utilized for mobile homes, factory -built housing, rental housing, or another housing type. 11 1 171 The City should direct its efforts toward permitting and encouraging those products which are demanded by the consumer and which facilitate the provision of housing to the widest possible segment of the community. Consistent with this view, it is best for the City to merely assure itself that whatever product is proposed for a specific site is compatible with the neighborhood, and satisfies the overall development requirements of the community. 2. Implementation Plan: a. Available sites for residential development have been identified in this document. b. The City will permit the installation of mobilehomes, factory -built housing, or any other construction technology, provided that such product complies with the development standards of the community and is compatible with the planning, aesthetic, and other applicable considerations of the specific neighborhood in which such product is proposed. This policy shall apply to all non -committed sites existing within the City and identified in the Housing Element. 3. Time Frame: a. Program 12a has been implemented as part of this document. b. Program 12b is ongoing. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: a) City Council. b) Planning Commission. M. Objective 13: To review the housing element on an on -going basis to determine the appropriateness of goals and programs and the progress of the City in housing element implementation. 1. Findings: programs in appropriate. To guarantee the effectiveness of policies and ' this document, timely review and evaluation are 2. Implementation Plan: I a. The City Planning Department will monitor progress on each of the objectives in the housing element program, and when appropriate, report its findings to the Planning Commission and the City Council. b. Revision of the housing element will be initiated on the basis of the monitoring reports and will incorporate the most current data on housing and household characteristics, as well as housing market trends. 172 1 ' 3. Target Dates: a) Monitoring reports will be prepared when appropriate. b) The next full revision of the Housing Element shall be ' completed on or before July 1, 1989. 4. .Responsible Official/Agency: 1 a) Planning Department. ' b) City Council. N. Objective 14: To ensure that the programs set forth in the Housing Element will continue to be consistent with the other elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, as well as the codified goals of the city. 1. Finding: Proper land use planning, as well as the provisions of Government Code Section 65583, require that housing element programs be consistent with the programs and policies of the remaining elements of the City's General Plan. The City currently and historically has undertaken an analysis of General Plan consistency whenever land use regulations or housing programs are proposed for adoption or amendment. It is appropriate that this policy be contained in the Housing Element to ensure that the implementation of the City's housing programs continues to be governed by sound planning and consistency principles. The City adopted a "Residential Growth Element" as part of the Newport Beach General Plan in 1973, to set forth long-range ' policies regarding residential and population growth within Newport Beach. Under Government Code Section 65302, a residential growth element is •not a mandatory element of a general plan. The enactment of recent State legislation regarding housing and land use supersedes and renders portions of the Residential Growth Element obsolete. 2. Implementation Plan: a. Whenever land use regulations land use designations, or ' housing programs are proposed for adoption or modification, the Planning Department shall undertake an analysis to determine that the proposed action or regulation is consistent with both the Housing Element and the other elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, as well as all adopted City Council Policies. If the Planning Department determines that .the proposed program or policy is not consistent, the Planning Department shall recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council either that the proposed program or action be modified to achieve consistency, prior. ' to adoption, or that each potentially inconsistent General. Plan element or City Council Policy be amended in conjunction 173 with the approval of the proposed regulation or action. Consistency shall be achieved whenever a regulation, action or project is approved. b. The City will evaluate the Residential Growth Element to determine which portions of that Element are obsolete; thereafter, the City will repeal those obsolete portions, and incorporate the remaining portions of the Residential Growth Element into the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 3. Time Frame: Consistency is evaluated on a project by project basis. b. June 30, 1985. 4. Responsible Official/Agency: a. Planning Department. b. Planning Department, City Council. Performance Objectives Section 65583 of the Government Code requires that the Housing Element also include a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. it is the purpose of this section of the Element to quantify the results of program objectives previously established. The projected results will be stated in terms of performance objectives. The City's housing program is designed to address the regional housing needs, as defined in Section 65584 of the Government Code. Because of the constraints outlined in this element, however, it is not physically, environmentally, or fiscally possible for the City to fully satisfy all the regional need. Such a magnitude of need, as the legislature recognized in Section 65583(b) of the Government Code, is beyond the ability of the City. The program outlined herein represents the most diligent effort which the City of Newport Beach considers possible. Article 10.6 requires a jurisdiction to make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. Since the housing market and incomes in Newport Beach tend to be higher than County or regional averages, it is most meaningful to characterize the City's "Quantified Objectives" in terms of City median family income, Following are the city's best estimates of the maximum number of housing units anticipated in each income category (consistent with Section 65583(b)): 174 Table 92- MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY INCOME CATEGORY Very Low Low Moderate Upper Total 1. New Units (major projects) 170 434 369 1,675 2,648 2. New Units (small projects & redevelopment 0 25 50 175' 250 3. 2nd Units 50 50 0 0 100 4. Increased Use of Section 8 100 25 0 0 125 5. Rehabilitation 25 22 30 23 100 6. Conservation 2,040 3,b45 2,612 1,640 9,337 TOTAL 2,385 3,601 3,061 3,513 12,560 Following is a discussion of the goals in each of the six areas above; with the City's best estimates provided by the Planning Department: 1. Production of 2,648 new units including 973 affordable to City very -low, low, and moderate income families. a) The table below makes estimates on each individual site: Table 93 HOUSING UNITS PER PROJECT BY INCOME CATEGORY Project Very Low Low Moderate Upper Total North Ford 44 178 100 566 888 Belcourt 0 33 50 85 168 Newport Center 61 120 123 629 933 CalTrans West 15 30 0 107 152 Big Canyon 10 0 2 0 19 21 Big Canyon 16 0 8 79 0 87 Allred 0 5 0 45 50 Morgan 0 2 0 15 17 Wale 0 1 0 9 10 Morning Canyon 0 1 0 13 14 Gfeller 0 4 0 36 40 5th & MacArthur 50 50 0 0 100 Marguerite 7 61 68 5th Avenue 0 0 10 90 100 TOTAL 170 434 369 1,675 2,648 PERCENTAGE 6.4% 16.4% 13.9% 63.3% 100% 175 b) Increase housing production from the current average of 260 units per year to 525 units per year. c) Maximize the effective use of available CDBG and Mortgage Revenue Bond funds to ensure construction of low- and moderate -income units. d) Process necessary General Plan Amendments for 5th Avenue/ MacArthur, Marguerite, and 5th Avenue parcels. 2. Assumes private redevelopment and intensification on non -vacant parcels in West Newport Beach, Balboa Peninsula and Corona del Mar areas, at existing allowable densities and/or pursuant to Objective 3(c), as follows: Table 94 INCREASE IN HOUSING UNITS THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT AND INTENSIFICATION BY INCOME CATEGORY Very Low Low Moderate Upper Total 0 25 50 175 250 3. Assumes development of second units in accordance with objective 3(d)t further assumes that most second units will be occupied by low income families. 4. increased use of Section 8 Rental Assistance is assumed as a result of the publicity program mandated by Objective 7(c). The additional low-income units will be created from the existing housing stock. S. Rehabilitation of Housing in Newport Beach: 1984-1989 (expressed in maximum potential housing units). Table 95 REHABILITATION OF HOUSING IN NEWPORT BEACH BY INCOME, 1984-1989 Very Low Low Moderate Upper Total (0-50% (50-80% of (80-120% of (120% of Median) Median Median Median Income) Income) income) 1. Private re- habilitation of substandard units 10 12 15 3 40 2. Vigorous en- forcement of building and zoning codes, pursuant to Objective 9(a) 15 10 15 20 60 176 Table 95 (Con't.) REHABILITATION OF HOUSING IN NEWPORT BEACH BY INCOME, 1984-1989 Very Low Low Moderate Upper Total (0-50% (507-80% of (80-120% of (120% of Median) Median Median Median Income) Income) Income) TOTAL (Average/ Maximum) 25 22 30 23 100 6. Conservation of Housing in Newport Beach: 1984-1989 (Expressed in maximum potential housing units). Table 96 CONSERVATION OF HOUSING IN NEWPORT BEACH BY INCOME CATEGORY, 1984-1989 Very Low Low Moderate Upper Total (0-50% (50-80% of (80-120% of (120% of Median) Median Median Median Income) Income) Income) 1. Appl. of Mobile Home Park Zone Ord. pursuant to Objective 9(c) 90 345 100 65 600 2. Appl. of Cond Conver- sion Regulations, pursuant to Objective 9(b) 1,200 1,800 1,537 1,000 5,537 3. Appl. of Council Policy P-1 ragarding replacement housing, pursuant to Objective 9(d) 750 900 975 575 3,200 TOTAL 2,040 3,045 2,612 1,640 9,337 177 Performance Relative to Regional Need (RHAM) Article 10.6 requires a local jurisdiction to consider regional need, but recognizes that it may not be feasible to accommodate this need calculation in all cases. According to the RHAM prepared by SLAG and extended to six years, there is projected a regional demand for additional units in Newport Beach in the following income categories: Table 97 PROJECTED REGIONAL DEMAND IN NEWPORT BEACH Very Low (0-50+k) - 270 du's Low (50-80%) - 372 du's Moderate (80-120%) - 326 du's Upper (above 120%) - 905 du's It is estimated that the City can provide 45 du's in the very low income category, 125 du's in the low income category, 432 du's in the moderate income category, and 2,025 du's in the upper income category during the next six years, through the completion of major residential projects. Schedule of Actions for Housing Program implementation Implementation of the Housing Element is scheduled to take place within a twos -phase time frame. The first time period involves all short-range actions which are planned to take place within the two years of the 1984 Housing Element adoption. The second time period involves all long-range actions which are planned to take place within five years of the 1984 Housing Element adoption. Short-range and long-range activities have been summarized on the following table. 11 11 11 F 11 11 h� i 178 Housing Element Objectives N J Schedule 1 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION 6 Months 1 Year 18 Months 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 'S Years SHORT RANGE ACTIVITIES LONG RANGE ACTIVITIES 1. MONITOR HOUSING DELIVERY SYSTEM/ PREPARE REPORTS TO CITY COUNCIL X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2. PARTICIPATE IN ENERGY CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS X X 3. MAINTAIN INVENTORY OF UNDEVELOPED SITES X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CONDUCT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT HEARINGS ON THREE SITES TO CONSIDER INCREASED DENSITY X X X X X CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON REMAINDER OF UNCOMMITTED SITES X X X X X X X X X MONITOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND UNITS AND REPORT FINDINGS TO CITY COUNCIL X 4. ENCOURAGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5. ASSESS THE HOUSING IMPACTS OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 6. EXPEDITE CONSTRUCTION OF APPROVED HOUSING X X X X X X X X X NEGOTIATED DEVELOPMENT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Schedule 1 (Con't.) HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION 6 Months 1 Year 18 Months 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years SHORT RANGE ACTIVITIES TANG RANGE ACTIVITIES Housing Element Objectives 7. USE OF CDBG FUNDS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PARTICIPATE IN ORANGE COUNTY MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PARTICIPATE IN ORANGE COUNTY SECTION 8 HOUSING PROGRAM X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X PREPARE SECTION 8 PUBLICITY PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE LANDLORD PARTICIPATION X X X REQUIRE THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NEW COASTAL ZONE DEVELOPMENTS a X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FEE WAIVERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X DENSITY BONUSES FOR PROJECTS CONTAINING LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING X X X X X X X X X X. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X S. COORDINATE PERMIT PROCESS AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCY X X X X X X% 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PREPARE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURAL GUIDE X X 9. ENFORCE BUILDING CODES TO CONSERVE EXISTING HOUSING RESTRICT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS WHEN RENTAL VACANCY RATE IS BELOW 5$ PRESERVE MOBILEHOME PARKS THROUGH MOBILEHON.E PARK OVERLAY ZONE REQUIRE REPLACEMENT OF LOW OR MODERATE INCOME HOUSING DEMOLISHED IN THE COASTAL ZONE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Y. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X M = = = = M schedule 1 (Con't.) HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION 6 Months 1 Year 18 Months 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years SHORT RANGE ACTIVITIES . LONG RANGE ACTIVITIES Housing Element Objectives 10. PROVIDE STAFF LIAISON FOR HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS MAINTAIN RECORDS ON HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PREPARE QUARTERLY REPORTS ON HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS ASSIST IN THE INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS WHEN FEASIBLE PROVIDE FREE INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS EXPLAINING ANTI -DISCRIMINATION LAWS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X,X X X 11. FAIR HOUSING EDUCATION PROGRAM ao X X X N MEET WITH GROUPS SERVING ELDERLY RESIDENTS TO DETERMINE ELDERLY HOUSING NEEDS PROJECT BASIS ENCOURAGE OWNERS OF SPECIFIED PARCELS TO DEVELOP HOUSING FOR ELDERLY RESIDENTS X X X X X 12. IDENTIFY SITES AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING (Accomplished within this document) PERMIT MOBILEHOMES AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING ON UNDEVELOPED SITES SUBJECT TO DESIGN CRITERIA X X X X X X•X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13. HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW AND MONITOR PROGRESS OF OBJECTIVES AS APPROPRIATE REVISE HOUSING ELEMENT BASED ON MONITORING OF PROGRESS FULL REVISION BEFORE JULY 1, 1989 14. DETERMINE CONSISTENCY OF LAND USE REGULATIONS AND HOUSING PROGRAMS WITH GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT EVALUATION X X X X X X X X X X V. EVALUATION OF PAST HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION Government Code Section 65588 requires the city to review the housing element as frequently as is appropriate to evaluate the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal; the effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's goals and objectives; and the city's progress in implementation of the housing element. In the course of preparing the 1984 housing element revision, the city has determined that the goals and policies of the housing element contribute to the attainment of the state housing goal; consequently, the goals and policies have not been modified in this revision. The city has also evaluated its progress in implementing the program objectives of the housing element. The results of this evaluation are set forth in tabular form, as follows: Table 98 HOUISNG ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION Objective 1 Monitor housing delivery system. Objective 2 Support housing financing reforms. objective 3 Consider increased resi- dential densities on major vacant parcels. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS Ongoing; public meeting on 5/6/82. Public meeting held on June 10, 1982. 1,743 additional units approved through adoption of general plan amendments on Mobil/Armstrong (180 unit increase), CalTrans West (152 unit increase), Freeway Reservation West --Big Canyon Area #16 (80 unit increase) , North Ford (768 unit increase), Aeronutronic Ford Area #8--Belcourt (135 unit increase), and Newport Center parcels (428 unit increase). I I J I 11 C i lJ I I i 1 I 182 I I 1 1 1 Objective 4 Encourage housing afford- able to projected labor force in development. Objective 5 Achieve appropriate balance between employment and housing. Objective 6 Negotiated development. ' Objective 7(a) Consider use of CDBG funds ' and participation in issuance of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. 11 11 11 I I1 II I Objective 7(b) Encourage rental housing where low and moderate ownership housing not feasible. Ongoing; implemented through general plan approvals re- quiring low and moderate income housing on Beeco and Newport Center projects. Ongoing; implemented through general plan amendments in creasing densities and combining residential and other uses on North Ford, Newport Center and Beeco parcels. 514 low and moderate income housing units required in conjunction with the approval of 1,872 additional units on 12 parcels during period from 3/1982 through 3/1984. City applied for CDBG funds in August of 1982, and has received a total of $1.2 million in CDBG funds during fiscal years 1982-1983 and 1983-1984; City adopted Resolution No. 83-35 on 4/11/83, authorizing participation with County of Orange in issuance of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. Implemented in conjunction with the approvals made under Objective 6. Objective 7(c) Restrict condo conversions. Maintenance and application of City condo conversion requirements. Objective 7(d) Preserve mobile home park Application of City's Mobile uses. Home Park Zone to four mobile home parks in 1982 and 1983 has conserved 401 mobile home spaces. 183 Objective 7(e) Encourage more extensive Worked in cooperation with use of Section 8 Rental Orange County Housing Assistance. Authority to have U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development increase fair market rent structure limits for Newport Beach; Section 8 usage has increased 30% since September, 1982. Supported OCHA's request for additional Section 8 units. Objective 7(f) Provide low and moderate City Council Policy P-1 income housing in Coastal adopted on August 19, 1982 Zone, and amended on September 19, 1983. Of the 215 new housing units approved for development within the Coastal Zone between 1/1/82 and 4/l/84, 33 units (15.3%) were allocated as low and moderate income units. objective 7(g) Discretionary waiver of No developer requests for planning fees. waiver of planning fees have been submitted as of 4/1/84. Objective 7(h) 25% density bonus for No developers have requested provision of low and this density bonus as of moderate income housing. 4/l/84. Objective 8 Prepare development in process. review procedural guide. Objective 9(a) CDBG Rehabilitation Program. City received $496,000 in CDBG funds in August, 1982 for low and moderate income housing rehabilitation programs; funds were converted to land acquisition purposes in 1983 due to lack of community interest in rehabilitation program. Objective 9(h) Replacement of low and City Council Policy P-1 moderate income housing adopted on August 19, 1982, demolished in Coastal Zone, and amended on September 12, 1983; during the period from 1/1/82 through 4/1/84, 13 units, including 5 low and moderate income units, were demolished in the Coastal Zone, and 2 replacement units were required. 184 I 1 I 1 1 1 II J 1 Objective 10 Objective 11 Objective 12 Objective 13 Promote Equal housing opportunities through counselling, maintenance of records on discrimina- tion complaints, and pro - provision of educational materials. Facilitate in encouraging increased housing -oppor- tunities for the elderly. Permit installation of all types of housing construc- tion technology on vacant residential land. Annual review of housing element. Program is in place; one allegation of discrimination was lodged with the city, the complainant did not wish to file a formal complaint. Initiated preliminary housing site negotiations for a senior Citizen housing project in proximity to Oasis Senior Citizens Center. Ongoing; no developers have requested use of mobilehome, factory built, or other alternative construction technology as of 4/l/84. Housing Element programs amended in 1982; housing element review in 1983 preceded 1984 revisions. The City has also evaluated the effectiveness of the housing element in attaining the quantified community goals set forth in the housing element. The results of this evaluation are as follows: 1. Performance Objective 1 of the housing element sought to increase the ultimate allowable density on the then -remaining 297 acres of non -committed, undeveloped land by an aggregate of 25%. Residential density increases approved on major undeveloped parcels during the period from September 1981 through April 1, 1984 have resulted in 1743 additional dwelling units, from 1,083 units to 2,826 units, on six parcels comprising 198.6 gross acres. These residential density increases represent a 161% increase in residential density on these 198.6 gross acres. 2. Performance Objective 2 sought to encourage the allocation of at least 10% of the approved housing units as housing affordable to low and moderate income households. During the period from March 1982 through April 1, 1984, the City has granted land use approvals on a total of twelve projects in which low and moderate income housing units have been required. These twelve land use approvals have led to a total of 1,872 additional dwelling units, from 1,128 units to 2,979 units. Of the additional 1,872 units approved, at least 514 of them must be affordable to low and moderate income households. These 574 low and moderate income units represent 17.3% of the total project units permitted on these twelve parcels, or 27.5% of the 1,872 additional units authorized by the city's land use approvals. I 185 i 3. Performance Objective 3 sought to preserve 9,027 multi -family 1 rental housing units for all income segments of the community by 1 regulating the conversion of rental units to condominiumsi and to preserve + 600 mobile home units through the adoption and application of a Mobile Home Park Zone. Continued application of the city's condominium conversion has prevented the 1 conversion of any rental housing to condominium use in the intervening years. The adoption of the Mobile Home Park Zone in January of 1982, and its application to four existing mobile , home parks has preserved 401 mobile home units as of the same date. 4. Performance Objective 4 sought to annually conserve and , rehabilitate 3% of the approximately 340 substandard duplex, triplex and fourplex units in the beach areas of the city. As of April 1, 1984, it is estimated that only 320 duplex, triplex 1 and fourplex units in the beach areas of the city remain in substandard condition. 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 11 I I 1 i 186 1 APPENDICES t 1 t ' 187 c 1984 INVENTORY OF UNDEVELOPED LAND APPENDIX A City of Newport Beach a l UNDEVELOPED PARCELS ' Site Number Parcel ' 1. Westbay 2. Eastbluff Remnant 3. Newporter North 4. Castaways ' 5. Fifth Avenue Corridor Parcels 6. Freeway Reservation West -- Big Canyon Area #16 7. Freeway Reservation East ' 8. CalTrans West 9. CalTrans East 10. Mobil/Armstrong, 11. Aeronutronic Ford 12. Bayview Landing 13. Koll Center 14. Emkay - Newport Place ' 15. Jamboree and MacArthur 16. San Diego Creek North 17. North Ford/San Diego Creek South ' 18. Newport Dunes 19. Buck Gully 20. Newport Center ' 21. North Bay (unincorporated) 22. Irvine Coastal Area (unincorporated) 23. Mobil/Armstrong (unincorporated) 1 i'I 1 1 See accompanying UNDEVELOPED PARCELS Map for parcel locations. 1 189 UNDEVELOPED PARCELS 13 ko A" `tiil�� tf"/ ��•�. �� I� tl/1 ,� _A�r� \ Y.i %,,7tt�•� � � - �{�\ p,. O !•yam\ , ;� ✓ Ala-_ r. rd`f� 4 fit �•� a t � � ��`'i� � .d �' f �!�•J`� t oY�ry �K'l �� ~�y)�r�`'"t 'i' ♦:�t\ 't � i )�w • —}�.h �I � .,RQ`A. � �L C •. ,6Y P t \ ' I Nfaa+}!:. rttk��sc- "• P1�=��-�P�'•� zL��'-,t"•�`o,t, �.�3s,�� - �.t Q /%� �� . i �,>• ((�� •�S ::iii / /+� ` �� /t \+'YSs✓�ti �"�+�,-a�;dot - i -;�x" ",•'rr-' t7��t ),.—'�•`., t. - .t li e .f,fr •.i"f� `!y !' +'-,``��-^3 _ •`f• i... t• rr+ k4l, _ •_y ;'i a ` ,K , -s lzq '•y 1"�•, ,. i` �` +� dM %_,°`:y,,,�, +.; .� T'Cm'` t'i 'r,;., fr`• .:� tt !'I -//�2 a L N,."� \ \ '"� '" ; �,iti'h• ,htf �•ff;r � 'ft� 'tt �� i �� _ +yt---; � � ' "��iiT� yy ••�. '-t:- tr 4 Cro if •t r+--�- ��-a'i 3'! tt�:''�• �J � O % ,4''7f�'1 `1i��t'"s,• %• rt T :•t•r ,2�_,�hft,17. - �\ �{ ' f�,��l✓ T,(.R µ.,�...�r i� �{.1": 1��i'�~-�/f+s �i .�~i{,e �Y �,w Yll"tr}•"FJ'�'•2'"'..\ �� F� �./jalT _+�--,,,,y,t. 1'aw- al'•�>"it`�'` +�'$° ta, \ ." I w _: .�� ,+e �i ";�• .�• t>`�r":�"=Y'" ar`7 'L' ttJilti. itV ¢�t�Al:ni'it' i+��? �, •.— ,;+,! �•��j•�.-^,.. iFiieni[tniii"'t'i „I«..>. 'Tra,:'�1. ,•" Wit:"'h?i11,":w�ry(.'l!� ':. _: -• •---.._ ,_•—� `= ., ... `=if.`..c�y ,�.1.,`j"vi(�o.''�ttn ��,`-:tlw` {-4j '! tt {aF r .•i''1 ♦ Y ��:'1�1�:�1 fS—�.,`1 I i! ii•-__:__�=i t.;G.. t�"`` t.::, 3 � 3 i v at ,may • % w tll! .T t- � � ..,r/ww•�a,� a a• .+--.n.,,-.- ;. �„ ra• ', , 1 . 1 t tF Fit: altFaa .::%-ia �:7c� =j ��.�'�:y ♦ if `•1••;t,-►FE,r .,�'� CITY OF MEWPMf HElpl �JJJJJ: f % +• .- f• r Q � a C t.' n N e.rre wna. •rnv.. SITE #1 WESTBAY 1. General Plan Designation: Mixed: Recreation and Environmental Open Space; Low Density Residential/Density Transfer Area. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: Mixed: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space; park site shown for a mixture of Recreational and Environmental Open Space and Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities. 3. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) (no adopted P-C Develop- ment Text). 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 65.0 Net Buildable 33.84 (estimate) 5. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Proximity to Upper Newport Bay, drainage/riparian/wetland areas, coastal bluffs, endangered flora. b) Other -- Impacted by airport/road noise, archaeological sites. 191 SITE #1 WESTBAY (Con't.) 6. Allowable Uses: a) General Plan -- Low Density Residential at 4 DU's per buildable area 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 G.0 acre City park near the extension of Monte Vista, dedicated as a part of the Sea Island Condominium Project (not included in the above acreage figures). The Natural History foundation is proposing construc- tion of a Natural History interpretative Center on the City park site. There is a ten -foot wide relocatable pedestrian and bike easement along the bluff top with access from Irvine Avenue and University Drive. b) L.C.P. -- Same as General Plan. Access ways are shown on the site along Irvine Avenue, University Drive and Upper Newport Bay with two vertical easements between Irvine Avenue and Upper Newport Bay. The six acre park site may accommodate a natural history museum with a joint use as an interpretive center for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Any development on the Westbay site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. S. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 192 1 1 1 7 1 1 SITE #2 EASTBLUFF REMNANT 1\•�C?Ce yl''J /� Ova``• \ A \ •, r a/ �n •L n it _ ,//� .I l: General Plan Designation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space/Density Transfer Area. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 3. Existing Zoning: R-3-B. 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 8.0 Net Buildable 0.0 (estimate) 5. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Proximity.to Upper Newport Bay, riparian/wetland areas, coastal bluffs, endangered flora. b) other -- Possibly impacted by paleonto- logical sites. 193 SITE #2 EASTBLUFF REMNANT (Con't.) 6. Allowable Uses: a) General Plan -- Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space uses. All development rights transferred to Newport Center. it is estimated that 24 units could be built as follows: a) On -Site 0 DU's b) Off -site 24 DU's b) L.C.P. -- Same as General Plan. Access way shown along Back Bay Drive. Any develop- ment of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 8. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 194 SITE #3 NEWPORTER NORTH — n .. ...d•ru � 1 NIP-, c•_ 1 4 1 1. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: Low Density Residential. 3. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) (no adopted P-C Develop- ment Text). 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 88.0 Net Buildable 58.24 (estimate) 5. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Proximity to Upper Newport Bay, riparian/wetland areas, coastal bluffs, endangered flora. b) Other -- Impacted by road noise, archaeo- logical sites, flood -light fallout areas. M11 6. Allowable Uses: SITE #3 NEA'PORTER NORTH (Con't.) a) General Plan -- Low Density Residential development at 4 DU's per buildable acre with 25% of the allowable units transfer- rable to either Newport Center or North Ford at the option of the property owner. Additionally, the structures shall be clustered to accommodate -archaeological and marsh sites. It is estimated that approxi- mately 212 DU's could be built. b) L.C.P. -- Same as General Plan. Accessways shown along Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. Any development of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. S. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 11 11 I II I A It I 11 ?I II I 11 I I I 196 SITE #4 CASTAWAYS 01L1 or 'vc ,• C/ / / u' .y , VAOM W rrrrcuFF o � NfwPlwr V S• 1 o � 1 It ,��~. 1 / ^ � ..•L�5{ �`�`\\mow \\ � RESIDENTIAL 0 RZCREATION/COb=RCIAL 1. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential; Recreational and Marine Commercial. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: Same as General Plan. 3. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) (no adopted P-C Develop- ment Text). 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 65.0 Net Buildable 38.6 (estimate) 5. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Proximity to Upper Newport Bay, riparian/wetland areas, coastal bluffs. b) other -- Paleontological sites. i9% SITE #4 CASTAWAYS (Con't.) 6. Allowable Uses: a) General Plan -- The northerly 60 acres of the site is designated for Low Density Residential development at 4 DU's per buildable acre. It is estimated that approximately 151 dwelling units could be built. A 10 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. The southerly 5 acres of the site is designated for Recreation and Marine Commercial uses (excluding hotels and motels) on ± 5 acres. It is estimated that ± 40,000 sq.ft. of development will occur. b) L.C.P. -- Same as General Plan. Accessways are shown along the bluff and between 16th Street and the bluff. Any development of this site will be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environ- mentally sensitive area(s) on the site. 7. Public Facilities: Including streets+ sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. S. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 198 SITE #5 5th AVENUE PARCELS �1' 1t .�� `) �ji • f i��J .GerlaTal 'igaC�C�CNCNCR[25 MD C1 B �;C��C�C�C�CaC�C�C�� . �i <<; a6�� 1. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential; Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C), R-7-B, and R-3-B. 3. Site Area (Acres): Gross 29.2 Net Buildable 22.44 (estimate) 4. Allowable Uses: a) General Plan -- Low Density Residential uses at 4 DU's per buildable acre. A General Plan Amendment is currently in process with the change in density allot- ment categories, it is estimated approxi- mately 228 dwelling units would be allowed. 5. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 6. Timing: Applications are being processed and construc- tion possibly could begin in Spring, 1985. MM SITE #6 FREEWAY RESERVATION WEST -- BIG CANYON AREA #16 lth at/y'\Q„1V /n: i 3 1. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) (with adopted P-C Development Text). 3. Site Area (Acres)t Gross 10.9 Net Buildable 8.7 (estimate) 4. Constraintst other -- Impacted by road noise. 5. Allowable Uses: General Plan -- Medium Density Residential uses at 10 DU's per buildable acre. Tentative Tract Map has been approved for 80 dwelling units on this site. 6. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 7. Timing: Construction should begin in Fall, 1984. 200 SITE #7 FREEWAY RESERVATION EAST .+% \a uI � CQ C✓//Ltd' Pl 'M � [J -i 1. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) (no adopted P-C Develop- ment Text). 3. Site Area (Acres): Gross 25.0 Net Buildable 20.0 (estimate) 4. Constraints: Other -- Impacted by road noise, limited access potential. 5. Allowable Uses: General Plan -- Low Density Residential with a maximum of 4 DU's per buildable acre. It is estimated that 76 DU's could be built on this site. 6. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 7. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 201 SITE BS CALTRANS WEST 1. General Plan Designation: Multi -Family Residential. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 3. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) (no adopted P-C Develop- ment Text). 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 13.6 Met Buildable 10.16 (estimate) 5. Constraints: Other -- Impacted by road noise. 6. Allowable Uses: a) General Plan -- Multi -Family Residential uses at 15 DU's per buildable acre. It is estimated that 152 DU's could be built on this site. A pedestrian and bicycle par}: easement shall be developed to connect a 1 acre on -site view par): with a required neighborhood park,. b) L.C.P. -- Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses with the intent that this parcel be acquired for public open space. 202 SITE #S CALTRANS WEST (Con't.) 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will• be provided for in the event of development. S. Timing: No immediate plans for development. Ii It t 1 I! It 11 SITE $9 CALTRANS EAST Ohl V Q ro 1. General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space, 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 3. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U). 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 25.0 Net Buildable (estimate) 5. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Coastal bluffs b) other -- impacted by road noise, limited access potential, metrane gas seepage. 6. Allowable Uses: a) General Plan -- Parking, public recrea- tional and visual -environmental purposes. b) L.C.P. -- Same as General Plan. 204 i ? j SITE #9 F SCALTRANS EAST (Con't.) 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and wil] be provided for in the event of development. 8. Timing: Hoag Hospital is negotiating with the State to purchase this parcel for expansion of hospital 1 facilities. If the purchase occurs, it is anticipated that the General Plan would be amended to accommodate this expansion. No immediate plans for development. 205 SITE #10 MOBIL/ARMSTRONG i I ® MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ADNINISTPATIVC. FROFESSIONAL and MANUAL COKMERCIAL/GENEPAL INOUGTRY/GOVERNMENTAL. j EDUCATIONAL end INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES 1 1. General Plan Designation: Multi -Family Residential; Mixed: Administra- tive, Professional, and Financial Commercial; General Industry; Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: Low -Density Residential. 3. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) (with adopted P-C Development Text). 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 75.5 Net Buildable 55.4 (estimate) (includes some area within the County of orange's jurisdiction) 5. Constraints; Environmental -- Riparian/wetland areas, modified coastal bluffs, potential habitat for endangered species. 206 I I I I Ii I SITE #10 MOBIL/ARMSTRONG (Con't.) 6. Allowable Uses: a) General Plan -- The northerly (Area #1 -- 27.9 acres) and southerly Area #3 -- 17.3 acres) areas of the site is designated for Multi -Family Residential with a maximum of •15 DU's per buildable acre. It is esti- mated that 406 DU's could be build on these areas, with transfer of units from Area #1 to Area #3 allowed. The central (area # 2 --'30.3 acres) area is designated for Mixed Uses: Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial; General Industry; Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities. 400,000 sq.ft. of development is permitted on this site. b) L.C.P. -- Low -Density Residential uses at 4 DU's per buildable acre. 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will' be provided for in the event of development. 8. Timing: No immediate plans for development. IT 207 SITE #11 AERONUTRONIC FORD 1. General Plan Designation: General Industry; and Low Density, Medium Density, Multi -Family Residential. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) (with adopted P-C Development Text). 3, Site Area (Acres): Gross 215.2 (none vacant) Net Buildable 171.5 (estimate) 4. Constraints: other -- Impacted by road noise. 5. Allowable Uses: General Plan -- Industrial, Office, and Residential uses. Buildout of the 380 Du's approved (and begun) upon the residential parcels. Additional future development upon those industrial parcels presently with temporary structures (18,6 net buildable acres) and existing industrial parcels is limited to 360,000 sq.£t. I I 208 11 SITE #11 AERONUTRONIC FORD (Con't.) 6. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development: 7. Timing: Residential: 212 Units On -going 168 units 1985 Office and Industrial: 240,000 sq.ft. previously scheduled SITE #13 KOLL CENTER 1. General Plan Designation: Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities; Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial: Retail and Service Commercial; and General Industry. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) (with adopted develop- ment text). 3. Site Area (Acres): Gross 159 (34.7 vacant, excluding courthouse site -- 7.8) Net Buildable --- (31,23 vacant, excluding (estimate) courthouse site -- 7.02) 4. Constraints: Other -- Impacted by airport/road noise. 5. Allowable Uses: General Plan -- Future development is limited as follows: Office Site A Office 10,198 sq.ft.i Restaurant 5,000 sq.£t. Retail 10,000 sq.ft.l Hotel 1440 rooms (subject to Use Permit) 210 SITE' #12 BAYVIEW LANDING 0 0 1. General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an Alternate use of the Low Density Residential (upon the lower portion). 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: -Mixed- Recreational and Environmental Open Space and Retail and Service Commercial. 3. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U). 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 19.0 Net Buildable 0.0 (estimate) 5. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Coastal bluffs. b) Other -- Impacted by road noise. 6. Allowable Uses: a), General Plan -- Recreational and Environ- mental 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 (4.6 acres) of the site only to preserve existing public views. 211 SITE #12 BAYVIEW LANDING (Con't.) b) L.C.P. -- The upper portion of the site shall be used for public recreation uses, with a view park and a bike path. The lower portion shall be used for visitor - serving commercial uses. 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. B. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 212 SITE 013 KOLL CENTER (Con't.) Office Site B Office 200,685 sq.ft. Restaurant 7,000 sq.ft. Office Site C Office 358,200 sq.ft. Office Site D Office 93,051 sq.ft.l Office Site E Office 5,725 sq.ft. 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 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 ±440 rooms (subject to Use Permit) 1 There is currently in process a request to transfer these uses, and their square footage allotments to office Site B. 213 i SITE #13 KOLL CENTER (Con't.) 6. Public Facilities: including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 7. Timing: A Phasing Plan is currently under consideration for the remaining Koll/Aetna-owned property and to revise The Irvine Company -owned Block C. 214 SITE #14 EMKAY - NEWPORT PLACE ® Developed QVaemt 1. General Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; General Industry; and Retail and service Commercial. 2. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) (with adopted, develop- ment text). 3. Site Area (Acres): Gross 145 acres (approximately 6 vacant). Net Buildable 5.9 (estimate) 4. Constraints: Other -- Impacted by airport/road noise. 5. Allowable Uses: General Plan -- Industrial, Commercial and Office uses. Remaining development upon the vacant parcels is limited to 58,081 sq.ft., and for the remainder of the site an additional 259,012 sq.ft. 215 SITE #14 , EMKAY - DlRWPORT PLACE (Con't.) 6. Public Facilities: including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 7. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 216 SITE #15 JAMBOREE and MacARTHUR ems....... �<'C \ \ �, %rn• «,r 1. General Plan Designation: Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Faciiities 'with secondary Alternate designa- tions of: Retail and Service Commercial; and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: Same as General Plan. 3. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U). 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 2.0 Net Buildable 1.8 (estimate) 5. Constraints: a) Environmental --.Fresh water ponds/wetland b) Other -- Impacted by road noise. 217 SITE #15 JAMBOREE and MacArthur (Con't. 6. Allowable Uses: a) General Plan -- Freeway loop ramp and/or "Park and Ride" Facility, or as a secondary alternate uses; a mixture of Retail, Service, Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial uses with density limitations to be established in the P-C Development Plan. b) L.C.P. -- Same as General Plan. 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 8. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 218 SITE #16 SAE DIEGO CREEK NORTH n�, It ow, Nf,h W�a J•.. �i4 � OI Ty V 1. General Plan Designation: Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities with secondary Alternate designa- tions of: Retail and Service Commercial. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: Retail and Service Commercial. 3. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U). 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 12.0 Net Buildable 10.8 (estimate) 5. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Proximity to San Diego Creek. b) -Other -- Impacted by road noise, water and gas lines easement. 6. Allowable Uses: a) General Plan -- "Park and Ride" Facility, or as a secondary alternate use: Retail and Service Commercial uses not to exceed 52,727 square feet. 219 SITE #16 SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH (Con't.) b) L.C.P. -- "Park and Ride" facilities, temporary dredge spoil disposal, or 52,727 square feet of retail and service commer- cial uses. 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. S. Timing: No immediate plans for development. i 1 17 1 220 SITE #17 NORTH FORD/SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH ®ACMINISTRATIVE. PROFESSIONAL \ I•,•"• 6 FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL ��• RECREATIONAL L ENVIRORMLNTAL \ OPEN SPACE © ✓G, ' MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL '•;t{ .r . ;• Y}' QRETAIL G SERVICE COMMERCIAL 3y r 1. General Plan Designation: Multi -Family Residential; Administrative, Pro- fessional, and Financial Commercial; Retail and Service Commercial; Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: (San Diego Creek south only) General Industry. 3. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (P-C) (with adopted P-C Development Text). 8. Site Area (Acres): Gross 118.0 Net Buildable 100.67 (estimate) 5. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Proximity to San Diego Creek. b) Other -- Impacted by road noise. 221 SITE #17 NORTH FORD/SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH (Con't.) 6. Allowable Uses: a) General Plan -- The northerly (Area #4 -- 22.0 acres) of the site is designated for Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial uses. The amount of development shall be set by amendment to the P-C Development Text. The northeast area (Area #6 -- 12.0 acres) of the site is designated for Recreational and Environmental open Space use as on active park.. The central area (Area #5 -- 79.0 acres) of the site is designated for Multi -Family Repidential development with a maximum of 886 dwelling units. The southerly area (Area #3 -- 5.0 acres) of the site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial uses not to exceed 50,000 square feet. b) L.C.P. -- (only pertinent to northerly areas of the site: i.e., San Diego Creek South). "Park and Ride" facilities, temporary dredge spoil disposal, or 204,732 square feet of general industrial uses. 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 8. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 222 1 SITE #18 NEWPORT DUNES ® Land © Water a 1. General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: Same as General Plan. 3. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U). 4. Site Area (Acres): Land Water Gross 70.0 +26.0 Net Buildable 67.2 0.0 (estimate) 5. Constraints: Environmental -- Proximity to Upper Newport Bay, Coastal Bluffs 223 SITE #18 NENPORT DUNES (Con't.) 6. Allowable Uses: a) General Plan -- Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space uses with Public, Marine - Oriented Park, and related facilities permitted under Newport Beach planning programs. Under Orange County's Local Coastal Program, the Redevelopment Plan (agreed to by the City of Newport Beach) includes: marine uses consisting of expan- sion of the existing boat slips to a maximum of 400 total slips and development of an additional 200 new slips; as well as non -marine facilities such as a family inn of 275 rooms not to exceed 500,000 square feet, two additional restaurants with maximums of 5,000 and 71500 square feet and expansion of the existing restaurant not to exceed a total area of 15,000 square feet, a retail commercial/office building not to exceed 10,000 square feet and another office building with a maximum of 12,000 square feet, and a recreation vehicle park accommodating up to 444 vehicles with a support center of 5,000 square feet. b) L.C.P. -- Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 8. Timing: Construction should begin in Summer, 3984. 224 SITE #19 BUCK GULLY 1. General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an Alternate use of: Low Density Residential. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space.' 3. Existing Zoning: R-1-B. 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 49.07 Net Buildable 0.0 (estimate) 5. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Drainage areas, endangered flora, slope areas greater than 2:1. b) Other -- Impacted by aircraft noise. 6. Allowable Uses; a). General Plan -- Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space for public recreation uses. As an alternate use, Low Density Residential development is designated but is not likely because of the site's con- straints. A General Plan Amendment is being processed to remove the alternate use designation from the site. f'*'X.9 SITE *19 DUCK GULLY (Con't.) b) L.C.P. -- Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 7. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 8. Timing: No immediate plans for development. 22G i i i i i i U i I i SITE #20 NEWPORT CENTER 1. General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial; Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; Low Density, Medium Density, Multi -Family Residen- tial; and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 2. Local Coastal Program Designation: (western third only) Administrative, Profes- sional and Financial Commercial; Medium - Density Residential; Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space; and Recreational and Marine Commercial. 3. Existing Zoning: Mixed -- Planned Community (P-C) (with adopted development texts), Open Space (O-S), Unclassi- fied (U), and C-O-H. 4. Site Area (Acres): Gross 330 (approximately 122 vacant) 5. Constraints: Other -- Impacted by road noise. I 227 SITF. #20 NEWPORT CENTER (Con't.) 6. Allowable Usesl: a) General Plan -- a. Existinq development includes the following: Office & Medical 2,836,830 sq.ft. Commercial Retail 1,181,250 sq.ft. Theater 1,750 seats Hotel 377 rooms Residential 112 DU's Institutional 92,100 sq.ft. Automotive 5 acres Golf Course 18 holes Tennis Club 24 courts b. Approved and committed includes: Office & Medical 197,452 sq.ft. Commercial Retail 11,000 sq.ft. Theater 1,350 seats Hotel 559 rooms Residential 87 DU's Institutional 10,000 sq.ft. c. Future additional allowable includes: Office & Medical 31,974 cq.ft. Commercial Retail 58,750 sq.ft. Theater 2 650 seats Residential' 607 DU's Institutional 4,000 sq.ft. b) L.C.P. -- 7. Public Facilities: Includinq streets, sewer/electrical/qas lines, and park and open space are available adincent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 228 SITE #20 NEWPORT CENTER (Con't.) 8. Timing: Following is a phasing schedule for the remain- ing approved and committed development in Newport Center. a) 1984 Commercial Retail Civic Plaza 8,000 sq.ft. b) 1985 Office & Medical Institutional 15,000 sq.ft. Civic Plaza 10,000 sq.ft. Residential P.C.H. Frontage 87 DU's c) 1986 Hotel Block 600 559 rooms Office & Medical 80,000 sq.ft. Following is the remaining development in Newport Center for whi6h no phasing schedule has been developed: Office & Medical 134,426 sq.ft. Commercial Retail 61,750 sq.ft. Theater 2,000 seats Residential 2 694 DU's Institutional 4,000 sq.ft. 1 Total development limited by General Plan Amendment 79-1. 2 Newport Center has the potential for an additional 326 "floating" units -- transferred from other company owned parcels and allocated to Newport Center, to be applied -to the'parcel(s) of the Irvine Company's choosing -- subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. 229 SITE #21 NORTH BAY k 1. General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an Alternate use of: Low Density Residential (on all but the Bayview school site). 2. Existing Zoning: City of Newport Beach zoning - Unclassified (U) . County of Orange Zoning - General Agriculture (A-1). 3. Site Area (Acres): Gross 80.83 (including the 11.0 acre (estimate) Bayview School site). Net Buildable Undetermined (estimate) 4. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Proximity to Upper Newport Bay, drainage/riparian/wetland areas. b) Other -- Impacted by airport/road noire, limited access potential. 230 ' SITE #21 INORTH BAY (Con't.) 5. Allowable Uses: The Newport Beach General Plan permits Recrea- tion an 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 consider- ations which would limit development to less than 200 units. The County's "draft" Local Coastal. Plan proposes a combination of Open Space and Residential Development between 3.5 and 18 DU's per acre. The County is currently processing a General Plan Amendment to allow a multi -use development including residential, commercial office, and hotel uses. 6. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, ' and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 7. Timing: Applications are being processed and construc- tion could begin in Fall, 1985. I I 1 I 1 231 n 'i SITE #22 I IIeVINE COASTAL AREA , Santa Ana* N60ip6ri'Ej# Oortlria-loo.9 t 1. General Plan Designation: Most of the development will occur within the City's "Sphere of Influence." The Newport Beach General Plan does not contain proposed uses for this area. 2. Existing Zoning: General Agriculture (A-1) (County of Orange zoning). 3. Site Area (Acres): Gross 9,370 Net Buildable Undetermined (estimate) 4. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Drainage/riparian/wetland areas, coastal bluffs, rare and endangered flora and fauna, slope areas greater than 2.1. b) Other -- Impacted by road noise, archaeo- logical and palectological sites, limited access potential. 5. Allowable Uses: Following are the uses proposed in the County of Orange 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. 232 SITE #k22 IRVINE COASTAL AREA (Con't.) 6. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. 7. Timing: The approved County of Orange Local Coastal Program for the area is currently under litiga- tion. The ultimate development should occur within -ten to twenty years. 233 SITE #23 MOBIL/ARMSTRONG (UNINCORPORATED) 1. General Plan Designation: Specific Area Plan directed towards the development of a harbor with marine service and commercial, recreational and open space uses and associated neighborhood "Retail and Service Commercial." As an alternate use, without a harbor, residential and associated Retail and Service Commercial. Land Use designation per the Residential Growth Element is Low -Density Residential.. 2. Existing Zoning: County of Orange Zoning: tultiple-Family Residential/"Oil Overlay" - R-4/"0". Light Industrial/"oil overlay" - MI/110" General Commercial/"Oil overlay" - C-1/"0" Multiple -Family Residential - R-4 3. Site Area (Acres): Gross 450.0 (unincorporated (estimate) territory) Net Buildable Undetermined (estimate) 4. Constraints: a) Environmental -- Drainage/riparian/wet3and areas, endangered species habitat, high water table. I I I �J I 11 I t r r I I 234 r SITE #23 MOBIL/ARMSTRONG (UNINCORPORATED) (Con't.) b) Other -- Possibly impacted by natural gas seepage, high flood potential; limited access (at this time). 5. 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 recrea- tional and open space uses. Also permitted are 2108 residential units with associated Retail and Service Commercial uses to provide neces- sary neighborhood commercial. On the remaining 100 acres, the General Plan permits residential development at four dwelling units per build- able acre. This allows an estimated total development of approximately 2,408 dwelling units. Residential development could be clustered; however, no individual development would be permitted to exceed fifteen dwelling units per buildable acre. If. the proposed West Newport Harbor proves to be infeasible, the 2,108 residential dwelling units will be permitted on 350 acres of. the site. Associated Retail and Service Commercial uses to provide necessary neighborhood commer- cial will also be permitted. On the remaining 100 acres the General Plan permits residential development at four dwelling units per build- able acre. This allows for the same estimated total development ' of approximately 2,408 dwelling units. This residential development could be clustered; however, no individual development would be permitted to exceed fifteen dwelling units per buildable acre. 6. Public Facilities: Including streets, sewer/electrical/gas lines, and park and open space are available adjacent to (or presently upon) the site and will be provided for in the event of development. ' 7. Timing: No immediate plans for development. ' -- 235 I I APPENDIX B I COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST The following document lists specific provisions of Section 65580-65889 of the Government Code (Housing Element) and references there to page numbers within this element which address each provision. This has been done to assist the reader in locating specific policies and discussions as they relate to the state law. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION NUMBER PROVISION 65583(a)(1) -Population, employment trends, and projections 65583(a)(2) -Household characteristics 65583(a)(3) -Inventory of suitable residential sites 65583(a)(4) -Analysis of governmental constraints 65583(a)(5) -Analysis of non -governmental constraints 65583(a)(6) -Analysis of special housing needs 65583(a)(7) -Opportunities for energy conservation 65583(b) -Community goals, policies -Quantified objectives 65583(c) -Five year housing program 65583(c)(1) -Identify sites 65583(c)(2) -Assistance for low- and moderate -income households 65583(c)(3) -Remove government constraints 236 HOUSING ELEMENT REFERENCE Page 8-18 18-32 63-73 113-138 106-113 28-32 74-75 141-142 141-177 178-181 139-182 Objectives 3, 12 139-182 Objectives 6, 7, 11 139-182 Objectives 1, 2, 4, 8 11 I I I I GOVERNMENT CODE HOUSING ELEMENT SECTION NUMBER PROVISION REFERENCE Page 65583(c)(4) -Conserve and improve existing 139-182 affordable housing Objective 9 65583(c)(5) -Promote equal. housing opportunities 139-182 ' Objective 10 -Identification of responsible 139-182 parties (Implementation Plan of All Objectives) 3 -Public participation process 65588(a) -Housing Element update and review 3 1 1 1 237 I APPENDIX C I GLOSSARY Or PROGRAMS 11 Brief explanations and background information on several programs referred to ' in Part IV of this Housing Element are provided below. 1. COMMUNITY DEVELOP; -]ENT BLACK GRANT PROGRAM The Community Development Block Grant Program was introduced in Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The program replaced several "categorical" grant programs which allowed cities and counties to apply for funding for district purposes on a case -by -case basis. The "block grant" approach allocates funds for a variety of activities which are packaged into community development programs at the local level. Program Purpose The purpose of the CDBG Program is described in the following legislative objectives: - To support realistic and attainable strategies for expanding low - and moderate -income housing opportunities; - To promote deconcentration of lower -income housing; - To promote more rational land use; - To provide increased economic opportunities for low- and moderate -income persons; and - To correct deficiencies in public facilities which affect the public health or safety, especially of low- and moderate -income persons. Application Process: Communities with populations over SO,ODO are "entitlement" communities, and receive an allocation of CDBG funds on the basis of population. An application must be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, usually in June or July preceding the fiscal year which begins October 1. The application must contain an assessment of housing and community development needs and a comprehensive, three-year strategy to address needs identified. A Housing Assistance Plan must also be included, which assesses housing needs of lower -income households and housing conditions within the community, and sets forth a three-year Housing Assistance Plan which describes the types of housing programs needed to address needs identified. 11 LJ 1 I I I 238 Eligible Activities: A summary of activities eligible for CDBG funding is provided below: - Acquisition of real property that is blighted or deteriorated; appropriate for rehabilitation; appropriate for historic preservation; or suitable for public uses. - Acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of public works or facilities, including neighborhood facilities, senior centers, historic properties, utilities, streets, street lights, water and sewer facilities, etc. ' - Code enforcement. - Clearance, demolition, removal and rehabilitation of buildings and improvements-, including financing rehabilitation of privately owned properties. ' - Removal of architectural barriers which restrict mobility of the elderly or handicapped. ' - Payments for loss of rental income. - Disposition or retention of acquired real property. ' - Provision of public services (in special circumstances only) . - Relocation payments. - Cost of preparing CDBG applications. ' - Payment of costs in administration of the CDBG program. - Certain economic development activities. ' - Grants to private nonprofit community development organizations and small business investment companies to undertake community development efforts. 2. TAX-EXEMPT MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS Tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds are a relatively new source of financing for housing. The enabling legislation for the issuance of ' mortgage revenue bonds in California was passed in 1973. Since the passage of Proposition 13 and curtailments on the use of general obligation bonds, the use of tax-exempt housing bonds in California ' has escalated. Concerns regarding oversaturation of the bond market have arisen in California as well as across the nation. Revised state and federal policies on the use of housing bonds are presently ' evolving. In general, greater restrictions will be placed on the use of tax-exempt housing bonds to ensure their use in the public 239 interest. in short, housing bond programs must be targeted to households in need of housing assistance, and, in some circumstances, to neighborhoods with greatest housing needs. Tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds are generally attractive to investors because of the tax-exempt interest paid on long-term rates. Although housing bonds generally pay lower interest yields, a 7% to 94 tax-exempt return can compete favorably with a 12% to 15% return which is tared at a high level. Before a municipal tax-exempt bond issuance can be made, legal authorization and a legal opinion on the specific use of the bonds is necessary. When the municipality has issued the bonds, private sector participants use the proceeds to make mortgages to program participants. Mortgage payments are then collected to pay off the bonds. There is typically a 1% interest override in the bond interest rates this means that if the bond is issued at 8%, the mortgage rate is 9%. New federal regulations on the Mortgage Subsidy Bond Act of 1980 will determine the viability of using tax-exempt bonds in Newport Beach. These regulations are expected to restrict use of the bonds to first-time homebuyers, set limits on maximum housing unit sales prices, restrict assumability of mortgages, and require that a percentage of bonds be used only in targeted areas. In addition, a ceiling limit on the amount of bonds issued in each state has been imposed. The California allocation then will be divided between state and local programs. In its last bond issuance, orange County offered all cities in the county the opportunity for participation. This is a possible avenue of pursuit for Newport Beach. A sunset provision within new federal legislation prohibits the issuance of tax-exempt, single-family housing bonds after 1983. Therefore, this program option must be pursued in a timely manner. 240