EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PRESIDENT
ERIC NELSON
TRUMARK HOMES
1st VICE PRESIDENT
BROOKE DOI
SHEA HOMES
TREASURER
JAMES O’MALLEY
SHOPOFF REALTY INVESTMENTS
SECRETARY
MEGAN ELTRINGHAM
THE NEW HOME COMPANY
TRADE CONTRACTOR VP
ALAN BOUDREAU
BOUDREAU PIPELINE
ASSOCIATE MEMBER VP
MARK HIMMELSTEIN
NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP
MEMBER AT LARGE
PETER VANEK
INTREGAL COMMUNITIES
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
SUNTI KUMJIM
MBK RENTAL LIVING
VICE PRESIDENT, OC CHAPTER
ADAM WOOD
BIAOC
BUILDING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
17192 MURPHY AVE #14445, IRVINE, CA 92623
949-553-9500 I BIAOC.COM
March 22, 2022
Mayor Kevin Muldoon
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mayor and Council,
On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California - Orange County Chapter, I write to express our concerns with the Inclusionary Housing: Financial Evaluation, as completed by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). California is in the midst of a housing crisis created by lack of supply. This is a problem that wasn’t created overnight, and it cannot be solved with fees made exclusively for housing producers. Comprehensive solutions are necessary.
To that end, the City of Newport Beach has demonstrated successful production of affordable housing during RHNA’s 5th Cycle without the need for an inclusionary policy. In its 2021 Housing Permit Report Card, the OC Register scored Newport Beach as an overall B+ with A’s in both Very Low Income and Low Income housing production. Based on these facts, it is clear that N ewport Beach’s existing approach has been successful in creating affordable homes, especially for those households most in need.
It is also critically important to note that a departure f rom past success, in line with KMA suggestions, will result in significant new densities for Newport Beach. The recommended 15% Very Low Income inclusionary requirement for large rental projects is predicated on all such projects being awarded a 50% density bonus and multiple exemptions from local development/zoning sta ndards, including parking . Given the city’s past successes in producing low er income housing, it seems premature to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance at this time, especially one that increases large project density by 50%.
In light of the aforementioned, we propose the City defer consideration of inclusionary zoning to, at a minimum , be considered in conjunction with new zoning drafted to implement the recently adopted Housing Element and su fficient time has transpired to determine whether the City’s tried and true affordable housing approach is no longer sufficient to address the City’s RHNA.
Sincerely,
Adam Wood
Vice President
BIA/SC – Orange County Chapter
ATTACHMENT B
SS3-4