HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-80 - General Plan Amendment 88-2C Housing ElementRESOLUTION NO. 89 -80
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -2(C)
BEING AN AMENDMENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AND ACCEPTING THE
• PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
AS ADEQUATE
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the City of
Newport Beach's General Plan, a Housing Element was adopted on February 11, 1974;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach amended its Housing Element to bring
it into conformance with the provisions of Article 10.6 of the Government Code, on
September 28, 1981 (Resolution No. 11051); and
WHEREAS, Article 10.6 of the Government Code requires a review and revision
of the Housing Element prior to July 1, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has reviewed its Housing Element and
prepared proposed revisions in accordance with Article 10.6; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Housing Element revisions are in conformance with the
requirements of Article 10.6 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, and it has been determined that the previously certified
program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan update is adequate
to serve as the Environmental Document for this project; and
WHEREAS, the program EIR prepared for the General Plan update projected
increases in development which can be anticipated to occur as a result of the revised
Housing Element's goals, policies and programs, and as such, the Housing Element
revision is within the scope of the approved program and the EIR adequately describes
this activity for the purposes of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, All potential environmental effects associated with the Housing
Element revision have been addressed in this EIR and no further CEQA compliance is
required; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of Newport Beach has held duly noticed
public hearings to consider these revisions to the Housing Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the
proposed revisions [GPA 88 -2(C)] to the Housing Element of the General Plan of the
City of Newport Beach, be approved in concept:; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing the City Council approved the
proposed revisions to the Housing Element in concept; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Housing Element was referred to the State Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their required review; and
WHEREAS, HCD found that the Housing; Element, in their opinion, complies with
Article 10.6 of the Government Code; and
-1-
WHEREAS, the City Council of Newport Beach has held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider final approval of the revisions [GPA 88 -2(C)] to the Housing Element
of the Newport Beach General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve GPA 88 -2(C), the revisions to the
Newport Beach Housing Element as set forth in. Exhibit "A" of this resolution.
NOW THEREFORE BE rT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
• Newport Beach that General Plan Amendment 88 -2(C), consisting of revisions to the
Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach is hereby adopted
as set forth in Exhibit "A," and the previously certified Environmental Document is
accepted as adequate.
ADOPTED this 24th day of July , 1989.
ATTEST
1
?q- ��M
C: \RES \HSE- ELEM.724
J�
-2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w.
o;
N.
)O
8�0
tiro
e:w
A0
i
;s
c13
esey
{
a::
3 °e
E
Housing Element
d
®f the
"a<
5�
i
r
@fir,.
C�i
3t.•<
1
e
e:oq`
City of Newport Beach
P
I
;*M
Ng
$
Npp�
ap
<
ai2
R�
£i
s
qty
Adopted by the
as
�se3
Newport Beach City Council
sue:
a
4iL
r
July 24, 1989
INS
�'
'•N'as,
Sts
rog
flg°
Resolution No. 89 -80 i
k
y�
ice:
o.�
e
%e
3,rf
G.S
.... ................................................................................ ............................ ...
Tp
2c�
....................... ...............................
p'w
Q
.:.
:....................................._..............................................................................._........................................... ..............................i
¢ov
Y QE y o
c�'<[�iM/ . ,.:&&:.:��../q�.�>.>�i�NN.��,,i,NN��'.'.��ee��++�� ro,a.:a a w.w ,r 'b<�se'. y� 3: • <,0<1 v ^n`o 8r 9DK8,[
I
Table of Contents
■
�j
Introduction
Page
i
I. Community Analysis
Page
1
Population Trends .................. ...........................Page
1
Housing Unit and Population Projections .... .....................Page
6
Employment Trends ................. ..........................Page
10
Household Characteristics .......... ...........................Page 11
Special Population Groups .......... ...........................Page 18
Housing Stock Characteristics ....... ...........................Page 25
Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development ........... Page 38
Energy Conservation Opportunities .. ...........................Page 52
Housing Needs .................... ...........................Page 53
Non - Governmental Constraints .. ............................... Page 54
Governmental Constraints ...................................... Page 60
II. Housing Goals, Policies, Quantified Objectives and Programs Page 83
Housing Goals and Policies ..... ............................... Page 83
1 Quantified Objectives .............. ...........................Page 84
Housing Programs ................. ...........................Page 88
Program 1: Sites for New Residential Development ............. Page 88
Program 2: Negotiated Development .........................Page 91
Program 3: Development Assistance ......................... Page 93
IProgram 4: Mixed Residential & Commercial/Industrial Use .... Page 95
I
Program 9: Variety of Housing Types ........................ Page 98
Program 10: Review of Housing Element ..................... Page 99
Program 11: General Plan Consistency ........................ Page 99
Program 12: Homelessness .. ............................... Page 100
III. Appendix
1984 Housing Element Review .. ............................... Page 103
Program 5:
Development Permit Process ......................
Page 96
Program 6:
Existing Residential Development ................
Page 96
Program 7:
Fair Housing ........ ...........................Page
97
Program 8:
Housing for Elderly .............................
Page 98
Program 9: Variety of Housing Types ........................ Page 98
Program 10: Review of Housing Element ..................... Page 99
Program 11: General Plan Consistency ........................ Page 99
Program 12: Homelessness .. ............................... Page 100
III. Appendix
1984 Housing Element Review .. ............................... Page 103
I
Introduction
The Dousing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan examines residen-
tial 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 housing. These policies have been
developed to reflect local economic and social attitudes in the community, and
I also to coincide with the attainment of state housing goals. These goals have
j 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 oppor-
tunities 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 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, en-
vironmental, 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.
I
I
I
I
I
[_J
This Housing Element has been prepared in accordance with Article 10.6 of the
Government Code, which was adopted by the State Legislature in September
1980.
Organization of the Element
The Housing Element has been prepared in two sections and one appendix, as
follows:
I. Community Housing Market Analysis
This section presents the most current and available information pertaining to
the following seven subsections: (1) An analysis and projection of population
and employment, an analysis of household characteristics including over - paying
and an analysis of housing characteristics including aver- crowding and housing
stock conditions; (2) An analysis of housing needs; (3) An inventory of land
suitable for residential development; (4) Non - governmental constraints to the
production of housing; (5) Governmental constraints to the production of hous-
ing; (6) An analysis of special population groups; and (7) An analysis of oppor-
tunities for energy conservation.
II. Housing Goals and Policies, Quantified Objectives, and Programs
This section has three primary functions: (1) to establish the City's housing goals
and policies; (2) To quantify the maximum number of housing units that can be
constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the five year period July 1989 -
July 1994; and (3) Present the City's housing programs which represent a five
year schedule of actions to be implemented by the City to achieve the goals,
policies, and quantified objectives of the Housing Element.
ii
I
I
I
soIII. Appendix
Government Code Section 65588 requires the City to review the Housing Ele-
ment as frequently as is appropriate and to evaluate the effectiveness 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. The appendix is the required review and evaluation
of the 1984 -1989 Housing Element.
Citizen Participation
The views and proposals of the citizens in the community have been actively
isolicited 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
t 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 Ele-
ment, one before the City Planning Commission and one before the City Coun-
cil.
...
iii
I
11
11
I
I
I
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.
During the 1989 review and amendment process, two public hearings were held
before the Planning Commission and two public hearings were held before the
City Council. Legal notices were published in the paper for the hearings and
notices were mailed directly to housing developers and social service agencies.
Time Period Covered by the Element
This revised Housing Element covers the five -year period 1989 -1994.
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 im-
plementation. The Housing Element will be revised again in five years (1994)
in accordance with State law.
iv
I
I
U
C7
I
I. Community Analysis.
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 City's proportionate gain in population has been substantially less than
the county's.
TABLE 1
POPULATION GROWTH
ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH: 1910 -1988
Newport Beach
445
Orange County
Emulation Growth Rate
1910
34,436
2,203
1920
61,375
78.2%
1930
118,674
93.4%
1940
130,760
10.2%
1950
216,224
65.4%
1960
703,925
225.6%
1970
1,420,386
101.8%
1980
1,932,709
36.1%
1988
2,238,700
15.8%
Newport Beach
445
894
100.9%
2,203
146.4%
4,438
101.4%
12,120
173.1%
26,565
119.2%
49,442
86.1%
62,556
26.5%
69,600
11.3%
Sources: U.S. Census of Population and Housing and California Department of Finance.
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, im-
migration, which is still a strong factor in population growth in Orange County, is a much
lesser factor in Newport Beach.
-1-
Between 1976 and 1980, Newport Beach actually lost population, despite the fact that ap-
proximately 1500 housing units were added in the City. However, the State Department
of Finance estimates that the City has increased in population to 69,600 by 1988 largely
due to the annexation of the West Newport Triangle in 1980, a portion of Santa Ana
Heights in 1987, and some large housing developments that were recently constructed.
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 rela-
tively 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 over-
all vacancy of year -round units actually available for occupancy at the time of the federal
census was 5.2 01o. A 1988 survey showed an overall rental vacancy rate of 2.4% in New-
port Beach and 4.1% in Corona del Mar.
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 size in 1976 was 2.36, the 1980 Census
reported an average household size of 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 2
PERSONS PER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT
140 1475! 12ZS2. IM 147$ 1272 12$4 1988 EST.
Newport Beach 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 23 23 2.2 2.2
Orange County 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6
Sources: U.S. Census of Population and Housing and California Deparunent of Finance.
Various factors that contribute to this phenomenon are explored below:
o 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 New-
port 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.
o Many predominantly owner - occupied neighborhoods in the City were originally popu-
lated by child - rearing families. These families have matured and children have passed
-2-
P1
1
1
M
I
through high school and left home in the same general time period. Thus, certain neigh-
borhoods now have sizeable numbers of childless couples in the "empty nest" stage of
life, causing a general reduction in neighborhood population.
o Limited opportunities exist for children who have been raised in Newport Beach to es-
tablish 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 hous-
ing 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.
o 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, sup-
ported by two professional salaries, are often able to afford housing in Newport Beach.
In many neighborhoods homes where child - rearing families have been predominant,
young childless households are now very common. Much of the reduction in neighbor-
hood population can be attributed to this phenomenon.
® Many retired persons have moved to Newport Beach in the last ten years.
ZIn 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 3 and 4; Population By Age, City of
Newport Beach 1960 -1976, and Changes in School Enrollment By Grades, January 1976 -
January 1988.
a
-3-
§
} -k_ }
km
¥ ]
m _
� m \
§ \
e
k �
_ ) i
\ k
§ \
t t 7 f [
; f
\ 4 # } $ ) B
2 3' k
& R / a
-4-
J
\
§
d
§
} -k_ }
km
¥ ]
m _
� m \
§ \
e
k �
_ ) i
\ k
§ \
t t 7 f [
; f
\ 4 # } $ ) B
2 3' k
& R / a
-4-
�ce ! s
CC 0 0 0
Pw +
+
�N2
a�F
y � V
A � Q
W W x W a W aai q v
� Sol
g z
8
W
-5-
Housing Unit and Population Projections
The ultimate residential capacity within the City of Newport Beach has been projected at
39,819 dwelling units within the present City limits and 5,376 dwelling units within the
unincorporated sphere of influence. This projection is based on the General Plan and the
City's traffic model.
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 at 2.2 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 part-
ly offsetting the historical decline in household size.
2. Vacancy rates will decline somewhat as a result of the demand for housing and in-
creased price of housing in Orange County. An overall vacancy rate of 10% through
the year 2010 has been projected. (This 10% vacancy rate includes seasonal and
migratory units not available for occupancy. The comparable overall vacancy rate in
1980 was 12.9 %.)
3. Ultimate residential buildout in the City is projected to occur by the year 2010.
I
TABLE 5
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 1970 -1988
Im 1980M
12L
Publics
9--8
5,681 4,495( - 20.9 %)
3,846
(- 14.0 %)
9 -12
3.224 3.4�( +5.4%)
3.3$1
( 8.0 %)
Subtotal
9,180) 8,164(- 11.7 %)
7,227
(41.0 01b)
PcivateZ
K -8
882 902( +2.3 %)
895
( +1.0 %)
9 -12
157 _= (27.4 %)
unavailable
Subtotal
1,039 1,102( +6.1 %)
TOTAL
10,219 9,266
Source:
[Newport -Mesa Unified School Disaict;
ZCily of Newport Beach Planning Department
Housing Unit and Population Projections
The ultimate residential capacity within the City of Newport Beach has been projected at
39,819 dwelling units within the present City limits and 5,376 dwelling units within the
unincorporated sphere of influence. This projection is based on the General Plan and the
City's traffic model.
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 at 2.2 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 part-
ly offsetting the historical decline in household size.
2. Vacancy rates will decline somewhat as a result of the demand for housing and in-
creased price of housing in Orange County. An overall vacancy rate of 10% through
the year 2010 has been projected. (This 10% vacancy rate includes seasonal and
migratory units not available for occupancy. The comparable overall vacancy rate in
1980 was 12.9 %.)
3. Ultimate residential buildout in the City is projected to occur by the year 2010.
I
A
l
I
I
Table 6
PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION
City of Newport Beach
Housing
Average
Assumed
Tni t* Pop ,la kin
g
Vacancy Rate*
Trent City Limits
1980 31,397 62,556
2.23
129%
1987 34,191 67,698
2.20
8.0%
Build -Out (2010) 39,819 ** 78,844 **
2.20
7.0%
Sphere of Intl , n e r 7nincornorated Area
1987 442 875
2.20
8.0
Build- Out(2010) 5,376 ** 10,644 **
2.20
7.0
* Includes second homes occupied seasonally, about 5% of the housing stock in 1987 declining to 4%
of the housing stock at build -out.
* * Land Use Plan of General Plan
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 (SCAG) (Growth Forecast Policy
January 1982) for Orange County. This variance 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.
1 -7
Table 9
NEWPORT BEACH POPULATION AS A PROPORTION
OF ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION
The following table was created to show historical housing and population trends based on
past State Department of Finance estimates. Added to these estimates are housing unit
and population projections based on estimates of actual construction. The projections are
for the five year period covered by this Housing Element, 1989 -1994.
�i
i_
j
Orange
Coun ty
Newport
Beach
%of
County
1940
130,760
4,438
3.4%
1950
216,224
12,120
5.6%
1960
703,925
26,565
3.8%
1970
1,420,386
49,442
3.5%
1980
1,932,709
62,556
3.2%
1988
2,238,700
69,600
3.1%
Projections:
1995
2,596,800
76,500
3.0%
2010
3,044,000
89,488•
2.9%
° Including presently unincorporated areas in sphere of influence.
Sources. U.S. Census, 1980; State
Department of Finance, 1986;
City of Newport Beach Planning Department.
The following table was created to show historical housing and population trends based on
past State Department of Finance estimates. Added to these estimates are housing unit
and population projections based on estimates of actual construction. The projections are
for the five year period covered by this Housing Element, 1989 -1994.
�i
i_
j
I
I
I
I
I
a ey Nl�aM7�� I
Pn N "c�i'ri t3 ri ri ri N f`i fV ri
w w
a ANN OOaaO�OG iG 00
N f 3 N N N N N M M w i i
06 00 ,
ao� s
Z r hh vim hhvi �D �O
QO�O'�{OtiOh
C\ a O. O�
\ H H rl N H rl N rl H N
z
M M M M M M M M
a
ew
htn ��m oh h
Ga Mhhhh VMl In1h V1 V�1 i
a
nZeng$st��8$9 gF
a � »
O, 1 C
9
M
b
5 w
N
Q'
O
0
0. .5
0.
r �
o °
rr4
k
a�
0
�n U
h
Employment
The Newport Beach Planning Department estimated total non - construction employment
to be 42,000 in 1980. In January 1988, employment was estimated to be 58,255, a 39% in-
crease. City estimates are based on the City's computer traffic modeling which applies
employment generation ratios to non - residential land uses. The projected non - residential
development square footage is based on the recently amended Land Use Plan entitlements.
Previous entitlements were significantly reduced by this amendment. This modeling ac-
counts for employment that can be attributed to permanent land uses and therefore ex-
cludes miscellaneous seasonal and non - facility based employment (such as certain
construction jobs, fishing, lifeguards, and certain transportation employment). The ex-
cluded employment accounts for between one and three percent of the total employment
in Newport Beach.
The employment generation ratios used by the Planning Department in its traffic model-
ing appear in Table 9.
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. Based on the traffic modeling employee generation factors, the 1988 employ-
ment of 58,255 will increase to 85,354 employees at build -out. This represents a 46.5% in-
crease over the existing employment level.
-10-
1
1
1
t
1
I
1
f
TABLE 9
EMPLOYEE GENERATION RATIOS
Land Use
('ate
band Use
Employee Generation
Factor
Commercial
Auto. Detailer
13.0 /Acre
General
1.0/TSF
Hotel/Motel
.39/Room
Restaurant
3.2/TSF
Office
Business
3.9/TrSF
Medical
3.ZrrSF
Industrial
General
44 /Acre
R &D
3.4/TSF
G.E.I.F
Hospital
23/Bed
Schools
W/Student
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. Based on the traffic modeling employee generation factors, the 1988 employ-
ment of 58,255 will increase to 85,354 employees at build -out. This represents a 46.5% in-
crease over the existing employment level.
-10-
1
1
1
t
1
I
1
f
I
I.
i
I
I
I
Table 10 compares the City's projected employment growth with the SCAG projected
employment growth for Orange County.
Analysis of Employment Trends and Projections
The employment in the City is expected to increase by 79% between 1984 and 2010, com-
pared to a SCAG - projected regional growth rate of 62% during that same period. The
City will have about 5.0% of the jobs in Orange County by the year 2010.
Between 1989 and 1994, employment should increase by about 6,160 jobs. It is estimated
that there are 1.65 workers per non - elderly household. Therefore, 6,160 jobs would
provide employment for about 3,733 households. Based on the percentage of households
living and working in the City in 1980 (about 37 %), 6,160 jobs would translate into a hous-
ing demand of 1,450 units if a 5% vacancy factor is included. Actual housing demand result-
ing 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.
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.
-11-
TABLE 10
PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT - NEWPORT
BEACH
AND ORANGE COUNTY
Newport
Orange
City Employment
Beach
Coun
County Emoloyment
1980 42,000
881,700
4.8 %
1984 47,715
1,048,000
4.6%
2010 85,354
1,701,900
5.0%
1. City estimate is for 1984.
Sources: SCAG Growth Forecast and City estimate.
Analysis of Employment Trends and Projections
The employment in the City is expected to increase by 79% between 1984 and 2010, com-
pared to a SCAG - projected regional growth rate of 62% during that same period. The
City will have about 5.0% of the jobs in Orange County by the year 2010.
Between 1989 and 1994, employment should increase by about 6,160 jobs. It is estimated
that there are 1.65 workers per non - elderly household. Therefore, 6,160 jobs would
provide employment for about 3,733 households. Based on the percentage of households
living and working in the City in 1980 (about 37 %), 6,160 jobs would translate into a hous-
ing demand of 1,450 units if a 5% vacancy factor is included. Actual housing demand result-
ing 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.
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.
-11-
I
TABLE 11
ETHNIC AND RACIAL IDENTIFICATION
TABLE 12
OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY
Heads of Newport
Orange
Total
Household Beach
County
Black
Non - Minority White 16,726 96.00%
84.32%
Total Housholds
Black' 61 .22%
1.15%
64
American Indian
581
Non - Family HH
Eskimo, & Aleut 49 .18%
.62%
41
252
Asian & Pacific Islander 294 1.06%
3.24%
Single
Other 109 .39%
1.15%
Spanish Origin 581 2.09%
10.19%
_
White (461)
15,439
23
Black (3)
181
Married Couples
American Indian (13)
12,618
16
Other (104)
181
With Children
' Excludes persons of Spanish origin, shown separately.
4,337
6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1980.
82
In
-12-
TABLE 12
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE AND ETHNICITY (1980)
Asian/
Spanish
Total
HH
White
Black
Other
Origin'
Total Housholds
27,820
27,187
64
569
581
Non - Family HH
12,081
11,748
8,4312
41
252
292
1442
30
168
Single
8,644
Family Households
15,739
15,439
23
277
181
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 _
' 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.
-12-
i
1
t
I
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 1980, the City's median household income was 20.7% higher that the County's
household median income.
TABLE 13
ACTUAL AND PROJECTED MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES
ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH
Orange Newport
(% of)
Coon Beach
Can
19601 $ 7,219 $ 8,571
19701
(+18.7%)
$12,244 $16,435
( +34.2 %)
1976 $16,8002 $7A,8752
( +243 %)
1980 $22,8061 $27,516
( +20.7 %)
1988 (Est.) $39,9503 $47,9503
( +75.1 %)
Sources: L U.S. Census.
2. 1476 Special Census for Newport Beach.
3. Estimate based on HUD- calculated county median income for
Mann 1983.
-13-
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 median income for 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 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. The
amount of rental housing in the City, approximately 50% of the housing stock, also has a
strong influence on the overall household income.
-14-
fE
AK
TABLE 14
1980 AND 1984 ESTIMATED
CrN OF NEWPORT BEACH
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Imcome
Number 19M
to
Number 19842
i�l
$ 0- 4,499
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%
22492
8A%
$40- 49,999
2,635
95%
3,595
12.1%
$50- 742999
32296
11.9%
4,470
15.0%
$75,000+
Uu
115%
4,352
14.6%
TOTAL,
27,736[
29,818
[Total does not add to total number of households due to rounding
2Sourees: 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 median income for 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 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. The
amount of rental housing in the City, approximately 50% of the housing stock, also has a
strong influence on the overall household income.
-14-
fE
AK
I
I
I
ILM
i
VW
■
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is best assessed by analyzing the level of payment as compared to the
ability to pay. The most recent survey data on the amount of income spent on housing ex-
penses 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 income for housing. Table 18 shows the relationship of income spent
on housing by income group.
In its 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment, the Southern California Association of
Governments calculated that 4,431 lower-income, households, 14% of all households, paid
more than 30% of their income for housing. According to SCAG estimates, 2,625 very
low- income households and 1,806 low- income households pay more than 30% of their in-
come for housing.
-15-
3
§
G
%
ƒ
/
*
)
R
k
&
f
§
/
ƒ
±
k
f§
)
\
(
as
3
_
§
00
}
\
)
�
$
ƒ
fzt
]
+
/
! /
�
\
(
y
/
\
]
y
w
B
a
■
-#-
E
From this table, it appears that among those households earning 80% or less of the City
median household income, the number of households paying more than 25% (30% in 1988)
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. The large number of renter households is also support-
ing evidence that a large number of households paying over 25% to 30% of their income
for housing are students. (See Special Population Groups, Students.) Those households
in the moderate- and upper- income groups do not appear to have any housing affordability
problem.
The number of higher - income households paying more than 25% of their income for hous-
ing 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 uni-
que 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 be-
cause 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.
Overcrowding
The substantial reduction in the average household size in the City of Newport Beach in-
dicates 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, com-
prising 31.3% of all City households. Only 163% 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-oc-
cupied 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 unre-
lated persons are sharing housing expenses. This household arrangement is common
-17-
among students as well as seasonal visitors renting units in West Newport, Balboa Penin-
sula, 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 ob-
served. 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 order to decrease housing costs. The incidence of overcrowding in West Newport, Bal-
boa ]Peninsula, and Balboa Island was 1.0 %, 0.6 %, 1.0% respectively.
SiJGCI�:ii r�OOf�)UI<dii��lil �al "OOIaF� ?S
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. It is estimated
that approximately 800 UCI students and a comparable number of OCC students reside
in Newport Beach. However, any numbers obtained for students should be considered
with caution. Both campuses stress that they neither have exact data on students living in
Newport Beach, nor can they guarantee that those students who claim to live in the City
actually do. As an example, if a student's parents live in Newport Beach, he or she may
continue to list that address even while living elsewhere. While the Student Housing Of-
fices do provide information to students on locating housing, the students do not neces-
sarily obtain their housing through the offices. Also, the Student Housing Offices have no
way of following up on the residences of the students.
The UCI Housing Office has completed a study on housing costs for 1988. Rents range
from $596 per month for a one bedroom, one bath apartment, to $1,543 per month for a
four bedroom, two bath. The study was based on the number of rooms and made no dis-
tinction between apartments and homes. Average costs, based on students helped, are as
follows:
TABLE 16
UCI OFF - CAMPUS HOUSING OFFICE
HOUSING COSTS FOR NEWPORT BEACH -- 1988
1 bedroom, 1 bath $ 596/mo
2 bedroom, l bath $ 750 /mo
3 bedroom, 2 bath $1,180 mo
4 bedroom, 2 bath $1,543/mo
Most of the students reside in the West Newport, Balboa Peninsula areas and Balboa Is-
land. The rents for Balboa Island are slightly higher than elsewhere. Students are able to
afford these prices by living with other students and sharing costs. A drawback to this prac-
tice is that it may lead to overcrowded conditions. The housing needs of students could
-18-
I
A
I
I
best be met by providing more compact and efficient units that would rent at a lower cost.
Student needs could possibly be met by boarding houses or by facilities such as a communal
dormitory with a cafeteria.
W Handicapped
The 1980 Census reports that 1,143 persons, or 1.8% of the City population had a per-
manent mental or physical handicap which prevented them from using public transporta-
tion. Over 69 % of those individuals were 65 years of age or older. Public transportation
disability is an indicator of special housing needs of handicapped persons. This is the only
source of information on handicapped persons which the Census provides. Those with
handicaps include persons who are blind, deaf or mute, or confined to bed or a wheelchair,
or require crutches. A survey conducted by the Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled
in 1987 questioned 14,000 disabled residents in Orange County. The study concluded that
the two most prevalent housing needs for persons with disabilities are accessibility and af-
fordability. Individuals that are mobility impaired require special housing or structural
needs. These include, but are not limited to, wheelchair ramps, widened doorways, grab
bars, and access ramps. Certain individuals may require housing which has better access
to health care facilities.
From the Census data available, it is not possible to determine how many of these hand-
icapped persons are in need of housing assistance. However, the City was able to produce
two units designed for handicapped occupancy in one of its rent restricted, financially as-
sisted housing developments. The rental on these two units is restricted so as to allow the
use of Section 8 rental assistance certificates or vouchers. These units are also located in
close proximity to the largest concentration of health care facilities within Newport Beach.
s
Female Head of Household
Census data from 1980 reveals that there were 2,121 female- headed households within
Newport Beach. Of these, 1,224 (57 %) had related children under 18 years of age, and 181
had related children under 6 years of age. It is not possible to determine, from Census
data, how many of these households are in need of housing assistance, below 80% of Coun-
ty median household income and paying more than 30% of their income for housing.
However, Census data also reveals that 264 of the total female- headed households were
t below poverty status for a family of four. Of those 264 households, 202 had related children
under 18 years of age, and 32 had related children under 6 years of age. Until the results
of the 1990 Census are published, the City will not have more current information.
r" The City has been able to produce a significant number of rent restricted units with rents
that qualify for Section 8 rental assistance which are the type of units which would satisfy
the housing needs of this group. However, an inadequate supply of Section 8 Rental Cer-
tificates and Vouchers has, on occasion, allowed some of these units to sit vacant for two
months or more.
-19-
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 the population. Since
1960, the elderly population in Newport Beach has steadily grown, and there is no indica-
tion of this trend reversing. 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 or older, only
8.4% of all county residents were in this same age category. In 1980, 17.1% of Newport -
Beach residents were 60 years of age or older, whereas only 11.9% of Orange County resi-
dents were 60 years of age or older. Due to the aging of the "baby- boomers" and the fol-
lowing "birth- dearth" of 10 years ago, in which the nation's birth rate was the lowest ever,
the 65 years and older age group has been, proportionately, the fastest growing segment
of the total population in the last two decades. Owing to the attractive atmosphere of New-
port Beach, the area may well continue to serve as a destination for retirees.
Many elderly persons residing in Newport Beach are long -time residents. However, as in-
dicated, many others have more recently arrive to pursue a retirement lifestyle that is well
suited to the area's attractive locale. '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, however, are more often
than not living in houses which they purchased before sky - rocketing real- estate prices. If
these individuals were to move to the City today, they would be unable to afford the house
in which they are currently living. Furthermore, these homes may no longer match their
housing needs in terms of living space, maintenance and location in respect to community
facilities. 'Thus, 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 houses only because they wish to remain in the i
community. Alternative living arrangements in the community, involving smaller units W
close to commercial and transportation facilities with some congregate services, would bet- _
ter serve the housing needs of this population segment.
r
Many elderly residents in the City reside in mobile home parks. A number of long -time _
elderly residents live in the older parks which were developed in the 1950's and 1960's,
while others live in parks which are close to the bay and which cater to a retirement life-
style.
Large Families
In this analysis, the City has examined total households and families with five or more per-
sons. For clarification, families are groups of persons related by blood, marriage or adop-
tion. Households represent all persons living together as groups, whether they are related
or not.
The 1980 Census reported that of the 27,736 total households in the City, 1,515 (5.4 %)
contained 5 persons or more. Of these 1,515 large households, 1,383 (91.2 %) were large
families. 'Thus, the remaining 133 (8.8 %) households were non - related individuals living
-20-
I
w
I
I
together as household groups; these households represented 0.5% of the total households
in the City. The large family households represent 5% of the total households in the City
and 8.8% of the 15,656 total families. Table 17 shows the distribution of the number of
persons per family and household as indicated in the 1980 Census. As indicated in Table
18, in 1980, 131(0.8 %) of these large families were low income families earning less than
80% of the County median family income ($13,045). Thirty-one (0.1 %) 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.
The above information shows that there is a demand for large units to meet the needs of
low and very-low income large households. The City has been able to produce two units
for large family occupancy. The rental on these units is restricted at a level that allows the
use of Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers.
-21-
TABLE 17
Persons
Families
Percent
Households
Percent
1
8,686
31.3%
2
8,624
55.1%
10,581
38.1%
3
3,257
20.8%
4,184
15.1%
4
2,393
153%
2,770
10.0%
5
1,051
6.7%
1,120
4.0%
6
222
- 1.4%
260
.9%
7+
109
135
.5%
TOTAL,
15,656
27,736
Source. 1980 Census
-21-
Home&ess
According to most reports, the number of homeless persons appears to be growing.
]However, before any programs can be implemented to help these people, the nature and
numbers of the homeless are needed. Among the homeless population there is a variety
of reasons for homelessness. The following situations describe several of the most com-
mon reasons for homelessness, but it is not intended to be all inclusive.
a. Single adult (usually male) transients who pass through a community on the way to
some other destination, but who do not stay.
b. Seasonal or migrant homeless individuals, mainly farm workers and fisherman.
C. Chronically homeless, single adults, including non - institutionalized, mentally dis-
turbed individuals, alcohol and drug abusers, elderly individuals with insufficient in-
comes, and others who voluntarily, or are forced, due to financial circumstances, to
"live on the streets."
d. Minors who have either run away from home or have been "thrown out."
e. Low- income families who are temporarily homeless due to financial circumstances
or are in the process of searching for a home. Single - parent families, mostly female -
headed, are especially prevalent in this group.
-22-
fJ
I
TABLE 18
FERS ®NS IN FAMILY EY FAMILY INCOME
2 3 4 5 6
7+
Total
$
$ 4,999
276
131
46
8
0
3
467
$ 5,Q00-
$ 9,999
546
110
72
15
0
0
743
$10,000-
$14,999
713
208
97
6
7
0
1,041
$15,000-
$19,999
997
273
148
68
13
11
11
1,510
1,510
$20,000-
$24,999
997
273
148
68
13
5
2,548
$25,000-
$34,999
1,395
521
459
129
168
39
61
37
2,997
$35,000-
$501000-
$49,999
$74,999
1,525
1,272
699
576
507
525
209
46
9
2,637
$75,000+
MEDIAN
$31,849
$38,096
$42 ,358
$58,792
$46,875
$44,200
Source. 1950 Census
Home&ess
According to most reports, the number of homeless persons appears to be growing.
]However, before any programs can be implemented to help these people, the nature and
numbers of the homeless are needed. Among the homeless population there is a variety
of reasons for homelessness. The following situations describe several of the most com-
mon reasons for homelessness, but it is not intended to be all inclusive.
a. Single adult (usually male) transients who pass through a community on the way to
some other destination, but who do not stay.
b. Seasonal or migrant homeless individuals, mainly farm workers and fisherman.
C. Chronically homeless, single adults, including non - institutionalized, mentally dis-
turbed individuals, alcohol and drug abusers, elderly individuals with insufficient in-
comes, and others who voluntarily, or are forced, due to financial circumstances, to
"live on the streets."
d. Minors who have either run away from home or have been "thrown out."
e. Low- income families who are temporarily homeless due to financial circumstances
or are in the process of searching for a home. Single - parent families, mostly female -
headed, are especially prevalent in this group.
-22-
fJ
I
I
f. Women (with or without children) who are escaping domestic violence. Men may
also fall into this category.
g. Persons displaced as a result of disaster with no short term means of providing shel-
ter.
When this analysis was originally prepared in December of 1986, the City examined avail-
able data sources and contacted governmental agencies, quasi- public organizations, social
service agencies, religious organizations, private firms and persons involved in providing
emergency shelter. These sources revealed that there were no precise data available on
the total number of persons and families in need of emergency shelter in Newport Beach.
Due to the nature of these individuals, primarily their mobility and lack of identifiable
residence, it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain an accurate census of their numbers.
Coupled with this problem is the potential of double counting individuals as they move
from one agency to another.
During the initial preparation of the analysis, the City also researched governmental sour-
ces such as the 1980 Federal Census, the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the State Department of :Housing and Community Development,
the Southern California Association of Governments, Orange County Housing Authority,
and the Orange County Offices of Environmental Management, Human Resource and So-
cial Services. This revealed that neither a formal data system to enumerate the homeless,
norprecise counts of homeless persons exist. A national study undertaken by HUD in 1985
estimated that between 6- 10,000 persons in Orange County needed emergency shelter at
any given time. In contrast, the Orange County Coalition for the Homeless also prepared
a report on a survey they conducted in 1985. The report stated that the survey was con-
ducted for one month at agencies providing homeless services and counted 3,169 home-
less persons in Orange County. A more detailed and up -to -date census of homeless
persons is currently being conducted by UC Irvine, in cooperation with the Orange Coun-
ty Homeless Issue Task Force. It is hoped that this study will provide a more accurate pic-
ture of the homeless situation in Orange County.
Research of local agencies once again consisted of contacting those groups that provided
assistance to persons in need of emergency shelter and assistance. When the first analysis
was prepared, this research was hampered by a lack of information concerning these agen-
cies. However, since the last analysis, the City has been requiring Social Service agencies
receiving CDBG funds to provide information pertaining to the last permanent residence
of those persons helped. This data gathering requirement was established as part of a
Housing Element program implementation action. In many cases better information has
been provided, in other cases improved counting is still required. Agencies without the
expanded reporting requirements could not provide better information than in 1986.
The Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter (OCIS) is one such agency providing records of ser-
vice,to the City as part of the reporting requirements of the CDBG program. Based on
this more detailed information for the period January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1988,
527 families or 1,445 persons were temporarily housed. Based on a report of last per-
-23-
manent address, 79% of these families were former residents of Orange County, 12% ar-
rived from other California cities outside of orange County, 8 % migrated from outside of
California, and less than 1% were from other countries. Newport Beach families ac-
counted for only 1.1 % (6 families) of the total. The ethnic breakdown revealed that 60%
of the individuals were White and non - Hispanic, and 24% were of Hispanic origin. The
percent Black was 13 %, and only 1% were Asian. Of the total, 8.5 % had females as head
of households.
The YWCA Hotel for Women provides shelter, food, counseling, job- search, and housing -
search assistance for homeless women. The City also provides CDBG funds to this or-
ganization, and likewise, requires expanded reporting information. From July, 1987
through June, 1988, the Hotel assisted 296 women. Over 50% of these women were be-
tween the ages of 25 and 44, and 46% of the total assisted had no income when they ar-
rived. Statistics show that only 2 % (6 women) lived in Orange County, 14% lived in other
California cities, and 8.5% came from elsewhere in the United States. Asa group, women
entering the Hotel were 70 % White, 45% single, and 66 % had only a high school educa-
tion.
The City also assists smaller organizations with CDBG funds, such as the Newport Beach -
Costa Mesa YMCA. This organization offers temporary housing and related support ser-
vices. Based on two quarters, the YMCA provided temporary housing for 31 Newport
Beach individuals. However, due to the incomplete nature of the data submitted to the
City, it remains unclear whether or not the same individuals were helped more than once
during this period. The City has contacted the YMCA about their reports and it is not clear
from their information if the 31 reported individuals may have been counted more than
once, or are in fact, 31 different people. If this program continues to be funded, attempts
will be made to clarify this information.
FISH - Harbor Area (Friends in Services to Humanity) is another organization receiving
CDBG funding from the City. Between July, 1987, and June, 1988, FISH provided assis-
tance to approximately 103 homeless, of which 39 persons (37 %) listed newport Beach as
their last permanent address. As with the YMCA, the data is too weak for making con-
clusions. It is not clear is the same people are being assisted more than once.
The American Red Cross also assists persons temporarily displaced from their residence
due to disasters such as fires. During 1988, the Iced Cross provided assistance for one New-
port Beach family after their home burned down. Between January 1989, and April 1989,
the agency reported helping only one family. This agency does not request CDBG fund-
ing from the City.
Aside from the organizations discussed above, othervolunteer groups and a variety of local
religious organizations serve Newport Beach and the surrounding communities in
numerous ways. These agencies offer assistance to both homeless individuals and needy
persons by providing temporary shelter, bus fares to reach pre - planned destinations, rent-
al assistance, medical assistance, food and clothes.
-24-
r
f
I
I
y
I
I
Located in Santa Ana, the Salvation Army provides a hospitality house, with 50 beds for
the homeless to use on a nightly basis. Some One Cares Soup Kitchen, a volunteer or-
ganization, does not offer temporary housing, but does offer meals to the homeless and
needy. The Soup Kitchen takes monthly surveys and the most recent survey revealed that
of the approximately 200 people served daily, 34% lived on the streets and 26% lived in a
car. It is not known how many of the homeless were from Newport Beach.
Several motels in the Newport Beach -Costa Mesa area are utilized by various agencies to
accommodate homeless persons. These agencies pay all or a portion of the costs. One
Newport Beach motel operator reported offering reduced rates to homeless persons when
vacant units were available.
Based on available data, it is estimated that no more than 50 people who were permanent
residents of Newport Beach will become homeless for varied periods of time during a one
year period. It is further estimated that an additional 50 temporary residents of Newport
Beach might become homeless for varied periods of time on an annual basis. An undeter-
mined number of transients or chronically homeless individuals will pass through Newport
Beach. Much of this depends on opportunities and conditions presented to these in-
dividuals within Newport Beach and the surrounding communities.
The housing needs of these individuals includes transitional housing in the form of single
room occupancy units (SROs and more shelters, both emergency and transitional). Due
to the high costs of these types of facilities, it may be necessary to form a county -wide ef-
fort to provide this assistance.
Stock
Residential Growth and Dwelling Unit Types
Between April 1970 and April 1980, 8,919 housing units were added to the housing inven-
tory in the City of Newport Beach. This indicates an average yearly increase in the hous-
ing stock of approximately 892 housing units. Since 1980, this rate of increase has slowed
significantly. Between April 1980 and January 1989, 3,642, an average of 404 housing
units per year, were added to the housing stock. Actual units constructed each year since
1976 are listed in Table 19.
-25-
TABLE 19
NET ADDITIONS AND TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
1976 -1989
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 20.
TABLE 20
Total Housing Units
Net Additions
Total Net
q'S8g
At Xear Slad
During Year
AddidQn$
1976
29,530
357
15,212
1977
29,687
437
12.5%
1978
30,324
446
Multi -Family
1979
30,770
246
BLI
1980
31,016
1,233
100.0%
1981
32,249
152
1982
32,401
109
1983
32,510
225
225
1984
32,735
108
333
1985
32,843
216
549
1986
33,059
306
855
1987
33,365
971
1,826
1988
34,336
312
2,138
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 20.
TABLE 20
HOUSING UNIT MIX
Number
Percent
HOUSim$ I7nit T-W
of Units
lO Total
Single -Family Detached
15,212
43.9%
Single - Family Attached
4,327
12.5%
Duplex to Fourplex
6,170
17.8%
Multi -Family
8,108
23.4%
Mobile home
BLI
2.4
CITE TOTAL
34,648
100.0%
Source: State Department of Finance, Population
Research Unit, January 1, 1989.
-26-
1
I
I
I
I
fi is housing unit mix compares to Orange County and neighboring cities as follows:
Residential Densities
Residential densities in many neighborhoods in the City of Newport Beach are very in-
tense. Densities have been estimated by dividing; residential acreage (as of 1972) by cur-
rent dwelling unit counts.
-27-
TABLE 21
HOUSING UNIT COMPARISONS
2-4
5 or more
Single-
Multiple
Multiple
Mobile
Family
Liam
Units
Homes
TOTAL
Newport Beach
19,415
6,051
8,030
840
34,336
(56.5 %)
(17.6 %)
(2340/,)
(2.4 %)
(100 %)
Costa Mesa
17,535
5,200
E3,594
953
37,282
(47.0%)
(13.9 %)
(36.5 %)
(2.6 %)
(100 %)
Huntington Beach
42,326
9,061
16,109
2,683
70,179
(60.3 %)
(12.9 %)
(23.0 %)
(3.8 %)
(100 %)
Laguna Beach
8,319
2,027
2,019
446
12,811
(64.9 %)
15.8 %)
(15.8 %)
(3.5 %)
(100 %)
Orange County
501,211
83,137
218,165
76,893
829,406
(60.4 %)
(10.0 %)
(26.3 %)
(3.2 %)
(100 %)
California
6,517,313
896,382
2,823,942
470,617
10,708,254
(60.9 %)
(8.4 %)
(76.4 %)
(4.4 %)
(100 %)
Source. State Department of Finance, Population Research UW4 January 1, 1988.
Residential Densities
Residential densities in many neighborhoods in the City of Newport Beach are very in-
tense. Densities have been estimated by dividing; residential acreage (as of 1972) by cur-
rent dwelling unit counts.
-27-
M
RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES BY AREA
Balboa Peninsula
West Newport
Balboa Island
Old Corona del Mar
Lido Island
Estimated Density
(Dwelling Units oer Acre)
22.4
19.3
27.7
16.9
13.9
Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Depamnent.
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.
IKE
TABLE 23
DENSITIES OF ATTACHED HOUSING
Number of
Dwelling
Gross
Dwelling
Units Per
Proiec8
Acreage
Ups
Gross Acre
Newport Crest
38.0
460
12.1
Versailles Phase I
6.8
255
37.5
Lido Condominiums
1.1
54
49.1
621 Lido Park Drive
1.7
36
21.2
Caribe
13
48
36.9
The Towers
OS
28
54.3
Rendezvous
0.75
24
32.0
Oakwood
323
1,446
44.8
Mariners' Square
6.2
114
18.4
Park Newport
53.2
1,306
24.5
Promontory Point
32.8
520
15.8
Bayview Apartments
5.4
64
11.8
Bayport Apartments
53
104
19.6
Baywood Apartments
27.4
320
11.7
Newport Terrace
40.0
281
7.0
Granville Apartments
10.2
68
6.7
Source. City of Newport Beach Planning Department.
IKE
I
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.
I
F"
in"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The trend within the City toward higher density development is also demonstrated bybuild-
ing permit data. Since 1980, multi - family permits issued have exceeded single - family per-
mits issued in the City. This is exactly opposite the trend state -wide, where single - family
permits have exceeded multi - family in recent years.
Housing Tenure
Tenure of housing in Newport Beach has varied as follows between 1970 and 1980:
The percentage of rental housing in Newport Beach is higher than that of Orange Coun-
ty. The latest data comparing rentals are from the 1980 Census:
1 -29-
TABLE 24
HOUSING TEI•IURE
Total
Occupled
Owner
Renter -
ilnits
ikMo ed
IIeenpled
1970 19,280
10,810 (56.1 0%) 8,470
(43.9 %)
1976 26,553
14,710 (55.4 %) 11,843
(44.6 0%)
1980 27,820
14,888 (53.5 %) 12,932
(46.5 %)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; 1976 Special Censusfior Newport Beach.
The percentage of rental housing in Newport Beach is higher than that of Orange Coun-
ty. The latest data comparing rentals are from the 1980 Census:
1 -29-
TABLE 25
PERCENT OF RENTAL HOUSING BY CFW
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 construc-
tion beginning in the late 1960's and in the recent 1980's. Such rental projects include the
following:
-30-
Percent of Rental Housing
Newport Beach
46.5%
Costa Mesa
57.7%
Huntington Beach
43.0%
Laguna Beach
47.9%
Orange County
40.1%
t 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 construc-
tion beginning in the late 1960's and in the recent 1980's. Such rental projects include the
following:
-30-
I
.1
1
1
1
TABLE 26
MAJOR RENTAL PROJECTS
Rental Proiect # of Units
Anchorage Apartments
39
The Balboa Bay Club
144
Bayport Apartments
104
Bayview Apartments
64
Baywood Apartments
320
The Beach House
226
Big Canyon
74
Granville Apartments
68
Las Brisas
54
Mariners' Square
114
Mediterranean Newport Apartments
44
Mesa Hotel Apartments
29
Newport Marina
64
Newport North
570
Newport Seaside Apartments
25
Newport Seacrest Apartments
65
Newport Villa
60
Oakwood Apartments
1,446
Park Newport
1,306
Promontory Point
i
520
Seaview Lutheran Plaza
100
Sequoia Apartments
54
The Shores Apartments
120
The Terraces
56
850 Domingo Drive
34
TOTAL: 25 projects 5,700 Units
Source: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department
In addition to these larger rental projects, and others built earlier, the City contains many
rented duplex, triplex, and fourplex rental units in its older neighborhoods. Areas where
this type of rental housing is predominant include West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and
Balboa Island.
-31-
Since 1980, the amount of new rental construction in the City has been significant; five
major apartment projects have been completed during the past three years, for a total of
770 units. Approved condominium conversions, since 1980, total 2 units. In September
1979, the City adopted a new ordinance to regulate condominium conversions. Con-
dominium conversions are restricted as follows:
0 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:
-32-
[1
[,
LJ'
a
TABLE 27
0014 DOMINIUM CONVERSION APPLICATIONS APPROVED
Resubdivisiown Tracts
Total
1976
0
34
34
1977
12
0
12
1978
60
53
113
1979
7
255
262
1980
11
0
11
1981
2
0
2
1982
0
0
0
1983
0
0
0
1984
0
0
0
1985
0
0
0
1986
0
0
0
1987
0
0
0
1988
0
0
0
1989 (through
April) Q
0
0
Total
92
342
434
Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department.
-32-
[1
[,
LJ'
a
n
i
1
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.
Review of assessor parcel information indicates that 384 of the 424 units approved for con-
version by the City actually converted. This represents ten 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 con-
vert 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
The City's overall housing unit vacancy rate has varied as follows between 1970 and 1980:
TABLE 28
NEWPORT BEACH OVERALL HOUSING UNIT VACANCY RATE
All Vacant Units :12W For Sale For Rent
19701 14.2% 6.8% 2.6% 11.6%
19762 10.9% 4.3% 23% 6.5%
19803 10.1% 5.2% 3.8% 6.1%
Sources.
1 1970 U.S. Census,
Z 1976 Special Census for Newport Beach, all vacancy rates have been adjusted from actual 1976
data to account for 54.1% vacancy rate within Promontory Point which was recently completed at
the time of the 1976 Census,
31980 U.S. Census —.year-round housing units.
The large discrepancy between overall vacancy rates and vacancy rates among available
units is due to the large number of seasonal units and second homes in Newport Beach.
Within the 1980 Census, 1,526 of 3,120 vacant units were "held for occasional use" or "held
for other reasons."
-33-
To assist in the administration of its condominium conversion ordinance, the City has con-
ducted rental vacancy surveys since 1979. The results of these surveys are shown on Table
29.
A, Il1gits
305(2.7 %)
SWOCZEF W
84(1.0 %)
Multi-raml
221(6.7 %)
92661
58(22 %)
TABLE 29
16(3.6 %)
CITY RENTAL VACANCY RATE SURVEY RESULTS
39(1.8 %)
Unit 3)= October
1979
Vacancy Rates
Awil 1980
Au_ g= 1988
Single -Family
8.68%
-----
- - --
%Duplex
4.66%
3.53%
3.14%
Triplex
3.47%
4.37%
4.91%
Fourplex
1.23%
2.38%
5.00%
5 or More Units
1.97%
1.25%
5.80%
Mobile Homes
12ffi-
TOTAL
4.22%
2.31%
4.85%
Source. City of Newport Beach Planning Department.
Total vacancy percentages represent mean weighted figures after adjusting for response
rate.
The most recent source of information from an outside agency on vacancies comes from
the Federal Home Uan Bank Board.
TABLE 30
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANG OF SAN FRANCISCO VACANCY SURVEY
(MAY 1988)
Zip Codt Areas
NoWd Beach
92660
A, Il1gits
305(2.7 %)
SWOCZEF W
84(1.0 %)
Multi-raml
221(6.7 %)
92661
58(22 %)
42(19%)
16(3.6 %)
92662
39(1.8 %)
28(1.6 %)
11(2.8 %)
92663
255(23%)
100(1.6 %)
155(3.0 %)
Corona del Max
92625
TOTAL
263(4.1 %1
920(2.7%)
Zo(4.3 1
503(2.1%)
1
417(4.19c)
*Including mobile homes and attached units.
-34-
i
I
1
M&
s
t
1
r
t
y
i
w
It should be noted that the method used by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board in cal-
culating vacancies differs from the Census Bureau because of the method of counting
vacant units and defining such units. Vacancies are calculated by interagency agreement
with the U.S. Postal Service. Vacant units are counted as those dwellings which are not
receiving mail deliveries. Thus, the Federal Horne 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. Federal Home Loan Bank surveys usually show lower vacan-
cy rates than comparable Census surveys because of the different definitions used to deter-
mine vacancy.
A regional housing vacancy survey for owner - and renter - occupied units provides com-
parisons between overall vacancy rates in Newport Beach and within the Anaheim -Santa
Ana- Garden Grove Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).
According to the Federal Home Loan Bank Survey, vacancy rates in this region declined
during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and increased after 1985.
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 exten-
sive 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 con-
-35-
TABLE ?{1
REGIONAL VACANCY RATES
Vacancy Rate
All Hous -- in¢ T =
May 1978
23%
July 1979
2A%
July 1980
1.7%
May 1984
2.0%
May 1988
15%
Source: Federal Horne Loan Bank Survey (May 1983, 1984, 1988).
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 exten-
sive 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 con-
-35-
dition, while 2.5% and 2.6% of all units on Balboa Island and in Newport Heights (Statis-
tical Area H) respectively, were in substandard condition.
Because of the increasing value of housing in Newport Beach, private investment in hous-
ing 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 is-
sued in 1980 was $14,530.
Mobile Homes
There are presently 937 mobile home spaces in 10 mobile home parks in Newport Beach.
Of these 937 spaces, 914 or 97.5% 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 1,421 permanent residents. Space rents range from
$300 to $1,300. (See Table 32.) .
The character of the City's 10 mobile home parks varies. Four of the parks are located on
or close to Newport Harbor. The character of these parks appeals to retirees. Over 99.1 %
of all spaces in these parks are occupied by permanent residents. Space rents range from
$550 to $1,300 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 primari-
ly by retired persons, a large portion of whom have occupied their mobile homes for 20
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 (Statis-
tical Area A). Space rents in these parks range from $300 to $535 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 and who bought them when inter-
est rates were lower, or who made a cash purchase, housing payments will be affordable
on moderate incomes and, in some cases, lower incomes.
-36-
I
L
I
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
lk� � 4
Q� pp
[�]i �•� � � � M r N � N
1N,1 aG
00
w o
r � N
rl �
a
h H �
Q
N` V M 0000 N V N y
O
N
k
T �
T
N
o g � � � 9 `� •a `� •� � .x � v � rn v
NO
o Q A3 Fw �� Sy cog33
1109
-37-
!I
y dJ1
�••1
M
tJ
.i
�
N
��•1
�••1
�••1
(S2
q g
�••1
yy ��pp
� � �p
�
oo
7
.�i
M
�N.7
O;
�
yy
T
N
N
�••I
'�
r•1
7
G
r•1
�
V
O
O�
�
d
Q
N` V M 0000 N V N y
O
N
k
T �
T
N
o g � � � 9 `� •a `� •� � .x � v � rn v
NO
o Q A3 Fw �� Sy cog33
1109
-37-
I_J
Inventoil of Land Suitable for Residential Development
The following section of the Housing Element is an inventory of land which has been deter-
mined to be suitable for residential development. All of this land is located within the
boundaries of the City. Discussion of this inventory of residential land is separated into
two parts. Each part details the potential for a distinct type of residential development. '
The first area of discussion involves the eight remaining major undeveloped (vacant)
residential sites. The second section analyzes the potential for redevelopment and/or the
intensification of underutilized residential properties.
Undeveloped Residential Sites t
The eight remaining major undeveloped sites suitable for residential development are
listed below and shown on the following map. Of the eight vacant sites, one has been desig-
nated by the General Plan for "Single Family Detached Residential" use, four for "Single
Family Attached Residential" use, and the remaining three for "Multi- Family Residential"
use. Six of the vacant sites are located within the City's coastal zone, and have Local Coas-
tal Program Land Use Plan designations consistent with their General Plan designations.
All the sites are zoned Planned Community ( "P -C ). 'Three of the sites already have
adopted P.C. texts establishing the residential development standards. The sites vary in
size from 6.3 to 60.0 gross acres, and have a capacity of 1,498 dwelling units. Each site cur-
rently has public facilities and services adjacent to it. Table 33 presents a summary of the
assessment made of all eight major vacant residential sites. Directly following this table is
a description of each site.
Number Site
1.
San Diego Creek South
2.
Freeway Reservation East
3.
Newporter North
4.
Newport Center, Block 800
5.
Villa Point Remnant
6.
Castaways
7.
Cal -Trans West
8.
Newport Ranch ,
see map for site locations. I
-38- r
oq
00 M N N 7
� pp M oq �yy
O N pop p�ppp Oh (q
A
pp 1p�; 1yM� 19;
N N N 0% rl VI N
m
Q O�
U U U U U U U U
im
a a a a a: ri d a a
a p LI) h LI)
LI) t
w AT�� i
as a�2 y
°
.: n 5 ww go Z
C`3 d5
° x
a 3�
y C A. c i II II II II
gKU =
W z z U Z Z H M 2 a t
-40-
Ul
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
Site No. I
General Plan Designation:
• Multi-Family Residential
Local Coastal Program Designation:
* Multi - Family Residential
Zoning District:
• Planned Community (P-C)
Area (acres):
• Gross-20.0
Net Buildable —18.0
(estimate)
Constraints:
• Environmental — Proximity to San Diego Creek
and Upper Newport Bay
JLAA
• Other -- Impact of road noise
Public Facilities:
• Streets, cable television lelectricallgaslsew-
erltelephonelwater lines, bicycle frailsopen space,
and park are available.
Allowable Uses:
• General Plan — Allocated 300 dwelling units
• Local Coastal Program — same as General Plan.
• Zoning Code —AdoptedP. C Development Text re-
quires amendment to establish development inten-
sity and other standards.
-41-
Site No. 2
X.
Cn I� f I, I : y`yY i14w•A 1,
_1
ell
X.
tbw i 1. -y:' .+'�: i..w, -•�. `i µ' b/Y 4c ' S .vE
L f1, 1 p
General Plan Designation;
• Single Family Attached Residential
Local Coastal Program Designation:
• (none; not in the coastal zone)
Zoning District:
• Planned Community (P -C)
Area (acres):
• Gross — 25.86
e Net Buildable — 20.68
(estimate)
Constraints:
• Environmental —Riparian/drainage area
• other — Impact of road noise, and limited access
potential
Public Facilities:
• Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgaslsew-
erltelephonelwater lines, bicycle tratls,open space,
and park are available.
Allowable Uses:
• General Plan — Allocated 76 dwelling units
• Local Coastal Program --not applicable
• Zoning Code - no adopted P.C. Development
Teat.
-42-
1
1
i
y
i
1
1
1
Site No. 3
' General Plan Designation:
• Single Family Attached Residential
Local Coastal Program Designation:
• Single Family Attached Residential
Zoning District:
• Planned Community (P -C)
1
[1
1
1
11
i
Area (acres):
• Gross — 25.3
• Net Buildable — 24.1
(estimate)
Constraints:
• Environmental— PraxlmitytoUpper Newport Bay
and riparianlwetland areas, coastal bluffs and en-
dangered flora.
• Other — Impact of road and airplane flight track
noise, archaeological sites.
Public Facilities:
o Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgaslsew-
erltelephonelwater lines, bicycle trails, and open
space are available.
Allowable Uses:
o General Plan — Allocated a maximum 212 dwell-
ing units; the designation does not limit develop-
ment type.
• Local Coastal Program — same as General Plan.
• Zoning Code —no adopted P.C. Development Text.
-43-
L
Jl
_
'
- ✓
i N SAp ORt
1
1 0
Y
10
I
9
' General Plan Designation:
• Single Family Attached Residential
Local Coastal Program Designation:
• Single Family Attached Residential
Zoning District:
• Planned Community (P -C)
1
[1
1
1
11
i
Area (acres):
• Gross — 25.3
• Net Buildable — 24.1
(estimate)
Constraints:
• Environmental— PraxlmitytoUpper Newport Bay
and riparianlwetland areas, coastal bluffs and en-
dangered flora.
• Other — Impact of road and airplane flight track
noise, archaeological sites.
Public Facilities:
o Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgaslsew-
erltelephonelwater lines, bicycle trails, and open
space are available.
Allowable Uses:
o General Plan — Allocated a maximum 212 dwell-
ing units; the designation does not limit develop-
ment type.
• Local Coastal Program — same as General Plan.
• Zoning Code —no adopted P.C. Development Text.
-43-
Site No. 4 10101- k; F 5dee�.: s S�s�. �, � a�A .. , a3¢ rz$$e , ,S r:�.O: : %aes 3. y ? ir esAfi. .�:> ay.3re ^4. �.;ia ,�edy. ., ` Q�:�¢ ,o:> N 9.u. « :.p..a e , .} . . :3�s ,.' o�o�,. aes° . ¢,�4:Qesa � . �p F e �a �a ? o&° ¢ya ae�: L'3a;E '.rz� ?ea�>�.°s'F¢ 'aA,: !>cg¢a9 ..o'$6 " .a, "y� �e $.`" � n''a�.: `�« :a$.c sa 3 .g�. : i ?s &6 °'$�"e ' . �",' . . , °.� :.r � ?� ,. u� .e° ' :cu, k ; ia� a'` awo •�r;°.�. "� ,',m o°.�^xs`' eo'n.a���' a ooy� ne �"` ¢o:. rzza.m�6o�, r:°.�o �sa� ^ ';; g
?'°iq :Ae�a;.e3'C.°.1'.�saH•.�, : c`` eS: . .c° . y»ti� .�:..' a....� � ya y .� e.� s a";. .o?i S,^fn :: td y $n' :
.a•"
: . :
General Plan Designation:
• Multi - Family Residential
Local Coastal Program Designation:
• (none; not in the coastal zone)
Zoning District:
e Planned Community (P -C)
Area (acres):
• Gross — 6.45
• Net Buildable — 630
(estimate)
Constraints:
• Environmental— (none)
• Other — Impact of road noise
Public Facilities:
• Streets, cable television lelectricallgaslsew-
erltelephonelwater fines, bicycle trails, and open
space are available.
Allowable Uses:
• General Plan — Allocated 245 dwelling units
• Local Coastal Program — not applicable
• Zoning Code —Adopted P.C. Development Tertre-
quires amendment to adopt Site Development Plan
to establish development intensity and other stand-
ards.
WEE
11
1
I
Site No. 5
/ All
'
General Plan Designation:
• Multi- Family Residential
Local Coastal Program Designation:
s Multi - Family Residential
Zoning District:
• Mixed— Planned Community (P -C) and
Unclassified (U)
Area (acres):
• Gross — 9.50
• Net Buildable — 3.7
(estimate)
Constraints:
• Environmental— (none)
�a
M
NE 1e
N NC kf
7e
�5LAND c.0
• Other — Impact of road and airplane flight track
noise, potential archaeological and paleontological
site, potential R -O -W forgrade separation.
Public Facilities:
• Streets, cable television lelectricallgaslsew-
erltelephonelwater lines, bicycle traits, open space,
and park are available.
Allowable Uses:
• General Plan — Allocated 90 dwelling units.
• Local Coastal Program — same as General Plan
• Zoning Code —AdoptedP.0 Development Textre-
quires amendment to establish development inten-
sity and other standards.
-45-
Site No. 6
General Plan (Designation:
o Single Family Detached Residential
Local Coastal Program Designation:
o Single Family Detached Residential
Zoning District:
o Planned Community (P -C)
Area (acres):
• Gross —60.0
• Net Buildable — 34.8
(estimate)
Constraints:
o Environmental — Proximity to Upper Newport
Bay, rparianlwetland areas, and coastal bhiffs.
I
1
I
I
I
• Other — Impact of road and airplane flight track
noise, paleontological sites.
Public Facilities:
Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgaslsew -
erltelephonelwater lines, bicycle trails, open space,
and park are available.
Allowable Uses
• General Plan — Allocated a maximum 151 dwell-
ing units; the designation does not limit develop-
ment type.
• Local Coastal Program — same as General Plan.
• Zoning Code —no adopted P. C. Development Text.
-46-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
y
t
Site No. 7
General Plan Designation:
o Single Family Attached Residential
Local Coastal Program Designation:
o SingleFamilyAttachedResidential
Zoning District:
o Planned Community (P -C)
Area (acres):
• Gross — 13.6
• Net Buildable — 10.2
(estimate)
Constraints:
• Environmental— (none)
• Other — Impact of road noise
Public Facilities:
• Streets, cable television lelectricallgaslsew-
erltelephonehvater lines, bicycle [raids, open space,
and park are available.
Allowable Uses:
• General Plan — Allocated 152 dwelling units, the
designation does not limit development type.
• Local Coastal Program --same as General Plan.
• Zoning Code —Adopted P.C. Development Text.
-47-
Site No. 8
i ,tai
General Plan Designation:
o Single Family Attached Residendal
Local Coastal Program Designation:
o Single Family Attached Residential
Zoning Distract:
o Planned Community (RC)
Area (acres):
• Grass —45.2
• Net Buildable — 280
(estimate)
Constraints:
o Environmental— Riparian/wedand areas, mod-
ified coastal bluffs, potential habitat forendangered
fauna.
I
l�
l�
o Other — Impact of road noise
Public Facilities:
o Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgaslsew-
erltelephonelwater lines, bicycle trails, open space,
and park are available.
Allowable Uses:
® General Plan — Allocated 272 total dwelling units,
113 to northern parcel, and 159 to southern parcel;
the designation does not limit development type or
mixture of types; a portion of units may be trans-
ferred from southern to northern parcel.
® Local Coastal Program — same as General Plan.
® Zoning Code —Adopted P.C. Development Text.
NEM
LJ
u
h
I
�J
I
1
' Redevelopment and " Infill"
The following map identifies areas of the City with potential for redevelopment and/or in-
tensification of under utilized residential properties (infill). Several factors account for
this potential. These properties are typically located in the older sections of the City, built
prior to the 1950's when Newport Beach was primarily a weekend and/or summer "vaca-
tion home" community. This residential development usually involved a less intense par-
cel utilization than exists today. This type of development continued well into the post -war
period. With the expansion and improvement of the economy and circulation systems in
Southern California in the late 1950's, the character of residential development in New-
port Beach changed from that of vacation homes, to, a fairly even mixture of permanent
residences and vacation homes, and finally to almost exclusively that of permanent
' residences. During this period of change enough vacant land existed to meet the increas-
ing demand for housing. The housing demand had little effect on the City's older areas,
other than transforming the pattern of tenure from `occasional' to `permanent'. While this
' housing demand continued well into the 1980's sufficient vacant land existed to satisfy the
demand. In fact, for the last eight years the development activity in terms of net dwelling
units constructed on vacant sites versus " infill" has been almost 10 to 1 (2,101 d.u. com-
pared to 234 d.u. respectively). However, with the decrease in the amount of vacant
residential acreage, and the marked increase in the cost of both improved and vacant land,
both redevelopment and " infill" activities have started to increase.
Since 1979, the demolition and replacement of existing homes has averaged around 75
units per year, for a total of 731 dwelling units. Given the market factors discussed above,
this trend is expected to continue, if not increase, over the 5 year term of the Housing Ele-
ment. This means that approximately 375 newly constructed dwelling units will replace
' older housing stock between 1989 and 1994. Table 34 details this replacement activity from
1981 until 1994, and also highlights the City's " infill" activity during the same span of time.
In the last three years the number of "infill" units constructed on under utilized residential
' properties has also averaged just under 75 units perye:ar. Projecting that another 375 dwell-
ing units will be constructed as "infill" units over the next 5 years is realistic and perhaps
conservative.
1
I
I
' -49-
-50- '.
1
Y
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
11
Date of
Estimation
(01 Jan.)
19812
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
19903
1991
1992
1993
1994
TABLE 34
"REPLACEMENT" ANID "INFILL" HOUSING IN NEWPORT BEACH
Actual
Period of
Ormah
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Replace-
Cumulative
meat
( #d u j
Replace.
( #dxu
67
67
122
189
51
240
49
289
72
65
101
60
63
75
75
75
75
75
361
426
527
587
650
725
800
875
950
1025
Cumulative
TOTAL
(Replace
+ Infill
120
242
296
366
443
513
686
828
949
1099
1249
1399
1549
1699
T # of d.u. given for " infll" represents the "net" increase in [nits, and does not include "replacement"
units.
2 The # of d.u. given, 1981 to 1989 (est. date), reflect the # submitted to DOF, based upon actual
final building permits," by the Planning Department.
3 The # of d.u. given, 1990 to 1994 (est. date) reflect the average; # estimated by the Planning Department
based upon the available land, market study and trend analysis.
Sources. The State Department of Finance and the City of Newport Beach
-51-
TOTAL
Cumulative
(Replace.
Infiflt
Infill
+ Infill)
a�tat
( #d.n.D
(#d.v.)
53
53
120
0
53
122
3
56
54
21
77
70
5
82
77
5
87
70
72
159
173
82
241
142
58
299
121
75
374
150
75
449
150
75
524
150
75
599
150
�75
674
150
Cumulative
TOTAL
(Replace
+ Infill
120
242
296
366
443
513
686
828
949
1099
1249
1399
1549
1699
T # of d.u. given for " infll" represents the "net" increase in [nits, and does not include "replacement"
units.
2 The # of d.u. given, 1981 to 1989 (est. date), reflect the # submitted to DOF, based upon actual
final building permits," by the Planning Department.
3 The # of d.u. given, 1990 to 1994 (est. date) reflect the average; # estimated by the Planning Department
based upon the available land, market study and trend analysis.
Sources. The State Department of Finance and the City of Newport Beach
-51-
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 city 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 fool 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 af-
fordability concern.
The City of Newport Beach has a relatively small remaining amount of land available for 1
residential development. As such, land use standards which would require proper orien-
tation of subdivisions to take advantage of solar energy would be of limited value. The city '
may wish to explore this option; however, care should be taken to insure that densities, and
therefore affordability, are not unduly affected.
A major concern in the area of energy conservation is the relationship of housing to employ-
,
ment and the necessary transportation lines between them. While specific energy savings
are difficult to quantity because of the myriad of variables involved in our transportation
it
system, is generally true that a physical proximity between home and work provides
transportation energy savings. With regard to Newport Beach, the existing affordability
concern increases energy use by forcing workers employed within the city to seek less ex-
pensive housing outside of the city. Again, it should be noted here that the relatively small
'
amount of remaining land for residential development cannot in itself mitigate this con-
cern. The jobs/housing imbalance in the city cannot be expected to be totally mitigated by
residential development within the city.
1
I
I
-52-
With regard to other "alternative" energy sources, it should be noted that Newport Beach
is not in an area of either geothermal) or significant wine activity and, therefore, cannot
take advantage of these sources.
It appears that the city, through the enforcement of Title 24 and by its sensitivity to innova-
tive design is making excellent use of residential energy conservation opportunities.
Housing Needs
In accordance with State housing element law the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) has prepared a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to
' assess the housing need for each jurisdiction within the region. This model was prepared
for the five year period 1989 -1994. The RHNA assesses Newport Beach's portion of the
housing units needed to satisfy the housing needs resulting from projected growth in the
region. In order to accommodate the projected growth in the region SCAG estimates that
the City needs to target its housing unit production at sufficient units to accommodate 1,774
new households. Since Newport Beach has a vacancy rate that is somewhat higher than
the generalized "ideal" vacancy rate used throughout the region some of this new household
growth can be satisfied by vacant units currently in existence. Taking into consideration
the 77 excess vacant units that currently exist only 1,697 additional new units would be
needed to accommodate the projected five year growth of 1,774 households. SCAG also
estimates that 365 dwelling units will be demolished and need replacement during the next
five years. Therefore, the total new housing unit production projected by SCAG for New-
, port Beach during the five year period 1989 -1994 is 2,062 units. State law also requires
SCAG to distribute these new units on the basis of income and in doing so avoid further
impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of low income households. Third
1 and finally, it is required that the existing housing need be assessed. SCAG assessed this
need by using the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standard of
overpayment. Households overpaying are households with incomes below 80% of the
county's median household income and paying more than 30% of their income toward
housing/ shelter. SCAG estimated existing need by applying the percentage of overpaying
households enumerated in the 1980 Census to the current City population. Using this
method of estimation the existing need in Newport Beach is 4,431 households. The tables
below show the future need for housing in Newport Beach and its distribution by income
' group as calculated by the RHNA.
1 California Energy Commission, Geothermal Energy Resources in California:
Status Report, June 1976.
2 California Energy Commission.
' -53-
TABLE 35
PROJECTED REGIONAL DEMAND IN NEWPORT BEACH
fl989 -fl994
Household Net Vacancy Demolition Total
Gro.m1h AW ustm .nt AA' stm nt New 11niLs
1,774 units -77 units 365 units 2,062
TABLE 36
TOTAL NEW UNITS DISTRIBUTED BY INCOME
IAwex Moderate High T Al
299 408 359 996 2,062
14.5% 1968% 17.4% 48.3;G 100%
q
Connnnunity Attitudes
The citizenry in Newport Beach is well - organized through neighborhood homeowners as-
sociations and community environmental groups. In these circles, a strong public senti-
ment 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 develop-
ment is also opposed by much of the populace in Newport Beach, due to concerns regard-
ing 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, hous-
ing policies which GUIDE development toward social goals rather than REGULATE
development are generally more compatible with local public attitudes. For example, the
regulation of housing prices is an unacceptable area for government intervention for a
majority of Newport Beach residents.
-54-
k
1
1,
Public sentiment is noted as a constraint because of its influence on local officials and be-
cause of the ability of citizens to set development policies and zoning through the initia-
tive process.
Market Impacts on Development Costs
The growing market demand for housing in Newport Beach and the relatively small sup-
ply of remaining vacant residential acreage in the City has had a strong impact on the finan-
cial aspects of residential development in the City. The greatest impact of this market
demand on cost of new housing is seen in the prig. of residential land in the City.
Land costs vary as much within Newport Beach as they do within Orange County. General-
ly 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 residen-
tial community. Information submitted to the City by developers in the course of process-
ing residential development approvals and reviewed by professional real estate appraisers
indicates that raw land in the City zoned for multiple family residential use (approximately
20 units/acre), with a water orientation, has a MINIMUM market value of 3.5 -4.0 million
dollars per acre; and the market value of raw land in Newport Beach with similar poten-
tial land use, but without water orientation, is a minimum of $890,000 per acre. By way of
comparison, available information indicates that comparable sites in Huntington Beach
jand in Costa Mesa, range between .44 -.57 million dollars per acre.
Density increases are often set forth as a method to decrease land cost components of hous-
ing 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 condi-
tioned 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 great-
ly 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 cornmand an extremely high price on the
market.
Higher land costs in the City are the main factor :in higher square footage costs for hous-
ing 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
1
-55-
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 37 shows estimated land and construction costs for four projects constructed
during the early 1980s.
Financing Constraints
High 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 af-
fordable 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" helps to maintain a higher level of capital for hous-
ing than might otherwise be available.
Table 38 shows how changes in interest rates affect payments on a $150,000 loan. A loan
of this amount would allow a moderate - income household to purchase one of the lowest
cost condominiums or townhouses in Newport Beach.
-56-
1
1
1
r
TABLE 38
THE EFFECT OF CHANGES
IN INTEREST RATES
OF THE AFFORDABILITY OF A $150,000 LOAN'
Interest
Monthly
Income % Able
Rate
Payme nlZ
Need d3 to Affor 4
8%
$1,300
$44,230 54%
9%
$1,390
$47,660 50%
10%
$1,500
$51,430 45%
11%
$1,610
$55,200 40%o
12%
$1,720
$59,310 35%
13%
$1,830
$62,740 32%
' Assumes a 30 -year, fixed rate mortgage.
Z 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 1989.
Source. Connerly & Associates, Inc.
-56-
1
1
1
r
v
�w
O
z
elf
v
y
q
A
1
_57_
v
.'"• eel 3 *ee 1 s
b
o �
'D 00
00 C1 IS
b
U
w Q
u
®a N MN's
rA
od
•�j V
O •O� �
Y N
N
SIM
Developers' Perceptions of Marketability
Perceptions by developers of the marketability 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 park-
ing 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 themsel-
ves.
As Table 40 shows, developers of larger residential projects in Newport Beach have his-
torically chosen not to develop at the highest density permitted on their parcels:
-59-
TABLE 40
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM
PERMITTED
DENSITIES AND ACTUAL DENSITY OF CONSTRUCTED
HOUSING UNITS BY
PROJECT
Maximum
No. of
Constructed
Permitted
Units
Units Per
PrQicrt
Rath
Ages
Density
Built
Acne
Westcliff
1952 -1967
4933
SRF (81A)
1649
334
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
17
Cameo Highlands
1960
443
SFR (81A)
142
3.2
Eastbluff
1963
165.33
SFR (8 /A)
462
179
Harbor View East
1966 -1971
167.2
SFR (8 /A)
490
2.93
Harbor View Homes
1968 -1972
321.2
SRF (8 /A)
1,169
3.64
Big Canyon
1970 -1972
165.2
SRF (8/A)
476
2.88
Spyglass Hill
1971 -1972
155.6
SFR (81A)
350
2.25
Jasmine Creek
1st Phase.
1973
SFR(8 /A)
379
439
2nd Phase
1973
10 /A
346
4.0
3rd Phase
1976
10/BA.
324
3.74
Broadmoor Seaview
1976
51.4
175 units
167
Harbor Ridge
1977 -1978
1663
4BA.
392
2.36
Big Canyon -Area 10
1983
7.2
10/B.A
21
2.92
Source: City of Newport Beach P[anningDepartment.
-59-
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:
TABLE 41
COMPARISON OF REQUIRED AMENI'T'IES AND
AMENI'T'IES PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER
EL*d Ame
City
Rr & m .nr
Developer
Proposal
406 E. Bay Ave. Parking Spaces
15 spaces
20 covered sp.
(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 w ft.
145,700 cu.ft.
487 Morning Cyn. Parking Spaces
21 Spaces
32 Spaces
Lot Coverage
Up to 60%
36%
Source. City of Newport Beach Planning Deparnnent.
As cited examples indicate, developers have historically imposed amenity requirements
upon their own residential projects that are more stringent or restrictive than those man-
dated by City regulations. Whether this is done due to marketing perceptions or for other
reasons, these self - imposed amenity requirements are a constraint, over which the City has
no control, to least -cost housing.
Gover lmenta9 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 con-
straints include land use controls (zoning), building codes and their enforcement, site im-
provements, fees and local processing, and permit procedures. In many of these areas,
localities have varying degrees of discretion to modify state standards for local implemen-
-60-
■
■
I
tation and/or conditions. Also included in this analysis are constraints created by specific
State regulations.
In Newport Beach, as previously mentioned in the discussion of site availability, there is a
relatively limited supply of vacant land remaining for development. Only eight vacant
parcels of developable residential land remain in Newport Beach. 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 takes these cir-
cumstances into consideration.
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 performs 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 functions well, as the for -
mal and informal coordinating methods facilitate communication and minimize
redundancy. The Building Department is a separate entity; however, the essential
communication between these distinct departments is open. The critical relation -
-61-
TABLE 42
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE
BY DENSITY CATEGORY
Estimated Gross Drivelling
No. of Units
Residential Density
Acre 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
10.15 units per acre
274 3,216
11.74
15 -25 units per acre
566 11,071
19.56
25+ units per acre
2M5 0§3
27.48
TOTAL
4,539 34,937
7.70
Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Departmen4 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. Only eight vacant
parcels of developable residential land remain in Newport Beach. 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 takes these cir-
cumstances into consideration.
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 performs 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 functions well, as the for -
mal and informal coordinating methods facilitate communication and minimize
redundancy. The Building Department is a separate entity; however, the essential
communication between these distinct departments is open. The critical relation -
-61-
ship of zoning administration and the building permit process is working well and
does not cause undue delays in processing.
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 allows the Council to express
policy regarding planning and land use issues without the formalities of an ordinance
proceeding. The manual has no force or effect of law, however it does have a bind-
ing effect on the council and City staff.
C. The Newport Beach General Plan includes Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Recrea-
tion and Open Space, Public Safety, and Noise Elements; all are mandated by State
law. 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 administered in accordance
with Council policy. All amendments are initiated by the City, some of which are at
the request of a property owner. This system eliminates the need for a comprehen-
sive 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 can-
not 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 ur-
banized community. The code uses a district concept which is appropriate to the
diverse urban patterns and topography found in the City. The Zoning Code contains
six basic zoning districts (excluding Planned Community districts and other special-
ized districts) to regulate residential uses within the city. These zoning districts are IF
R -A (residential 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 -fami-
ly 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 follow the
General Plan Land Use Element policies. Maximum densities range from eight to
thirty-four units per net acre (excluding streets and unbuildable areas) in single fami-
ly and duplex zones (R -1, R -1.5, R -2). The Zoning Code establishes different build-
-62-
ing area standards for various residential districts within the City. Within the R -1.5
District, gross floor area cannot exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of a site. The R-
2 District allows a 2.0 maximum floor area ratio 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 restrict
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 configura-
!ion of the lot, as lot area per dwelling unit restrictions apply. In the R -3 zone, a min-
imum lot area per dwelling unit of 1,200 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 require-
ments. 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 if developed in a three -story
t structure. About 5,000 square feet of lot area would remain for common areas, on-
site amenities, and landscaping.
ro
-63-
Ll
2
)
@
k 2
;
k
k
%
§
■
( 2
@
k\
6
�
�
§
;
/
%
2
;
]
\
/
]
)/
1� f
)2 2
-N-
\
ƒ
2
)
@
k 2
;
k
k
%
§
■
( 2
@
k\
6
§
;
;
%
;
\E
E§
■
;
;
k2
k2
k
§
k2
}$
\p
;
z�
/-
EO
)_
-2o
\§
E
°
w
�
)
]
\
/
]
)/
1� f
)2 2
-N-
\
ƒ
`
)\
)
k)
}f
]
� 44-
a
V
.. � 44
Y A c
°
v
p� �r!!22. F� O pN � •Q�?i� 5w� .��
a 4aa � m
0
9 =
0
m
Ma
.� s.p ono
� ^ 2.1
o V!�
w.M.i^ w.... 4
V 0o�a
v
Y
0
N t'1 Q Vf y
1 -65-
1
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 Beach'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.
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 the R -1, R-
1.5, R -2, R -3, and R -4 districts. For all residential development within the Coastal
Zone, the Coastal Commission requires 2 parking spaces per residential unit. The
amount of parking spaces currently required in residential districts under the New-
port Beach Zoning Code are 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 dis-
tricts by other municipalities in Orange County, and is lower than the parking stand-
ard 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 26/35 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 or approval of a use permit. 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 New-
port Beach, including Cal Trans West, Castaways, Newport Ranch, and portions of
West Newport Beach.
Multi- family 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
discretionary approval. Numerous multi - family residential structures in the City ,
have been developed to a height of three stories. Table 44 sets forth a partial inven-
tory of these developments, as follows:
i
-66-
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 repre-
sentative. 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 al-
lowed 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 proce-
dure under which variance from the zoning regulations may be granted whenever the af-
fected property owner shows that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applying to the land, building, or use which do not generally apply, that it is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and that it will not material-
ly affect adversely the health or safety of persons ,and will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
-67-
TABLE 44
MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENTS
OF THREE OR MORE STORIES
No. of
Units
Proiect
Stories
Units
Per Acre
Versailles
3
255
37.0
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
1,450
44.9
Park Newport
4
1,302
24.5
Promontory 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
The Towers
7
28
54.3
Source: City of Newport Beach PlanningDcpadrnent.
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 repre-
sentative. 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 al-
lowed 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 proce-
dure under which variance from the zoning regulations may be granted whenever the af-
fected property owner shows that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applying to the land, building, or use which do not generally apply, that it is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and that it will not material-
ly affect adversely the health or safety of persons ,and will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
-67-
The requirements of residential zones are augmented by several special designations:
® Planned residential development.
• Planned community district (including special requirements in mapped coastal bluff f
areas identified in the Zoning Code).
• Specific plan districts.
• "B" Districts. AMki
® Mobile Rome Park Districts.
Planned Residential Development: This procedure allows the development of land of suf-
ficient area to create a better designed development than under customary zoning regula-
tions. Maximum lot coverage is set at 40 %, 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
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 traditional
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 traditional zoning. Specific plans have been adopted for Can-
nery Village/McFadden Square, Newport Shores and Mariner's Mile.
The Newport Shores specific planpermits single - family and duplex residences outright and
multifamily residences subject to a use permit. Cannery Village/McFadden Square Plan
allows mixed uses, single family, multifamily residences. The Mariners' Mile area is all
commercial uses.
"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: There is an overlay zone which may be applied to encourage,
maintain and protect existing mobile home park uses. Once applied, this overlay designa-
tion 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.
Traffic Phasing Ordinance: 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
-68- a
I
I
I
I
1
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 of service worse
than level "D" at the intersection, or increase traffic flow 1% on any leg of a critical inter-
section, 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 1 develop -
ment.
Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Another component of the Zoning Code which im-
pacts allowable land uses is the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. This or-
dinance requires, in addition to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, a use permit
for conversions of existing rental units to condominium use. 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 neigh-
borhoods which are developed at higher densities and where infrastructure deficien-
cies 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. Park-
ing 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.
-69-
TABLE 45
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN COMBINING "B" DISTRICT
Building Site Area
6,000 Square Feet
Lot Width
60 feet
Lot Length
80 feet
Front Yard
20 feet
Rear Yard
6 feet
Side Yard
6 f eet
Maximum Coverage
60 percent
Building Site Area
7,500 Square Feet
Lot Width
75 feet
Lot Length
90 feet
Front Yard
15 feet
Rear Yard
7 feet
Side Yard
7 feet
Maximum Coverage
COMBIN[N DESIGNATION B
60 percent
, -2:
Building Site Area
10,000 Square Feet
Lot Width
90 feet
Lot Length
100 feet
Front Yard
15 feet
Rear Yard
10 feet
Side Yard
10 feet
Maximum Coverage
COMBINING DESIGNATION B
60 percent
-3:
Building Site Area
20,000 Square Feet
Lot Width
00 feet
Lot Length
150 feet
Front Yard
15 feet
Rear Yard
10 feet
Side Yard
10 feet
Maximum Coverage
60 percent
MINIMUM SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT:
R -2
R -3
-JL-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 Municipal Code Chapter 20.18
-70-
I
I
t
1-
I
I
I
I
I
The Subdivisi on Process
The City of Newport Beach implements the State Subdivision Map Act through a local im-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
plementation ordinance. This appears as Title 19 of the Municipal Code, and is titled, "Sub-
divisions." The basic text of the ordinance was published in January 1974 and revised in
1982. The basic provisions of the Subdivision Code are similar to those of most jurisdic-
tions of this size.
The Code also contains design standards which provide minimum criteria for develop-
ment. 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 application 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 im-
portant 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 dedica-
tion 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 hous-
ing production are described below.
Required Street Widths
a. Major Streets or Highways. Minimum right -of -way shall be 120 feet; minimum pave-
ment width between curbs, 100 feet.
b. Primary Streets or Highways. Minimum right-of-way shall be 100 feet; minimum pave-
ment 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 be-
tween curbs, 40 feet.
-71-
e. Cul -De -Sac Streets and Service Roads. When not over 350 feet in length, the mini-
mum 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. 1
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,
Beaches, and Recreation Department, and adopted by the City Council, pertaining
to parkways, shall be required. (1949 Code Section 9254.14 added by Ord. 650; Oc-
tober S, 1951, as amended by Ord. (35; August 22, 1960.) oi
h. Alleys. Minimum width shall be 20 feet in residential areas. 1
Paris Dedication Standards
Park land dedication requirements are computed by the following formula: Average num-
ber of persons per unit x 5 acres/1000. Park fees in lieu of land dedication are computed
by the following formula: Averge number of persons per unit x 5 acres/1000 x land cost.
Location of Structures
Newport Beach has developed around and along extremely unique and valuable land forms
and resource areas. The City's charm and character, as well as the value of residential and
commercial property, are all tied to preserving, protecting, and enhancing Upper and
Lower Newport Bay, the oceanfront beaches, and other valuable resources within the City.
The City's commitment to preservation and enhancement of these areas is demonstrated
by its role in the Upper Newport Bay restoration project. The City was the lead agency in
both the development and administration of this project.
The natural resources within the City are enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. Given
the value of ocean or bayfront property, there is constant pressure to develop property in
and around the bay and beaches. While the City remains committed to protect private
property rights, it is also committed to regulate the placement of buildings and structures
in areas adjacent to valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats.
1. Development of Coastal Bluff Sites. Natural coastal bluffs represent a significant
scenic and environmental resource. As used in this Section, "coastal bluff' is any
natural landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50 %) or greater, with a
vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. Where there is some question as to the applicability
of this section to a specific landform, a determination as to whether or not the specific
landform constitutes a coastal bluff shall be made by the Planning Commission, con-
sistent with the purposes of this regulation. ,
-72-
I
2. In order to preserve these unique landforms„ developments proposed for coastal bluff
areas shall be subject to the following regulations:
a. The following regulations apply to all building sites on existing subdivided lots,
and residential subdivisions containing less than four units:
1) Grading. Permitted development shall be designed to minimize the
alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. In areas of
geologic hazard, the City shall riot issue a building or grading per -
mit until the applicant has signed a waiver of all claim against the
public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to
build. All such waivers shall be recorded with the County Recorders
° Office.
2) Geologic Report. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be
G> for each site to determine areas of potential instability.
The bluff areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated
on maps as a part of any development plan.
3) Shoreline Protective Devices. In the event of an impending or exist-
ing natural disgster or other emergency, a property owner, upon the
approval of a building and/or grading permit by the City Grading
Engineer and Building Official, may install temporary shoreline
protective devices, material, or other suitable construction to
protect a coastal bluff. Prior to the approval of a building and or
grading permit for the construction or installation of the emergen-
cy protective device or material, the City Attorney shall approve as
to form and content a document signed by the property owner
stipulating that, said material or devices will be removed im-
mediately upon the termination of the threat to the property. In ad-
dition, said agreement will also provide for the waiver of all claims
and indemnify the City against liability for any damage resulting
from approval to `install -said emergency protective material or
devices. The property owner may electto apply for the appropriate
local and state permit? to retain the protective' material or devices
after the threat to the property no longer exists, in which case the
a agreement shall be modified to state that upon exhaustion, of all
local and state administrative procedures to retain said material or
devices, said material or devices will be removed in the event that
the appropriate applications are denied.
b. In addition to the regulations set forth above, the following regulations apply
to all new tracts and subdivisions. If the development is residential in nature,
these regulations will apply to all new subdivisions containing four or more
units.
I
I - -73-
ra
1) Setback Requirement. A bluff setback adequate to provide safe
public access, taking into account bluff retreat and erosion, shall be
provided in all new development. As a general guideline, property
lines shall be set back from the edge of the bluff no closer to the
edge of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is inter-
sected by a line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of
26.6 degrees to the horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be
required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions,
but in no case shall a property line be closer than 40 feet to the edge
of the bluff.
In addition, there shall be a building setback of 20 feet from the
bluffside property line. This required building setback may be in-
creased or decreased by the Planning Commission in the review of
a proposed site plan consistent with the purposes of this section.
2) Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are
many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmen-
tally sensitive in nature. For the most part, these are water as-
sociated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas.
The following environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected,
and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas,
except as provided in Section d. below:
1) Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited
distribution, or otherwise sensitive. M
2) Natural riparian areas
3) Freshwater marshes
4) Saltwater marshes
5) Intertidal areas
6) Other wetlands
7) Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities
b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific
area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an en-
vironmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, con-
sistent with the purposes of this regulation.
-74-
C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private proper-
ty owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation
basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective
condition with minimal impact on the environment.
d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be
mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse im-
pacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an en-
vironmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area.
3. Geologic Hazard Areas. There are areas within the City of Newport Beach that the
natural geological processes can pose a threat to the public health, safety, and wel-
fare. These areas contain earthquake faults, existing or potential landslides, areas
with expansive or collapsible soil, excessive settlement and subsidence, and areas sub-
ject to potential erosion and siltation. The following policies shall apply to all areas
% of potential geologic hazard:
a. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard, except
as provided in Section b. below.
b. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be
mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse im-
pacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an area of
potential geologic hazard.
4. ResidentialAreas Impacted byNoise Levels Greaterthan 65 CNEL. Due to noise sour -
ces such as roadways and aircraft overflights, certain residential areas are impacted
by exterior noise levels in excess of 65 CMEL. The following policies shall apply to
residential subdivisions of four or more units where the existing or future exterior
noise levels are greater than 65 CNEL:
a. No new residential development shall be permitted within any area where the
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
-75-
noise levels are greater than 65 CNE1, unless the environmental process iden-
tifies specific mitigation measures that result in exterior areas of any residence,
such as patios and other public and private recreation areas, being mitigated to
less than 65 CNEL.
b. In addition to mitigating exterior noise levels to less than 65 CNEL, all interior
portions of a residence shall not exceed 45 CNEL..
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
-75-
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 in seven
weeks, again provided that an EIR is not required. Planning Commission decisions on
zoning change request, parcel maps, and conditional use permits are final unless appealed
within 21 days to the City Council or unless a member of the City Council requests within
21 days to review the Planning Commission decision.
TABLE 46
PROCESSING TIME BY JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction
Newport Beach
G.P. Change
5-6 months
Zone Changc
2 months
Tent Mau
2 months
Final Mall
6 weeks
Costa Mesa
3 -5 months
2 -3 months
4-6 months
1 month
Irvine
3-6 months
3 -6 months
2 months
1 month
Huntington Beach
3-6 months
3 months
6 weeks
2 weeks
Fountain Valley
3.4 months
3-4 months
3-6 weeks
2 -6 weeks
Laguna Beach
3-4 months
3 -4 months
6 months
6 months
Orange County
13 months
3-4 months
4 months
N/A
Sources: The Planning, Community Development, orEnvironmental Management Deparrments of
the above named jurisdictions.
TABLE 47
A COMPARISON OF PERMIT FEES
Jurisdiction
Newport Beach
Ilse Permit
$867
V ryanfg
$867
Appeal Fee
$325
Costa Mesa
$25 /comm $50
$25
$12.50 /comm $25
Irvine
$300 min,$69/hr $300 mm,$69/hr
$300 min,$69/hr
Huntington Beach
$350
$150
$165
Fountain Valley
$250
$250
$125
Laguna Beach
$300
$1,000
$150
Orange County
$1,600 Zoning Commissioner
$1,600
$760 Com'l.
$3,800 Planning Commission
$280 Resid.
Sources: The Planning Community Development, or Environmental Management
Departments of the above named jurisdictions.
-76-
I
rj
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
TABLE 48
NEWPORT BEACH PERMIT FEES
Use Permit
$ 867
Variance
867
Rezone
1,288
Modification Application
215
Planning Commission Appeal
610
City Council Appeal
325
Specific Plan Site Review
812
PRD Use Permit
Amendment
Community Plan Application
Amendment
Tentative Map
1,788 or $56 per lot
Resubdivisou
447
Offshe Parking Agreement
744
Coastal Residential Dev. Permit
750 or $250 per unit
Feasibility Study for Coastal Permit
3,000 - 4,000
Coastal Conceptual Approval
30
Traffic Phasing Study
2,000 and up
Residential Building Inspection
55
Sign Exception
298
Source.* City of Newport Beach Planning DeParumeny based on annual fee
study evaluating actual time and cost for each type ofpemuit.
In addition to the above fees, there is a $325 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. Planning staff from two of the cities in the
fee comparison survey stated that their City was in: the process of increasing fees to better
reflect the cost of services.
The Building Permit Process
The Building Department of the City has recently undergone a number of changes in or-
ganization and procedures.
The Building Department is currently using the following codes:
Uniform Building Code 1985 Uniform Housing Code 1985
Uniform Mechanical Code 1985 National Electrical Code 1984
Uniform Plumbing Code 1985
-77-
City code requirements exceed State standards in the following respects, all of which are
relatively inexpensive:
Building Cede
® 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.
2M
j
1
a
I
I
• 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.
® 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 on a'break even" basis with regard to revenues and expen-
ditures.
State Legislature Constraints
In recent years, the State Legislature has enacted numerous laws relating to land use plan-
ning 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, improve-
ment and development of housing for all income levels. An example is the State require -
ments 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 be-
cause 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 develop-
ment. Thus, while State mandated general plan elements serve important goals, they
simultaneously impact upon the delivery of housing within Newport Beach.
-79-
G
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. Modifica-
tion of the City's general plan to achieve consistency with airport land use policies neces-
sarily 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 en-
titlement, including general plan amendments, rezonings, tentative subdivisions, use per-
mits and variances. While public hearings serve the important governmental purpose of
permitting interested 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 regula-
tions 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 environ-
mental quality and coastal policies.
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 im-
pacts 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 state-
ment of overriding considerations to justify the project approval in light of the known en-
vironmental impacts.
InIz
I
The CEQA process undeniably preserves environmental resources by requiring all
governmental agencies approving projects to weigh environmental concerns and sen-
sitivities, and to consider project modifications which result in a lesser impact upon the en-
vironment. 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 cost to prepare the environ-
mental documentation necessary to satisfy CEQAA 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 residen-
tial development and the design of projects in the City. Environmental issues which
generally affect residential development in Newport Beach include:
o Sediment flows into the Upper Newport Bay, usually due to the denuding of develop-
ment 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.
e Preservation of ocean views, which may require the limitation of building heights on
specific areas.
., Reduction of air pollution caused in large parr; 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 coor-
dinated, 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 Coasr:al Act of 1976. The basic goals of this
State legislation are to protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the over-
all 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 coas-
tal- related development over other development in the coastal zone. Approximately 3,800
A
-81-
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 coas-
tal 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 develop-
ment 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 ar-
cheological, paleontological and historical resources are located, and areas affording coas-
tal 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 Newport Beach Local Coastal Program establishes land use desig-
nation for the following undeveloped residential parcels within the Newport Beach Coas-
tal Zone: San Diego Creek South, Newport North, Villa Point Remnant, Castaways,
CalTrans West, and Newport Ranch. These undeveloped residential parcels are described
in Table 33 and the individual parcel descriptions.
Given that the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program has been cer-
tified, land use designations may not be modified without the approval of the California
Coastal Commission. Consequently, the City does not have complete authority to redesig-
nate land uses on 173.6 acres of the 205.8 acres of undeveloped residential sites.
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 im-
plementation procedures to administer Section 65590 within the coastal zone areas of the
City. The administration of this requirement has added costs and time to the development
process.
5.9a
1
1
1
t
1
I
I
to
I
II. Housing Goals, Policies, Quantified Objectives,
and Programs
Previous sections of the Housing Element included: an analysis of the major population,
employment and housing characteristics of Newport Beach, an inventory and analysis of
land suitable for residential development, a quantification of existing and projected hous-
ing needs, an analysis of special housing needs and an analysis of both governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to the production of housing. Opportunities for residential
energy conservation were also analyzed. The analysis contained in the Housing Element
has led to the creation of the following housing goals, policies, quantified objectives and
programs.
Goals
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 preserva-
tion, conservation, and appropriate redevelopment of the housing stock
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 ap-
propriate, 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 com-
munity: very low and lower income as well as moderate and upper income.
3. To extend ownership opportunities to as many households as possible, par-
ticularly those of moderate and upper incomes. This is where the greatest
demand is projected.
4. To preserve and increase affordability, through rental housing, for the very
low and lower income.
The four basic policies which describe the City's role in the attainment of these goals are
r as follows:
MIR
F1
1. Enabling private industry to function more effectively, as a result of con- ,
straints being eliminated, wherever feasible, and allowable density being in-
creased
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 the very low,
lower and moderate income.
4. Providing incentives and direct assistance to property owners, within the
limitations of available resources, to facilitate the rehabilitation of the exist-
ing housing stock
Quantified Objectives
In addition to goals and policies, Section 65583 of the Government Code requires that a
housing element include quantified objectives. It is the purpose of this section of the Hous-
ing Element to quantify, through an estimate, the maximum number of housing units that
could be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the next five year period. This es-
timate assumes optimum conditions for the production of housing over the five years. Be-
cause of general plan requirements of State Law and the constraints identified in this
Housing Element it is not physically, environmetally or fiscally possible for the City to fully
satisfy all of the identified housing 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 quantified objectives herein represent the most diligent good faith effort which the
City of Newport Beach considers possible.
TABLE 49
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY INCOME CATEGORY
1989-1994
Vey I.ow Uwe I Moderate upper IQW
1. New Units 272 284 647 1,245 2,448
2. Rehabilitation 8 8 1,000 2,000 3,016
3. +Conservation 2,000 2,990 2,567 1,615 9,172
mum
S
I
I
Ll
Following is a detailed estimate of the projected) sources of units summarized above:
1. Production of 2,448 new units is projected from the sources shown in the following
table. Housing programs 1,2,3,5,9, and 12 are designed to achieve this new construc-
tion quantified goal.
2. Private rehabilitation of units in the housing stock consists of remodels and improve-
ment of standard units. Rehabilitation of lower and very low income units will in-
volve the correction of substandard conditions and be assisted through funding
programs. Housing Program 6 is designed to achieve this goal. Based on private
rehabilitation for the moderate and upper income units and the HUD CDBG and
M
TABLE SO
NEW HOUSING UNITS BY INCOME CATEGORY
1989-19941
Vea
La
Lower
MQderate
tJ_noer
Total
San Diego Creek South
30
30
240
0
300
Freeway Reservation
8
8
60
0
76
East
Newporter North
22
21
0
169
212
Newport Center,
Block 800
24
25
0
196
245
Villa Point Remnant
9
9
72
0
90
Castaways
15
16
0
120
151
CalTrans West
22
23
0
107
152
Newport Ranch
27
27
100
118
272
Vacant Site Subtotal:
157
159
472
710
1,498
Subtotal Percentage:
10.5%
10.6%
31.5%
47.4%
100%
Infill/intensification/
40
0
50
285
375
CDBG
Density Bonus
75
125
0
0
200•
Demolition Replacement:
0
0
125
250
375
TOTAL
272
284
647
1,245
2,448
PERCENT
11.1%
11.6%
26.4%
50.9%
100%
"Could increase based on above projects using density bonus of 25% or less.
2. Private rehabilitation of units in the housing stock consists of remodels and improve-
ment of standard units. Rehabilitation of lower and very low income units will in-
volve the correction of substandard conditions and be assisted through funding
programs. Housing Program 6 is designed to achieve this goal. Based on private
rehabilitation for the moderate and upper income units and the HUD CDBG and
M
Rental Rehabilitation programs for the lower and very low income units, the follow-
ing table summarizes the City's rehabilitation objectives:
TABLE 51
Very Low Lower Moderate U°.,ncr 12W
Rehabilitation 8 8 1,000 2,000 3,016
3. The following table summarizes the maximum number of units that can be conserved
over the five -year period.
1. Appl. of Mobile
Home Park Zone
Ord. pursuant
to Program 6
2. Appl. of Condo
Conversion Regs.
pursuantto
Program 6
3. Appl. of Council
Policy P -1 re.
replacement housing
pursuant to
Program 6
� 11011Cgl ti
TABLE 52
SERVATION OF HOUSING IN NEWPORT BEACH
BY INCOME CATEGORY, 1989 -1994
Very Low LAcr Moderate. UP=
(0 -50% of (50 -80% of (80 -120% of (170% of
Median) Median Median Median
Income) Income) Income) Income)
0
90 345 100 65 600
1,175 1,765 1,510 990 5,440
735
880
957
560
3,132
2,000
2,990
2,567
1,615
9,172
I
M
1
I
I
I
I
Performance Relative to Regional Housing Needjs Assessment (RHNA)
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
RHNA prepared by SLAG, there is a projected regional need for additional units in New-
port Beach as follows:
TABLE 53
PROJECTED REGIONAL DEMAND IN NEWPORT BEACH
1989-19941
Household
Growth
Net Vacancy
Adi istment
Demoliton
A liustment
Total
New 11nits.
1,774 units
-77 units
365 units
2,062
TABLE 54
TOTAL NEW UNITS DISTRIBUTED BY INCOME
Vey Low IAmcr Moderate High Total
299 408 359 996 2,062
14.5% 19$% 17.4% 48.3% 100%
For purposes of comparison, the City's Quantified Objectives are shown below in the same
format as the RHNA.
TABLE SS
CITY'S QUANTIFIED GOALS
1989-19941
Household Net Vacancy Demolition Total
Growth Adjustment Adjustment New Units
2,073 units -77 units 375 units 2,371
ME
TABLE 56
CITY'S QUANTIFIED GOALS DISTRIBUTED BY INCOME
1989-1994
Vea Low Ins Moderate High TDw
272 284 647 1,168 2,371
11.5% 12.0% 27.2% 49.3% 100%
The following housing programs represent a five year schedule of actions to implement
and achieve the goals, policies and quantified objectives of the Housing Element. Within
the general context of Section 65583 (c) of the Government Code, and the previously
described community assessment, the following housing programs and implementation ac-
tions are adopted and the implementing responsibilities are assigned.
CONSISTENT WITH SOUND PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, THE CITY
SHALL ENABLE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSING UNITS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE
CITY'S QUANTIFIED GOALS BY IDENTIFYING ADEQUATE SITES FOR THEIR CONSTRUC-
TION.
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City identifies the following sites as adequate sites which will be made avail-
able 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 to meet the City's housing goals
as identified pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(b). The following
sites are sufficient to meet the City's housing goals as identified pursuant to
subdivision (b):
2.11.2
r,
li
I
40
I
r
t
A
1
A
1
i
1
1
A
f
i
1
1
A
1
1
*SFA: Single Family Attached
TFR: Two Family Residential
MFR: Multi - Family Residential
P -C: Planned Community
b. When requested by property owners, the City shall continue to approve the
rezoning of developed or vacant property from non - residential to residential
uses when appropriate. These rezoned properties shall be added to the list of
sites for residential development.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action la: Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council..
Action lb: , Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council.
:a
TABLE 57
Gen.Plan
L.C.P.
Zoning
D.U.
(
San Diego Creek South
MFR
MFR
P -C
300
Freeway Reservation
East
SPA
not in
P -C
76
coastalzone
Newporter North
SFA
SFA
P -C
212
Newport Center,
MFR
not in
P -C
245
Block 800
coastal stone
Villa Point Remnant
MFR
NIFR
P -C
90
Castaways
SFD
SFD
P -C
151
CalTrans West
SFA
SFA
P -C
152
Newport Ranch
SFA
SFA
P -C
272
Multi - Family
TFR&
TFR&
R- 1.5,2,& 3
375
Infill Areas
MFR
MFR
*SFA: Single Family Attached
TFR: Two Family Residential
MFR: Multi - Family Residential
P -C: Planned Community
b. When requested by property owners, the City shall continue to approve the
rezoning of developed or vacant property from non - residential to residential
uses when appropriate. These rezoned properties shall be added to the list of
sites for residential development.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action la: Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council..
Action lb: , Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council.
:a
I
PROGRAM 2
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.
1. Implementation Actions : The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City of Newport Beach shall take all feasible actions, through the use of
development agreements, expedited review of subdivision approvals, and ex-
pedited processing of grading, building and other development permits, to en-
courage the construction and occupancy, at the earliest practicable opportunity, '
of projects approved with low and moderate income housing requirements.
b. Given the considerations of proper general planning, the California Environ- ■
mental Quality Act, project characteristics incentives, and government finan-
cial assistance, the Planning Commission, in proposed new developments of 10
or more units, shall continue to allocate, where feasible, at least 20% of the an-
nual production to housing affordable to low income households. Proposed
new developments with fewer than 10 units shall not be subject to the negotiated
development process and are exempt from the affordable housing criteria.
Through the negotiated development process up to 100% of the total units in ,
a residential project may 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
such factors as project location, size, density, incentives, such as density bonuses
granted under Government Code Section 65915 and/or government financial
assistance, whether the units are on or off site and if they are off site the charac-
teristics of the project in which they are being provided. These units may be
rental or ownership at the option of the property owner /developer. All affor-
dable units shall be on site unless approved at an off -site location approved by
the City.
For purposes of defining income groups the Housing Element uses the income
table prepared by the State of California in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 50093 (50093 Table). The 50093 Table uses the following income
groups: ■
Very low income: 0 - 50% of the HUD Median family income adjusted for
family size as shown in the 50093 Table.
W
Lower income: 50 - 80% of the HUD Median family income adjusted for
family size as shown in the 50093 Table. In areas of higher income, such as
Orange County, the lower income family of four does not exceed the higher of
the national median family income or the State non - metropolitan median fami-
ly income. _90-
I
ILow income is the combination of the very low and lower income groups.
Median income: 80 -100% of the HUD Median family income adjusted for
family size as shown in the 50093 Table.
an efficiency unit as if occupied by one person; a one bedroom as if oc-
cupied by two persons; a two bedroom as if occupied by four persons; a
three bedroom as if occupied by six persons; and a four bedroom as if oc-
cupied by eight.
Moderate income: 100 -120% of the Hud Median family income adjusted for
family size as shown in the 50093 Table.
Upper income: 1209'o + of the HUD Median family income, not shown in the
50093 Table.
The following affordability standards shall apply to rental and ownership housing:
cupied by two persons, a two bedroom as if occupied by four persons, a
For rental housing the maximum tenant income shall be determined by the number
of persons in a family or household and the income shall be in conformance with the
50093 Table. The rent for low income households and families shall be in accord-
ance with the Section 8 Fair Market Rent (FMR) Table. A requirement for preferen-
tial acceptance of Section 8 certificate and voucher holders shall accompany Fair
Market Rent units. Rents for median and moderate income households shall be no
more than 30% of the income in the 50093 Table as follows:
an efficiency unit as if occupied by one person; a one bedroom as if oc-
cupied by two persons; a two bedroom as if occupied by four persons; a
three bedroom as if occupied by six persons; and a four bedroom as if oc-
cupied by eight.
For ownership housing the maximum buyer's income shall be no more than the in-
come standard identified in one of the six ownership allocation criteria below. These
maximum buyer income limitations shall be taken from the 50093 Table and be ap-
plied to the units as follows:
an efficiency unit as if occupied by one person; a one bedroom as if oc-
cupied by two persons, a two bedroom as if occupied by four persons, a
three bedroom as if occupied by six persons, and a four bedroom as if oc-
cupied by eight persons. The selling; price of an ownership unit shall be
no more than 3 times the buyer's income. Units may be sold to buyers
with qualifying incomes for the limited sales price without regard to the
number of persons in the family.
In projects of 10 to 25 units, to the extent feasible, units shall be allocated in accord-
ance with the following criteria.
1) Rental developments with minimal development incentives and includ-
ing density bonuses of 25% or less and without governmental financial as-
sistance shall provide up to 10% of the total units in the project to low
income families and individuals at FMR for a minimum of 20 years.
-91-
1
2) Rental developments with significant development incentives including
density bonuses greater than 25% and without government financial as-
sistance shall provide 10% - 50% of the total project units to low income
families and individuals at FMR for a minimum of 30 years.
3) Rental developments assisted with CDBG funds shall provide at least
51% of the total project units to low income families and individuals for
a minimum of 30 years.
4)
Ownership developments with minimal development incentives includ-
ing density bonuses of 25% or less and without governmental financial as-
sistance shall provide up to 10% of the total project units to moderate
income families and individuals for a minimum of 20 years.
'
5)
Ownership developments with significant development incentives includ-
ing density bonuses greater than 25% and without government financial
assistance shall provide 10% - 50% of the total project units to moderate
income families and individuals for a minimum of 30 years.
6)
Ownership developments assisted with CDBG funds shall provide at least
51% of the total project units to low income families and individuals for
a minimum of 30 years.
In projects of 25 or more units, to the extent feasible, units shall be allocated in
accordance
with the following criteria:
7)
Rental developments with minimal development incentives including
density bonuses of 25% or less and without governmental financial assis-
tance shall provide at least 15 -25% of the total units in the project to low
income families and individuals at FMR for a minimum of 20 years.
8)
Rental developments with significant development incentives including
density bonuses greater than 25% and without government financial as-
sistance shall provide 25 - 50% of the total project units to low income
families and individuals at FMR for a minimum of 30 years.
9)
Rental developments assisted with CDBG funds shall provide at least
51% of the total project units to low income families and individuals at
FMR for a minimum of 30 years.
,
10)
Ownership developments with minimal development incentives includ-
ing density bonuses of 25% or less and without governmental financial as-
'
sistance shall provide 15 -25% of the total project to moderate income
families and individuals for a minimum of 20 years.
,
-92-
i
w
i
I
I
I
I
11) Ownership developments with significant development incentives includ-
ing density bonuses greater than 25% and without government financial
assistance shall provide 25% - 50% of the total project units for a mini-
mum of 30 years in the following proportions:
0 - 50% to median income families and individuals
50 - 100% to moderate income families and individuals
12) Ownership developments assisted with CDBG funds shall provide at least
51% of the total project units to low income families and individuals for
a minimum of 30 years.
C. Within 30 days of receiving the periodic income revisions from the State of
California, Health and Safety Code Section 50093 a report comparing "affor-
dable" rents to market rate rents shall be prepared and distributed to the City
Council and Planning Commission.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 2a:
Action 2b:
Action 2c:
Action 2d:
PROGRAM
City Council; Planning Department.
Planning Commission.
Planning Commission.
Planning Department
TO PROMOTE AND ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING FOR LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
1. Implementation Actions : The following activities will be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City shall continue to apply for, and use the majority of its entitlement funds
under the Community Development Block Grant program to facilitate the
development and construction of housing for lower and very low 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 in-
come" households. This may be accomplished by using the City's current 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
1 -93-
down" the cost of land for developers who have agreed to develop low income
housing. In this regard, the Newport Beach Planning Department shall
negotiate with the interested landowners and developers to determine the
availability of appropriate 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 in-
come households. City staff shall encourage the developers of the remaining
residential sites to use tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds to facilitate the con-
struction of low and moderate income housing on these sites.
C. The City shall continue to participate as a member of the OCHA Advisory Com-
mittee and work in cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority to
provide Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance to residents of the community.
The City shall, in cooperation with the OCHA, recommend and request the use
of the modified fair market rent limits to increase the number of housing units
within the City which will be eligible to participate in the program. The New-
port 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 very 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 (com-
prising approximately 40% of Newport Beach), the City shall require the
provision of housing affordable to persons or families of low and moderate in-
come, where feasible in projects of 10 or more units. Whenever practicable,
the City shall require the units be located on -site; 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 in-
come housing within the Coastal Zone, shall be governed by Newport Beach
City Council Policy P -1.
e. The City Council shall have the discretion to review and waive planning and
park fees, and modify development standards (e.g. parking, setbacks, lot
coverage, etc.) for developments containing low and moderate income housing
in proportion to the number of low and moderate income units in the entire
project.
E When a developer of housing agrees to construct housing for persons and '
families of low and moderate income, the City shall either (1) grant a density
-94-
bonus or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value, in accord-
ance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65915, et seq.
g. When it is determined to be of benefit, the City shall participate in other hous-
ing assistance programs that assist the production of housing.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 3a: City Council; Planning Director.
Action 3b: City Council; Advance Planning.
Action 3c: City Manager; Planning Director.
Action 3d: Planning Commission; Planning Director.
TO APPROVE, WHEREVER FEASIBLE AND APPROPRIATE, MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL USE DEVELOPMENTS THAT IMPROVE THE BALANCE BE-
TWEEN HOUSING AND JOBS.
. 1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City 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 assess-
ment 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.
b. In major projects involving commercial and industrial uses, the City shall re-
quire wherever feasible, the development of housing that is geared to the af-
fordability range of the projected labor force.
-95-
Action 3e: City Council.
Action 3f: City Council.
'
Action 3g: Planning Department; City Council
PROGRAM 4
TO APPROVE, WHEREVER FEASIBLE AND APPROPRIATE, MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL USE DEVELOPMENTS THAT IMPROVE THE BALANCE BE-
TWEEN HOUSING AND JOBS.
. 1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City 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 assess-
ment 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.
b. In major projects involving commercial and industrial uses, the City shall re-
quire wherever feasible, the development of housing that is geared to the af-
fordability range of the projected labor force.
-95-
I
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 4a: Planning Department
Action 4b: Planning Commission and City Council
PROGRAM 5
TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS.
1. Implementation Actions : The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program. ,
a) The Current Planning Manager. 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 periodically review its development approval
process and make revisions when necessary. The Department shall also revise
appropriate Development Procedural Guides to reflect any changes.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 5a: Current Planning Manager.
Action 5b: Planning Department.
PROGRAM 6 i
TO CONSERVE, REHABILITATE, IMPROVE, AND REDEVELOP THE EXISTING HOUSING IN-
VENTORY.
1. Implementation Actions : The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program.
a) The City shall vigorously enforce all building and zoning codes in order to con-
serve the habitability of the existing housing stock.
b) The City shall maintain rental opportunities by restricting conversions of rent-
al units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental
housing is 5% or 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.
-96-
Action 6a: Planning Department; Building Department.
Action 6b: City Council; Planning Commission.
Action 6c: City Council; Planning Department.
* Action 6d: Planning Commission; Planning Director.
Action 6e: Planning Department; City Council.
Action 6f: Planning Department; City Council.
PROGRAM 7
' TO PROMOTE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL PERSONS REGARDLESS OF RACE,
RELIGION, SEX, MARITAL STATUS, ANCESTRY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR COLOR.
' 1. Implementation Action : The following activity shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
-97-
c) The City shall continue to evaluate mobile home parks to determine which ad-
ditional mobile home parks should tie 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 Coas-
tal 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. .
e) With the approval of HUD the City and the Orange County Housing and Com-
munity Development Program Office shall participate in a cooperative
program for administration of the HUD Rental Rehabilitation Program in
Newport Beach. Energy efficient products shall be required when appropriate.
if)
As long as the need exists, the City shall continue to use a portion of its CDBG
money to fund its emergency home repair program. Energy efficient products
shall be required when ever appropriate.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 6a: Planning Department; Building Department.
Action 6b: City Council; Planning Commission.
Action 6c: City Council; Planning Department.
* Action 6d: Planning Commission; Planning Director.
Action 6e: Planning Department; City Council.
Action 6f: Planning Department; City Council.
PROGRAM 7
' TO PROMOTE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL PERSONS REGARDLESS OF RACE,
RELIGION, SEX, MARITAL STATUS, ANCESTRY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR COLOR.
' 1. Implementation Action : The following activity shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
-97-
a
-98-
a. The City shall continue to retain and support a Fair. Housing service acceptable
to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to con-
duct its Fair Housing Program and manage its landlord/tenant complaints.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:,
Action 7a: Planning Department; City Council
,
PROGRAM a
TO PROMOTEA GREATER CHOICEINHOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ELDERLY RESIDENTS
OF THE COMMUNITY.
,
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City shall continue to permit the development of senior citizen housing
facilities in all residential and commercial zoning districts persuant to Zoning
,
Code Sections 20.10.020(c) and 20.20.020(b).
b. Where appropriate, the City shall continue to permit the development of "gran-
'
ny" units in single family areas of the City.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 8a: Planning Department; Planning Commission.
Action 8b: Planning Department; Planning Commission.
i
PROGRAM 9
TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND PRODUCTS
'
FOR ALL INCOME LEVELS OF THE COMMUNITY.
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. Adequate sites are identified in this Housing Element to meet the City's quan-
tified objectives.
b. The City will continue to permit the installation of mobilehomes, factory-built
housing, or any other construction technology, provided that such product com-
plies with the development standards of the community and is compatible with
a
-98-
I
the planning, aesthetic, and other applicable considerations of the specific
neighborhood in which such product is proposed.
C. Consistent with development standards in multi - family and commercial areas,
the City will continue to permit emergency shelters and transitional housing.
TO REVIEW THE HOUSING ELEMENT ON AN ON -GOING BASIS TO DETERMINE THE AP-
PROPRIATENESS OF GOALS AND PROGRAMS AND THE PROGRESS OF THE CITY IN HOUS-
ING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION.
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
' 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 monitor-
ing reports and will incorporate the most current data on housing and
household characteristics, as well as housing market trends.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 9a: City Council.
Action 9b: Planning Commission.
Action 9c: Planning Commission.
'
PROGRAM 10
TO REVIEW THE HOUSING ELEMENT ON AN ON -GOING BASIS TO DETERMINE THE AP-
PROPRIATENESS OF GOALS AND PROGRAMS AND THE PROGRESS OF THE CITY IN HOUS-
ING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION.
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
' 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 monitor-
ing reports and will incorporate the most current data on housing and
household characteristics, as well as housing market trends.
I
pa
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 10a: Planning Department.
Action 10b: City Council.
'
PROGRAM 11
TO ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAMS SET FORTH IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT WILL CON-
TINUE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN, AS WELL AS THE CODIFIED GOALS OF THE CITY.
I
pa
I
1. Implementation Action: The following activity shall be undertaken in support of this
program:
a. Whenever land use regulations, land use designations, or housing programs are
proposed for adoption or modification, the Planning Department shall under-
take an analysis to determine that the proposed action or regulation is consis-
tent 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 Plan-
ning Department determines that the proposed program or policy is not con-
sistent, 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 in-
consistent General Plan element or City Council Policy be amended in con- ,
junction with the approval of the proposed regulation or action. Consistency
shall be achieved whenever a regulation, action or project is approved.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action l la: Planning Department.
PROGRAM12
TO PROVIDE FOR THE NEEDS OF PERSONS AND FAMILIES IN NEED OF EMERGENCY SHEL-
TER AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City shall continue to inquire into the extent of homelessness in Newport
Beach and promote the collection of data on homeless persons.
b. The City shall allocate a portion of its Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds to social service agencies that provide services to the homeless.
These funds shall be allocated in conformance with the procedures prescribed
by the CDBG program.
C. The City shall also allocate a portion of its non - social service CDBG funds to
a County-wide CDBG matching fund for the purpose of providing housing for
the homeless. A committee or task force must be created to direct the use of
these funds and the City must have representation on that committee or task
force. The City Council must approve the proposed program or programs prior
to release of funds. Should this implementation action not occur, these funds
will be reallocated to a local housing program for lower income or homeless
families.
f
1
1
1
1
■
d. The City shall participate on the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 12a: Planning Department
Action 12b: City Council
Action 12c: City Council
Action 12d: Planning Department
-101-
F.
-102-
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
iJ
1984 Housing Element Review
State law requires that the City's Housing Element be reviewed as frequently as ap-
propriate and that it be revised as appropriate, but not less than every five years, to reflect
the results of the review. The last revision of the Housing Element occurred in 1984. When
a Housing Element is reviewed, it is required that all of the following be evaluated:
1. The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to
the attainment of the state housing goal.
2. The effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community's housing
goals and objectives.
3. The progress of the City in implementation of the Housing Element.
' When a city has land within the Coastal Zone, the review must also take into account hous-
ing required pursuant to coastal requirements. This evaluation must include the follow -
ing:
1. The number of new housing units approved for construction within the coastal zone
after January 1, 1982.
r2. The number of housing units required to be provided in new housing developments
either within the coastal zone or within three miles of the coastal zone for persons
and families of low or moderate income, as they are defined in Section 50093 of the
Health and Safety Code.
3. The number of existing residential dwelling units in the coastal zone that have been
authorized to be demolished or convened since January 1, 1982, that were occupied
by persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of
the Health and Safety Code.
4. The number of residential dwelling units required for replacement of units
authorized to be demolished or converted that were occupied by persons and families
of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety
Code. The location of the replacement units, either on site, elsewhere within the
locality's jurisdiction within the coastal zone, or within three miles of the coastal zone
within the locality's jurisdiction, must also be designated in the review.
-103-
�drll tn,�.ir.l _ _
In the course of administering the Housing Element and preparing the 1989 Housing Ele-
ment review and revision, the City 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. Specific program objectives (hous-
ing programs) that have not been effective have been modified or deleted and some new
programs have been added.
Measured in the broad context of total units needed, as determined by the Regional Hous-
ing Allocation Model (RHAM), the Housing Element goals, policies, program objectives,
and quantified objectives have contributed significantly to the attainment of the State hous-
ing goal. In the Housing Element, the City extended the 1/1/83 - 1/1/88 RHAM one year to
1/1/89. Extending the RHAM an additional 6 months to include the time up to the cur-
rent Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the total housing need is 2,029 new
units. According to State Department of Finance estimates of total housing units, 2,138
units were produced in the City over the 6 year period 1/1/83 - 1/1/89. This 6 year produc-
tion exceeds the number of units needed for the six and one -half year period by 109 units.
When the City revised the Housing Element in 1984, it adopted new quantified objectives
for the five year period July 1, 1984 to July 1, 1989. Those quantified objectives are sum-
marized in Table 92, page 175, of the 1984 Element. The following table shows the produc-
tion of units for the same five year period.
-104-
1
1
1
r
M
t
Housing Units produced
from July 1, 1994 to July 1, 1989
New Units
°ma*ld• l Very I Moderate UP= Total
Morgan
Spinnaker Bay (Wale) 2 15 17
Allred All l 1 9 10
168 Y68
Gfeller (5)* 50 50
4 36 . 40
Plummer Court 1 8 9
,. Morning Canyon 1 13 14
Big Canyonlo (2)" 21 21
5th & MacArthur (9)* 43 . 43
Big Canyon 16
5th Avenue (8) S0 80
' (10)* 100 100
Newport Seacrest 20 45 65
North Ford 23 27 520 279 849
Marguerite
Newport Seaside (5)* 47 47
Seashore Apts. 15 25
Bayview 15
3 = = == =233
New Units Constructed 83 72 529 1,102'
1,786
' Baywood 39
39
Total Units by Income 83 72 568 1,102
1,825
*Affordable units provided offsite at Baywood Apts.
Development of new residential units in projects considered to be major projects by the
City totaled 1,786 units. The projected total. new construction of 2,648 residential units
was not achieved because the City over projected development on some sites and the
owners of two large properties did not construct any of the 1,085 units to which they had
General Plan entitlement. If these two projects would have been constructed 2,871 units
would have been developed over the five year period. This new unit production would
have been 223 units greater than the total quantified goal and 49 units greater than the 525
unit annual goal. To offset the units that did not get constructed, the City used Housing
Element programs that resulted in the production of units that could not have been an-
ticipated in 1984. Adjusting the 2,648 units by the 124 units over projected, the reduction
of 1,085 units should have resulted in the production of only 1,439 units. However, as
-105-
shown in the table above, 1,786 units were produced. Thus, 347 units were produced from
sources not anticipated in 1984.
New units constructed in small projects, including second units and "granny" units, and
redevelopment units are estimated at approximately 375 for the period July 1, 1984 -July
1, 1989. This total development exceeds the City's quantified goal of 250 units by 125 units.
The income groups of the occupants of these units can not be determined by the City.
Building permits for remodeling are the only source of information that the City current-
ly has on housing rehabilitation activities in the community. It is not possible to determine
which of the several thousand building permits for remodeling were for the purpose of
rehabilitating substandard units. As the community analysis data indicates, the City does
not have a significant problem with substandard units. Due to the high land values in the
community most rehabilitation is done without involvement of the City. During the last
five years the City has not been involved in a property condemnation. The City has assisted
one very low income resident repair a roof with it's CDBG emergency home repair
program. The City has not experienced a significant number of requests for rehabilitation
assistance. Until the 1990 Census is published, the City will not know the extent of sub-
standard units in the community.
The City's efforts to conserve sources of affordable housing are achieved through applica-
tion of the Mobile Home Park Zone, the Condominium Conversion Regulations and
Council Policy P -1. During the five year period, the City has not had an application to con-
vert a mobile home park. The vacancy rate provision of the Condominium Conversion
Regulations has prohibited applications for the conversion of rental units to con-
dominiums. Council Policy P -1 has permitted the demolition of only 16 units during the
five years. None of these units had low and moderate income occupants. It is estimated
that an additional 150 units not subject to the regulations listed above, single family and
duplex units, were lost through demolition. It is not possible to determine the income
group of the occupants of these units.
From the information presented above it is clear that the Housing Element is an effective
policy tool that has resulted in the attainment of the City's overall housing objectives for
the development, rehabilitation, and conservation of housing. The City has also made sig-
nificant progress in the implementation of the Housing Element. This progress is
measured by the following actions taken to produce affordable housing units. As shown
in the above table, 684 housing units were produced for very low, low and moderate in-
come households. The City had estimated that it could produce 602 units in these income
groups. In these same income groups the RHAM showed a need for 1,048 units over the
six and one -half year period. As recognized by State law, this need was well beyond the
capacity of the City. In order to achieve the 155 very low and low income units, it was neces-
sary for the City to use significant amounts of government assistance. The City took the
following actions to achieve these units, thereby implementing the program objectives of
the Element:
1
7
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
I
1. Redesignated three nonresidential sites for residential use and approved 824 units.
2. Granted density bonuses on three developments under Section 65915 of the Govern-
ment Code. These bonuses were on sites ;coned for 20 units per acre and all three
were 50% or greater.
3. Used $2,417,000 in CDBG funds to assist 1.40 of the units. This amounted to 90.1%
of the City's CDBG allocation.
4• Waived park fees and road improvement fees.
' 5. Approved modifications to development standards:
6. Expedited all City processing.
7. Submitted a California low income housing tax credit application for the developers
of one project.
' 8. Used rent standard incentives to promote the use of Section 8 rental assistance on
60 units.
The City further implemented the program objectives of the housing Element by taking
the following actions to achieve the 529 units of moderate income housing. These 529 units
exceeded the City's projected goal of 432 units by 97 units.
1. The City approved an agreement for the use of tax exempt revenue bonds to assist
the development of 520 units.
2. Through the negotiated development process the City required the provision of 39
units.
3. A nonresidential site was redesignated for residential use and 40 units were approved
for development.
4. Nine units were constructed as a result of the application of Council Policy P -1.
' The City also allocated $60,800 of its remaining CDBG funds to assist agencies that provide
shelter and assistance to the homeless. When combined with the funds used for new hous-
ing, 92.3% of the City's CDBG funds were used for housing purposes. The City contracted
with a fair housing agency to handle its fair housing program. Several procedural guides
were prepared to assist developers with the City's permit process.
-107-
Housing Element Coastal Zone Review
The City of Newport Beach uses Council Policy P -1 to guide the implementation of
(government Code Section 65590 9t. seq. During the period from January 1, 1982, through ,
April 1, 1989, 13 new housing developments were approved by the City under Council
Policy P -1 for construction within the coastal zone. Of the 256 new housing units within '
these developments, 37 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 7 hous-
ing projects within the coastal zone. Of the 29 units demolished, only 5 were occupied by
low and moderate income persons. The City required the developers and landowners to
provide 2 units of replacement housing for low and moderate income persons. The 2 new ,
housing units required as replacement units were provided onsite. The two replacement
units are included in the total of 37 units required to be affordable. Forty -four of the new
housing units were approved for construction on the seven redeveloped sites. Thus, in this '
87 month period, the City approved the construction of 256 units in new housing develop-
ments in the coastal zone, for a total net increase of 227 dwelling units, and net increase of
32 units affordable to low and moderate income families. '
�M