HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0_Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments_PA2017-141CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 21, 2023
Agenda Item No. 5
SUBJECT: Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments
(PA2017-141)
SITE LOCATION: Citywide
PLANNERS:
Jim Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director
949-644-3210, jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov
Jaime Murillo, AICP, Planning Manager
949-644-3209, jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Principal Planner
949-644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
In September 2022, the Newport Beach City Council adopted the General Plan 6th Cycle
Housing Element. The Housing Element was certified by the State Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) in October 2022. The certified Housing Element
(Housing Element) pledges to rezone new sites for housing to satisfy the 6th Cycle
Regional Housing needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The initial site selection is
provided in Appendix B of the Housing Element.
The City must implement the rezoning policy actions by February 2025, although the City
has an additional year for sites in the Coastal Zone. To accomplish this task, the City
must update the General Plan Land Use Element to be consistent with the Housing
Element and the City must adopt appropriate zoning regulations to implement the policies.
Part of the zoning implementation includes the identifying objective design standards for
future housing as well as the creation of review procedures that allow certain typed of
housing by right.
This study session will focus on draft Land Use Element policy revisions, draft Housing
Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts, and draft Objective Design Standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and provide input and direction to staff.
1
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2
Housing Element Implementation Amendments
Planning Commission, September 21, 2023
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Introduction and Background
The Newport Beach City Council adopted the General Plan 6th Cycle Housing Element
(Housing Element) in September 2022 covering the planning period from 2021-2029. The
Housing Element was certified as being in full compliance with State Housing Element
Law by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in October
2022. The adopted and certified Housing Element includes a housing planning strategy
(Housing Policy 1.1) for the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
allocation of 4,845 new housing units with varying affordability levels between 2021 and
2029. The Housing Element rezone policy actions provide for a total of 8,174 units as a
buffer above the minimum RHNA allocation due to the unrealistic affordability
assumptions mandated by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
To comply with state law and implement the Housing Element, the City must now
implement the rezoning component of the planning strategy by:
(1)updating the General Plan Land Use Element; and
(2)providing appropriate zoning that will allow for the housing opportunity sites
identified in the Housing Element to be redeveloped with housing units.
This implementation must be made effective no later than February 2025. As a note, the
City must plan for and provide zoning for these units; however, the City is not mandating
that properties be redeveloped with housing nor is the City required to construct housing.
The City and its consultant team are preparing a programmatic environmental impact
report (EIR) for the land use changes to allow housing units. The draft of this document
is expected to be released late November 2023.
Currently, the City is seeking public input on the draft Land Use Element revisions, the
draft Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts, and the draft Objective Design
Standards, as described in more detail in the sections below.
Draft Land Use Element Update for Housing Element Implementation
The first step in the Housing Element implementation is to revise the necessary goals
and/or policies within the City’s Land Use Element to support housing production in the
focus areas identified by the Housing Element and provide guidance for the implementing
zoning standards. City staff and the City’s housing element consultant Kimley-Horn have
been working in collaboration with the City-Council-appointed 3-member General Plan
Update Steering Committee (Steering Committee) and the 30-member General Plan
Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) to review draft revisions to the Land Use
Element. Notably, this focused Land Use Element is to implement the Housing Element
and is taking place on a parallel track to the comprehensive update of the General Plan.
3
Housing Element Implementation Amendments
Planning Commission, September 21, 2023
Page 3
The Advisory Committee, its Land Use Element Subcommittee, and the Steering
Committee held several robust discussions about the draft policies. They also considered
two items that are not part of the housing Element: (1) increased densities above the
Housing Element assumptions to boost project feasibility; and (2) removing Banning
Ranch as an optional housing site based on the input received from the new owner, the
Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority (MRCA).
In the end, the Advisory Committee did not recommend higher densities than what is
assumed in the Housing Element, but they did recommend eliminating Banning Ranch
from consideration for housing in the Land Use Element. The Steering Committee
supported the Advisory Committee and reported the recommendation in its bi-monthly
update to the City Council on September 12, 2023. At that meeting, the City Council
emphasized that changes to the Land Use Element should be limited to only those that
are consistent with the adopted and certified Housing Element.
The draft policy revisions for the Land Use Element are included as Attachment No. PC
1 to this report. In summary, the revised policies are consistent with the Housing Element
and support the production of housing in alignment with the housing strategy. There is a
new series of policies, 4.2 through 4.8, which help to create a policy framework that
supports the Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts consistent with the Housing
Element.
Draft Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts
To implement the Land Use Element's policy changes, the City must rezone identified
properties to allow housing development as an opportunity and to establish appropriate
development standards. Specifically, the Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts
implement Policy Actions 1A (Airport Environs Sub Area), 1B (West Newport Mesa), 1C
(Newport Center), 1D (Dover/Westcliff), 1F (Coyote Canyon), and 1G (5th Cycle Sites) of
Housing Policy 1.1 of the Housing Element.
The draft Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts are included as Attachment No.
PC 2 to this report.
Draft Objective Design Standards
Under new state housing laws (i.e., Senate Bill 35 – Housing Accountability Act, Senate
Bill 330 – Housing Crisis Act, Senate Bill 6, and Assembly Bill 2011), the City is prevented
from enforcing subjective development standards and is required to permit certain
housing development projects meeting minimum affordability criteria by right. A summary
of the various State law requirements is included as Attachment PC 5. Therefore, it is
important to create a set of objective design standards that provide certainty of
compliance for housing developers while fostering good design and maintaining the
character of Newport Beach.
4
Housing Element Implementation Amendments
Planning Commission, September 21, 2023
Page 4
Objective design standards are defined in Government Code Section 65913.4 and
66300(a)(7) as standards that: “involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public
official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or
criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the
public official before submittal.”
For example, the City can longer rely on subjective standards when reviewing residential
developments projects, such as requirements for “high quality architecture” or “compatible
colors and window treatments.” The draft objective design standards are intended to
supplemental the City’s more traditional objective zoning standards, such as minimum
setbacks, maximum heights, floor area limits, etc., with additional standards focused on
site planning, building orientation, and building form. As currently drafted, objective design
standards are intended to apply to all housing projects that are 20 dwelling units per acre
or higher, citywide. The draft Objective Design Standards are included as Attachment No.
PC 3 to this report.
Environmental Review
This matter is a study session that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in
Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division
6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly.
While this study session discussion and the direction provided are exempt, it is important
to note that the City is in the process of preparing a programmatic EIR for the changes to
the Land Use Element. The Notice of Preparation was issued on June 27, 2023, and a
scoping meeting was held on July 10, 2023. The draft EIR is expected to be released for
public review and comment in November 2023.
Public Notice
The agenda item has been noticed in accordance with the Brown Act (72 hours in
advance of the meeting) and it was posted at City Hall and on the City website, consistent
with the provisions of the NBMC.
In addition, emails were transmitted to those subscribed to electronic notifications through
the City website, and advertisement of this matter was included in The Week in Review
published Friday, September 1, 2023. Furthermore, the study session was mentioned at
the Advisory Committee and Steering Committee meetings on August 21, 2023.
5
Housing Element Implementation Amendments
Planning Commission, September 21, 2023
Page 5
Prepared by: Submitted by:
__________________________
Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP
Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Land Use Element Update for Housing Element Implementation
PC 2 Draft Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts
PC 3 Draft Objective Design Standards
PC 4 Draft August 21, 2023 Meeting Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee
PC 5 State Housing Laws Synopsis
PC 6 Correspondence Received
01/18/23
6
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Land Use Element Update for
Housing Element Implementation
7
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8
Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Matrix
1 – August 16, 2023
Current Goal/Policy Revised Goal/Policy Reason for Revision Necessity
Role and Character of Newport Beach (“Who We Are”)
Goal LU 1
A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that
Newport Beach is primarily a residential community.
Policy LU 1.1 Unique Environment
Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different
neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport
Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach’s topography,
architectural diversity, and view sheds. (Imp 1.1)
Policy LU 1.1 Unique Environment
Maintain and enhance the different villages, neighborhoods, business districts, and
harbor that define Newport Beach through neighborhood preservation. Locate and
design development in a way that reflects Newport Beach’s topography and architectural
diversity while emphasizing the City’s coastal orientation, including public views. (Imp
1.1)
Due to Newport Beach being a unique city, we
wanted to keep the policy’s intention while also
noting its marine-oriented nature so future
developers will have that in mind.
Nice to
have, but not
necessary.
Policy LU 1.2 Citywide Identity
While recognizing the qualities that uniquely define its neighborhoods and districts,
promote the identity of the entire City that differentiates it as a special place within
the Southern California region. (Imp 1.1)
Policy LU 1.2 Citywide Identity
Recognize and support the qualities that uniquely define Newport Beach’s
neighborhoods and districts that promote a citywide identity unique to the Southern
California region. (Imp 1.1)
Similar to the above, we wanted to keep intent, but
also wanted to implement a component that
objectively promotes actions that will allow that
identity to persist.
Nice to
have, but not
necessary.
Policy LU 1.5 Economic Health
Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial,
and marine-oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to
support high-quality community services. (Imp 1.1, 24.1)
Policy LU 1.5 Economic Health
Support the local economy through the identification and development of housing
opportunities, as well as adequate commercial, office, medical, industrial, and marine-
oriented uses that provide employment and local revenue opportunities to support high-
quality community services for residents, businesses, and visitors. (Imp 1.1, 24.1)
Newport Beach is known for having a large
commercial center for higher end retail, which
yields typically higher revenue. The intent for this
policy revision is to emphasize keeping the revenue
local as well as highlighting the need for new
revenue opportunities that will serve and support
local services and new residents in the City.
Necessary.
Uses to Be Accommodated (“What Uses Contribute to Our Community?”)
Goal LU 2
A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents,
sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City’s diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life.
Policy LU 2.2 Complete Community
Emphasize the development of uses that enable Newport Beach to continue as a
self-sustaining community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside of
the community for retail, goods and services, and employment. (Imp 1.1, 24.1)
Policy LU 2.2 Complete Community
Emphasize and support the development of uses that allow Newport Beach to be a
complete community that maintains the ability to provide locally accessible opportunities
for retail, goods and services, and employment. (Imp 1.1, 24.1)
While emphasizing the development of self-
sustaining uses is important, it is also pertinent to
support said uses so they can be utilized to their
maximum potential in continuity.
Not
Necessary.
Policy LU 2.5 Harbor and Waterfront Uses
Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm
and character of Newport Beach and provide needed support for recreational and
commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with appropriate regulations necessary
to protect the interests of all users as well as adjoining residents. (Imp 1.1, 2.5, 5.1,
21.4, 24.1)
Policy LU 2.5 Harbor and Waterfront Uses
Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and
character of Newport Beach and provide needed support for residents, boaters, and
visitors, with appropriate regulations necessary to protect the interests of all users as well
as adjoining residents. (Imp 1.1, 2.5, 5.1, 21.4, 24.1)
Reorganizing this list of users here puts an
emphasis on residents and is more consistent with
similar lists throughout the General Plan. Nice to
have, but not
necessary.
Organization and Form of Uses (“How Are Land Uses Distributed?”)
Goal LU 3
A development pattern that retains and complements the City’s residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment.
Policy LU 3.3 Opportunities for Change
Provide opportunities for improved development and enhanced environments for
residents in the following districts and corridors, as specified in Polices 6.3.1
through 6.22.7:
Policy LU 3.3 Transition of Land Uses
Support opportunities for new development and improved physical environments for
residents, businesses, and visitors in the following districts and corridors, as specified in
Polices 6.3.1 through 6.22.7:
To implement the goals and housing strategy
formed in the Housing Element, we must add new
policies that will allow for potential residential
development in areas that did not necessarily allow
for it prior. Since there is no plan to change what is
Necessary.
9
Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Matrix
2 – August 16, 2023
Current Goal/Policy Revised Goal/Policy Reason for Revision Necessity
▪ West Newport: consolidation of retail and visitor-serving commercial uses,
with remaining areas developed for residential units
▪ West Newport Mesa: re-use of underperforming commercial and
industrial properties for offices and other uses that support Hoag Hospital’s
medical activities, improvement of remaining industrial properties adjoining
the City of Costa Mesa, accommodation of nonwater marine-related
industries, and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services
▪ Santa Ana Heights: use of properties consistent with the adopted Specific
Plan and Redevelopment Plan
▪ John Wayne Airport Area: re-use of underperforming industrial and office
properties and development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in
proximity to jobs and services
▪ Fashion Island/Newport Center: expanded retail uses and hotel rooms
and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services, while
limiting increases in office development
▪ Balboa Peninsula: more efficient patterns of use that consolidate the
Peninsula’s visitor-serving and mixed uses within the core commercial
districts; encourage marine-related uses especially along the bay front;
integrate residential with retail and visitor-serving uses in Lido Village,
McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and along portions of the Harbor
frontage; re-use interior parcels in Cannery Village for residential and
limited mixed-use and live/work buildings; and redevelop underperforming
properties outside of the core commercial
▪ Mariners’ Mile: vitalization of underperforming properties for retail,
visitor-serving, and marine-related uses, integrated with residential
▪ Corona del Mar: enhancement of public improvements and parking (Imp
1.1, 2.1, 5.1)
▪ West Newport: support consolidation of retail and visitor-serving commercial
uses, and new residential opportunities
▪ Santa Ana Heights: support continue implementation of the adopted Specific
Plan.
▪ Fashion Island/Newport Center: support balanced expansion and
enhancement of retail uses, hotel rooms, and offices, and development of
residential uses in proximity to jobs and services
▪ Balboa Peninsula: support patterns of use that consolidate the Peninsula’s
visitor-serving and mixed uses within the core commercial districts; encourage
marine-related uses especially along the bay front; integrate residential with retail
and visitor-serving uses in Lido Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and
along portions of the Harbor frontage; re-use interior parcels in Cannery Village
for residential and limited mixed-use and live/work buildings; and redevelop
underperforming properties outside of the core commercial along the Balboa
Boulevard corridor for residential. Infill development shall be designed and sited
to preserve historical and architectural fabric of these districts
▪ Mariners’ Mile: support revitalization of existing properties for retail, visitor-
serving, and marine-related uses, integrated with residential
▪ Corona del Mar: support enhancement of public improvements and parking
(Imp 1.1, 2.1, 5.1)
Study and consider the adoption of specific plans or other appropriate land use guidance
for the following areas:
▪ West Newport Mesa: This area is generally bounded by the City of Costa Mesa
to the north, Banning Ranch to the west, State Route 55 to the east, and Hospital
Road to the south. The area may be expanded if warranted. The intent is to
support a cohesive strategy that enhances existing land use or repurpose
underperforming commercial and industrial uses or activities while facilitating
new and varied housing, including workforce housing proximate to jobs,
transportation, and services. Future land uses are intended to be appropriately
located and sized to accommodate local community needs.
▪ Airport Area: This area is generally bound by Jamboree Road to the east,
Campus Drive to the north and west, and State Route 73 to the south. This area
must support flexible land use planning for the reuse and repurposing of existing
nonresidential uses while allowing for a variety of housing opportunities
inclusive of workforce housing proximate to jobs, transportation, supporting
commercial, and services. The intent is to support and provide neighborhood
parks or other recreational opportunities, and other public services.
Development in this area should contribute to a cohesive urban, mixed-use
character where residents and visitors can live, work, shop, access services, and
play.
already existing, we must consider options that will
allow for this potential, through means such as
Specific Plan or rezone ordinance.
10
Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Matrix
3 – August 16, 2023
Current Goal/Policy Revised Goal/Policy Reason for Revision Necessity
▪ Coyote Canyon Landfill: This approximately 375-acre open space area is
generally bound by Newport Coast Drive to the east, State Route 73 to the
north, and the Newport Ridge Planned Community to the west and south. The
intent for this area is to support a comprehensive vision that balances future land
uses with environmental stewardship and public access. Future development
should adapt the closed landfill as an area that supports a variety of outdoor
recreational uses such as golf, hiking, and nature interpretation alongside housing
opportunities with complementary nonresidential uses.
Land Use Diagram
Goal LU 4
Management of growth and change to protect and enhance the livability of
neighborhoods and achieve distinct and economically vital business and
employment districts, which are correlated with supporting infrastructure and
public services and sustain Newport Beach’s natural setting.
Land Use Diagram
Goal LU 4
Manage growth and change to:
▪ Support the livability of existing neighborhoods.
▪ Support residential opportunities that accommodate the City’s share of the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
▪ Promote new uses that are complimentary to already existing neighborhoods and
uses.
▪ Achieve distinct and economically vital business and employment districts.
▪ Correlate with supporting infrastructure and public services.
▪ Sustain Newport Beach’s natural setting.
To implement the goals formed in the housing
element, we must add new policies that will allow
for potential residential development in areas that
did not necessarily allow for it prior. The revised
goal was set to support and sustain the results of
those potential opportunities. Necessary.
Policy LU 4.1 Land Use Diagram
Support land use development consistent with the Land Use Plan. Figure LU1
depicts the general distribution of uses throughout the City and Figure LU2
through Figure LU15 depict specific use categories for each parcel within defined
Statistical Areas. Table LU1 (Land Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary land
use categories, types of uses, and, for certain categories, the densities/intensities to
be permitted. The permitted densities/intensities or amount of development for
land use categories for which this is not included in Table LU1, are specified on the
Land Use Plan, Figure LU4 through Figure LU15. These are intended to convey
maximum and, in some cases, minimums that may be permitted on any parcel
within the designation or as otherwise specified by Table LU2 (Anomaly
Locations).
The density/intensity ranges are calculated based on actual land area, actual number
of dwelling units in fully developed residential areas, and development potential in
areas where the General Plan allows additional development.
To determine the permissible development, the user should:
a. Identify the parcel and the applicable land use designation on the Land Use Plan,
Figure LU4 through Figure LU15
b. Refer to Figure LU4 through Figure LU15 and Table LU1 to identify the
permitted uses and permitted density or intensity or amount of development for
the land use classification. Where densities/intensities are applicable, the maximum
amount of development shall be determined by multiplying the area of the parcel
by the density/intensity.
Policy LU 4.1 Land Use Diagram
Support land use development consistent with the Land Use Plan. Figure LU1 depicts
the general distribution of uses throughout the City and Figure LU2 through Figure
LU15 depict specific use categories for each parcel within defined Statistical Areas. Table
LU1 (Land Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary land use categories, types of uses,
and, for certain categories, the densities/intensities to be permitted. The permitted
densities/intensities or amount of development for land use categories for which this is
not included in Table LU1, are specified on the Land Use Plan, Figure LU4 through
Figure LU15. These are intended to convey maximum and, in some cases, minimums
that may be permitted on any parcel within the designation or as otherwise specified by
Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations).
The density/intensity ranges exclude increases allowed through the application of
density bonus laws and are calculated based on actual land area, actual number of
dwelling units in fully developed residential areas, and development potential in areas
where the General Plan allows additional development.
To determine the permissible development, the user should:
a. Identify the parcel and the applicable land use designation on the Land Use Plan,
Figure LU4 through Figure LU15
b. Refer to Figure LU4 through Figure LU15 and Table LU1 to identify the permitted
uses and permitted density or intensity or amount of development for the land use
classification. Where densities/intensities are applicable, the maximum amount of
development shall be determined by multiplying the area of the parcel by the
density/intensity.
We must update any tables or figures that are
associated with the unit numbers described in each
land use area. Revise Table LU1 to accurate
numbers.
Necessary.
11
Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Matrix
4 – August 16, 2023
Current Goal/Policy Revised Goal/Policy Reason for Revision Necessity
c. For anomalies identified on the Land Use Map by a symbol, refer to Table LU2
to determine the precise development limits.
d. For residential development in the Airport Area., refer to the policies prescribed
by the Land Use Element that define how development may occur. (Imp 2.1, 5.1,
10.2)
c. For anomalies identified on the Land Use Map by a symbol, refer to Table LU2 to
determine the precise development limits.
d. For residential development in the Airport Area., refer to the policies prescribed by
the Land Use Element that define how development may occur. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 10.2)
N/A LU 4.2 – Rezoning to Accommodate Housing Opportunities (new)
Accommodate housing opportunities through the adoption of housing opportunity
overlay zoning districts or other land use regulatory policy. The following areas are
intended to be consistent with the Housing Element’s focus areas. Properties within
each overlay district should include, but are not limited to, sites identified in the Housing
Element; however, not all sites must be included, and other sites may be identified in the
future through rezoning unless precluded by state law. The goal is to ensure an adequate
number of sites Citywide to accommodate the City’s allocation of the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment:
▪ Airport Environs: the intent is to support a density between 30 and 50 dwelling
units per gross acre to accommodate up to 2,577 total dwelling units within the
area.
▪ West Newport Mesa: the intent is to support a density between 18 and 50
dwelling units per gross acre to accommodate up to 1,107 total dwelling units
within the area.
▪ Newport Center: the intent is to support a density between 18 and 50 dwelling
units per gross acre to accommodate up to 2,439 total dwelling units within the
area. units per gross acre.
▪ Dover / Westcliff: the intent is to support a density between 18 and 50 dwelling
units per gross acre to accommodate up to 521 total dwelling units within the
area.
▪ Coyote Canyon: the intent is to allow a density between 18 and 60 dwelling
units per gross acre of viable land to accommodate up to 1,530 total dwelling
units within the area.
Since the HE highlights these areas as the ones
with the most projected housing need, a policy
needed to be put in place to steer future
development regulations.
Necessary.
N/A LU 4.4 – Residential Uses and Residential Densities (new)
Residential use of any property included within an established housing opportunity overlay
zoning district is allowed regardless of the underlying land use category or density limit
established through Policy LU 4.1, Table LU 1 and Table LU 2. A general plan amendment
is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity
zoning overlay district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay districts
specified in Policy LU 4.2 is an average over the entire property or project site. For
example, a portion of a development site may be developed at a higher density than
specified by Policy 4.2 provided other portions of the site are developed at lower densities
such that the average does not exceed the maximum. Density calculations and total units
do not include units permitted pursuant to State density bonus law.
This policy is to establish the difference between
the already existing land use provisions in the
General Plan and new ones for the new Housing
Opportunity Overlay Zones. The intent is to show
that now residential uses and already existing uses
will be allowed in the said area. Necessary.
N/A LU 4.5 – Continuation of Existing Development (new)
Residential opportunities are in addition to existing uses allowed by the General Plan.
Properties within the established overlay zones are not required to be developed for
The intent of this policy is to explicitly emphasize
that existing development can remain with the
implementation of the Housing Element. Instead,
Necessary.
12
Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Matrix
5 – August 16, 2023
Current Goal/Policy Revised Goal/Policy Reason for Revision Necessity
mixed-use or residential. Existing uses may continue to operate provided they are legally
established and consistent with policies and regulations related to legal nonconforming
uses. The adoption of housing opportunity overlay districts shall not affect existing rights
to use the property.
the strategies allow for potential additional housing
opportunities.
N/A LU 4.6 – Consistency Required (new)
If residential or mixed-use projects pursuant to a housing opportunity overlay district are
developed, projects shall be consistent with applicable overlay or Zoning Code
requirements unless modified consistent with an established procedure to grant relief
from standards (e.g., Planned Development Permit, Variance, Conditional Use Permit,
Modification Permit, or the application of Density Bonus regulations).
Since these overlays are new, we must ensure that
there is consistency across other City planning
documents. Necessary.
N/A LU 4.7 – Redevelopment and Transfer of Development Rights (new)
Within an established housing opportunity overlay zone and notwithstanding Policy LU
6.15.5, the intensity of existing allowed uses of a site may be reconstructed on the site as
part of a mixed-use development provided the gross floor area allowed by the General
Plan is not increased, unless it is increased through a General Plan amendment or density
bonus concession. The intensity of existing uses may be converted to other uses allowed
by the underlying General Plan land use category provided that average daily trips and
peak hour traffic trips are not increased above the trips from the existing allowed use. For
example, office intensity may be converted to retail or service commercial, restaurants, or
other nonresidential uses provided the General Plan land use category allows these uses.
Nonresidential intensity not included as a component of a future residential project will
remain within the General Plan allocations on a statistical area-wide basis. The City
Council may transfer the intensity of a use to another site within the Statistical Area
consistent with Policy LU 4.3 or Policy LU 6.15.3.
While the TDR component is more of a code issue
than policy issue, we wanted to emphasize intensity
was not going to be intentionally changed or
removed due to housing. Rather, housing can be
just a potential addition to already existing uses.
Necessary.
LU 4.8 – Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones (new)
The housing opportunity overlay zones identified in LU 4.2 shall accomplish the
following:
▪ Allow owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right without discretionary
review for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable
to lower-income households;
▪ Allow a minimum of 16 units per site;
▪ Require developments to include a minimum density of 20 units per acre;
▪ Require that at least 50 percent of the lower-income need be accommodated on
sites designated for residential use only or on sites zoned for mixed uses that
accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need, if those sites: to
allow 100 percent residential use, and to require residential use occupy 50 percent
of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.
This policy helps to ensure future project
developers are aware of what the State Housing
laws allow them to do without confusion of
existing regulations.
Necessary.
Residential Neighborhoods
Goal LU 5.1
Residential neighborhoods that are well-planned and designed contribute to the livability and quality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place
in the Southern California region.
LU 5.1.3 Neighborhood Identification (All Neighborhoods)
Encourage and support the identification of distinct residential neighborhoods.
(Imp 1.1, 1.3)
LU 5.1.3 Neighborhood Identification (All Neighborhoods) With the intent of making Newport Beach distinct
in mind, differentiating neighborhoods is a mean
of doing so. However, not providing the method in
Necessary.
13
Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Matrix
6 – August 16, 2023
Current Goal/Policy Revised Goal/Policy Reason for Revision Necessity
Encourage and support residential neighborhood identity through the establishment of
objective design and development standards that will distinguish neighborhoods from
others in the City. (Imp 1.1, 1.3)
which they will be different would leave room for
too much subjectivity; thus providing language on
actions taken to promote this differentiation was
implemented.
Residential Neighborhoods
Goal LU 6.2
Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach’s residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life.
LU 6.2.4 Accessory Units
Permit conditionally the construction of one granny unit (accessory age-restricted
units for one or two adult persons who are sixty years of age or older) per single-
family residence within single-family districts, provided that such units meet set
back, height, occupancy, and other applicable regulations set forth in the Municipal
Code. (Imp 2.1)
LU 6.2.4 Accessory Dwelling Units
Support and promote the development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory
dwellings units in all zones that allow residential units, to provide a more affordable
housing option that helps the City meet its housing production goals while minimizing
the need to rezone for additional future capacity.. (Imp 2.1)
Due to the passing of many ADU laws since the
original policy was crafted, the revised policy
reflects the support of ADU/JADU development
across all zoning that allows for residential
development.
Necessary.
Banning Ranch
Goal LU 6.4
If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high-quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats.
LU 6.4.2 Residential (Banning Ranch)
Accommodate a maximum of 1,375 residential units, which shall consist of a mix
of single-family detached, attached, and multi-family units to provide a range of
choices and prices for residents. (Imp 2.1)
LU 6.4.2 Residential (Banning Ranch)
Accommodate a maximum of 1,475 residential units, which shall consist of a mix of
single-family detached, attached, and multi-family units to provide a range of choices
and prices for residents. (Imp 2.1)
The original policy allowed for a maximum of
1,375 residential units, however in the Housing
Element, it was found that the area can
accommodate more. The revised policy simply
reflects this change for consistency.
Necessary.
West Newport Mesa
Goal LU 6.6
A medical district with peripheral medical services and research facilities that support the Hoag Hospital campus within a well-planned residential neighborhood, enabling residents to live close to their jobs and reducing commutes to outlying
areas.
LU 6.6.2 Residential Types (West Newport Mesa)
Promote the development of a mix of residential types and building scales within
the densities permitted by the “RM” (Figure LU18, Sub-Area C) designation, which
may include single-family attached, townhomes, apartments, flats, and comparable
units. Residential densities may be increased on a property as a means of promoting
a variety of housing types within Newport Mesa, provided that the overall average
density of 18 units per acre is not exceeded. (Imp 2.1)
LU 6.6.2 Residential Types (West Newport Mesa)
Support the development of a mix of residential types consistent with the densities
permitted by the General Plan (Figure LU18), which may include single-family attached,
townhomes, apartments, and comparable units, provided that the overall average
project density of 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre is not exceeded. (Imp 2.1)
With the introduction of higher need for housing,
that also requires the City to adopt higher average
densities for varied residential types.
Necessary.
Cannery Village (Interior Parcels [designated as “MU-H4,” Figure LU19, Sub-Area C])
Goal LU 6.10
A pedestrian-oriented residential neighborhood that provides opportunities for live/work facilities and supporting retail uses.
LU 6.10.2 Residential Character and Architecture (Cannery Village)
Require that residential buildings be designed to contribute to an overall
neighborhood character, locating buildings along the street frontage to form a
continuous or semi-continuous building wall. (Imp 2.1)
Delete. At the June 19, 2023, GPAC Land Use Element
Subcommittee meeting, it was suggested this policy
be deleted. N/A
LU 6.12.2 Specific Plan Guidelines
Utilize design and development guidelines for McFadden Square identified in the
Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. (Imp 2.1)
Delete. At the June 19, 2023, GPAC Land Use Element
Subcommittee meeting, it was suggested this policy
be deleted.
N/A
14
Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Matrix
7 – August 16, 2023
Current Goal/Policy Revised Goal/Policy Reason for Revision Necessity
Airport Area
Goal LU 6.15
A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian-oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability.
NOTE: Figure LU22 is provided here for ease of reference when reviewing the following policies regarding the Airport Area.
LU 6.15.4 Priority Uses (Airport Area – Mixed-Use Districts [Subarea
C, “MU-H2” designation])
LU 6.15.4 Priority Uses (Airport Area – Mixed-Use Districts [Subarea C,
“MU-H2” designation])
Since the HE identified some sites in the JWA area
to meet RHNA numbers, crafted language to
Nice to
have, but not
necessary.
15
Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Matrix
8 – August 16, 2023
Current Goal/Policy Revised Goal/Policy Reason for Revision Necessity
Accommodate office, research and development, and similar uses that support the
primary office and business park functions such as retail and financial services, as
prescribed for the “CO-G” designation, while allowing for the re-use of properties
for the development of cohesive residential villages that are integrated with
business park uses. (Imp 2.1)
Accommodate office, research and development, and similar uses that support the
primary office and business park functions such as retail and financial services, as
prescribed for the “CO-G” designation, while allowing for the re-use of properties for
the development of cohesive mixed-use and residential developments that are integrated
with business park uses. (Imp 2.1)
promote a potential mixed-use approach compared
to residential villages that separate uses.
LU 6.15.28 Priority Uses (Airport Area – Commercial Nodes [“CG”
designation Sub-Area C—part])
Encourage the development of retail, financial services, dining, hotel, and other
uses that support the John Wayne Airport, the Airport Area’s office uses, and, as
developed, its residential neighborhoods, as well as automobile sales and supporting
uses at the MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street node. (Imp 2.1, 24.1)
LU 6.15.28 Priority Uses (Airport Area – Commercial Nodes [“CG”
designation Sub-Area C—part])
Encourage the development of retail, financial services, dining, hotel, and other uses
that support the John Wayne Airport, the Airport Area’s office uses and as developed
or redeveloped, its residential neighborhoods, as well as automobile sales and
supporting uses at the MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street node. (Imp 2.1, 24.1)
Some areas in the JWA area had the potential to be
redeveloped (does not mean they will), so that
language was added in. Nice to
have, but not
necessary.
LU 6.15.29 Priority Uses (Airport Area – Commercial Office District
[“CO-G” designation Sub-Area C—part])
Encourage the development of administrative, professional, and office uses with
limited accessory retail and service uses that provide jobs for residents and benefit
adjoining mixed-use districts. (Imp 2.1, 24.1)
LU 6.15.29 Priority Uses (Airport Area – Commercial Office District [“CO-
G” designation Sub-Area C—part])
Encourage the development of administrative, professional, and office uses that are
proximate or adjacent to residential uses; with accessory retail and service uses that
provide jobs for residents and benefit adjoining mixed-use districts. (Imp 2.1, 24.1)
Since the HE identified some sites in the JWA area
to meet RHNA numbers, crafted language to
promote a more mixed-use and higher density
residential potential in the JWA area.
Nice to
have, but not
necessary.
16
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning
Districts
17
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE18
August 30, 2023
Chapter 20.28
OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS (MHP, PM, B, HO, H)
Sections:
20.28.010 Purposes of Overlay Zoning Districts.
20.28.020 Mobile Home Park (MHP) Overlay Zoning District.
20.28.030 Parking Management (PM) Overlay District.
20.28.040 Bluff (B) Overlay District.
20.28.050 Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts.
20.28.060 Height (H) Overlay District.
20.28.010 Purposes of Overlay Zoning Districts.
The purposes of the individual overlay zoning districts and the manner in which they are applied are
outlined below. An overlay district may be initiated as a Zoning Map amendment in compliance with
Chapter 20.66 (Amendments). All development shall comply with the applicable development standards
(e.g., setbacks, height) of the underlying zoning district in addition to the standards provided in this
chapter, if any. In situations where an inconsistency occurs between the development standards of the
underlying zoning district and the standards in this chapter, the standards of the overlay district shall
prevail.
A. MHP (Mobile Home Park) Overlay Zoning District. The MHP Overlay Zoning District is intended to
establish a mobile home district on parcels of land developed with mobile home parks. The regulations of
this district are designed to maintain and protect mobile home parks in a stable environment with a
desirable residential character.
B. PM (Parking Management) Overlay Zoning District. The PM Overlay Zoning District is intended to
provide for areas where parking management plans are appropriate to ensure adequate parking.
C. B (Bluff) Overlay Zoning District. The B Overlay District is intended to establish special development
standards for areas of the City where projects are proposed on identified bluff areas. The specific areas
are identified in Part 8 of this title (Maps).
D. HO (Housing Opportunity) Overlay Zoning Districts. The HO Overlay Zoning Districts are intended to
accommodate housing opportunities consistent with the Housing Element’s focus areas and to ensure the
City can meet its allocation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The specific areas are
identified in Part 8 of this title (Maps).
E. H (Height) Overlay District. The H Overlay District is intended to establish standards for review of
increased building height in conjunction with the provision of enhanced project design features and
amenities.
19
August 30, 2023
20.28.050 Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts.
A. Applicability. This section applies to properties located in one of the Housing Opportunity (HO)
Overlay Zoning Districts, as identified in Part 8 of this title (Maps – NOTE: Maps largely mirror the
focus areas in Appendix B of the Housing Element and will be posted once available). This includes the
following subareas:
1. HO-1 - Airport Area Environs Area – The Airport Area Environs Area is located north of the Upper
Newport Bay Nature Reserve, primarily around the John Wayne Airport.
2. HO-2 - West Newport Mesa Area – The West Newport Mesa Area is located near the southwest
corner of the City and primarily consists of industrial properties along 16th Street, Production
Place, and 15th Street.
3. HO-3 - Dover-Westcliff Area – The Dover-Westcliff Area includes property on both sides of West
Coast Highway and the west of Dover Drive. Properties in the Lido Village area are included.
4. HO-4 - Newport Center Area – The Newport Center Area is generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills
Road, MacArthur Blvd, Coast Highway, and Jamboree Road.
5. HO-5 - Coyote Canyon Area – The Coyote Canyon Area is located on the south side of California
State Route 73, at the junction of Newport Coast Drive.
The above listed are general descriptions of each subarea and additional properties may be included
with the subarea. To be eligible for the provisions of this chapter, the property must be listed on the
HO area map as a “5th Cycle Site” or “Opportunity Site”.
B. Uses Allowed. The following uses shall be permitted in the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning
Districts:
1. Any use that is permitted or conditionally permitted in the base zone;
2. Multiple-unit development that meets the density requirements set forth in this section;
3. Mixed-use development that includes a residential component which complies with the
minimum density set forth in this section; and
4. Residential supporting uses such as leasing/sales/property management offices, fitness facilities,
recreation facilities, etc.
C. Subarea Development Standards.
1. Development Standards. The following development standards shall apply to any residential or
mixed-use project permitted pursuant to this section. Unless otherwise modified by this section,
all applicable development standards, including any adopted objective design standards, shall
apply.
20
August 30, 2023
TABLE 2-16
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY ZONES
Housing Opportunity Subarea
Development Feature HO-1 HO-2 HO-3 HO-4 HO-5
Development Limit (units) 2,577 1,107 458 2,374 1,530
Lot Size/Dimension Per Base Zone
Density Range Minimum/maximum allowable density range for residential uses.
Lot area required per unit (sq. ft.) Minimum:
2,178 (20 du/ac)
Maximum:
871 (50 du/ac)
Minimum:
2,178 (20
du/ac)
Maximum:
726 (60
du/ac)(8)
Setbacks
Front 0 ft.(1) 10 ft.(1) 10 ft.(1)(2) 0(1) 10 ft.(1)
Rear 0 20 ft. 20 ft. 0 20 ft.
Side 0’ (3)
Street Side 0(1) 10 ft.(1) 10 ft.(1) 0 ft.(1) 10 ft.(1)
Height Per Base
Zone
65 ft. 65 ft.(4) Per Base
Zone(5)
65 ft.
Building Separation 10 ft.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) No restriction(6)
Common Open Space(7) Minimum 75 square feet/dwelling unit. (The minimum dimension
[length and width] shall be 15 feet.)
Private Open Space 5% of the gross floor area for each unit. (The minimum dimension
[length and width] shall be 6 feet.)
Fencing See Section 20.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining
Walls).
Landscaping See Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping Standards).
Lighting See Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting).
Outdoor Storage/Display See Section 20.48.140 (Outdoor Storage, Display, and Activities).
Parking See Chapter 20.40 (Off-Street Parking).
Satellite Antennas See Section 20.48.190 (Satellite Antennas and Amateur Radio
Facilities).
Signs See Chapter 20.42 (Sign Standards).
(1) Any portion of the building that is over 20 feet in height shall be setback a minimum 20 feet from
the street right-of-way.
(2) Except in the Mixed-Use Mariners Mile (MU-MM) Zoning District wherein residential uses are only
allowed beginning 100 feet north of Coast Highway.
(3) The combined total from both sides shall be 15 feet.
(4) The height shall be limited to 35 feet in the Shoreline Height Limit Area, as identified in Map H-1.
(5) “Base Zone” includes all height limitations established by the Sight Plane Ordinance (Ordinance
No. 1371 and Ordinance No. 1596).
21
August 30, 2023
(6) The FAR in this table only applies to residential floor area, including any supporting facilities. In
mixed-use developments, the FAR for nonresidential is still applicable.
(7) For purposes of this section, common open space shall include amenities that include, but are not
limited to: clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court,
weightlifting facility children’s playground equipment, sauna, jacuzzi, day care facility, other
recreational amenities/facilities as appropriate by the Community Development Director.
(8) This density is intended for the former Coyote Canyon Landfill site only. The Sage Hill School site
is limited to a maximum of 20 dwelling units.
2. Airport Area Environs Area (HO-1). The following development standards shall only apply to
projects with the Airport Area Environs Area:
a. Sound Mitigation. The interior ambient noise level of all new residential dwelling units
shall meet applicable standards of the Section 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards). An
acoustical analysis report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted
describing the acoustical design features of the structure that will satisfy the interior noise
standard. The residential units shall be constructed, and noise attenuated in compliance
with the report.
b. Advanced Air Filtration. The design of all new residential and mixed-use residential
developments shall include advanced air filtration systems to promote cleaner air within
living environments.
c. Notification to Owners and Tenants. A written disclosure statement shall be prepared
prior to sale, lease, or rental of a residential unit within the development. The disclosure
statement shall indicate that the occupants will be living in an urban type of environment
adjacent to an airport and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher
than a typical suburban residential area. The disclosure statement shall include a written
description of the potential impacts to residents of both the existing environment (e.g.,
noise from planes, commercial activity on the site and vehicles streets) and potential
nuisances based upon the allowed uses in the zoning district. Each and every buyer,
lessee, or renter shall sign the statement acknowledging that they have received, read,
and understand the disclosure statement. A covenant shall also be included within all
deeds, leases or contracts conveying any interest in a residential unit within the
development that requires: (1) the disclosure and notification requirement stated herein;
(2) an acknowledgment by all grantees or lessees that the property is located within an
urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be
higher than a typical suburban residential area; and (3) acknowledgment that the
covenant is binding for the benefit and in favor of the City of Newport Beach.
3. West Newport Mesa Area (HO-2). The following development standards shall only apply to
projects with the West Newport Mesa Area:
a. West Newport Mesa Streetscape Master Plan. Any residential or mixed-use residential
development shall implement applicable components of the adopted West Newport
Mesa Streetscape Master Plan.
22
August 30, 2023
4. Coyote Canyon Area (HO-5). The following development standards shall only apply to projects
with the Coyote Canyon Area:
a. Public Park. The first phase of residential development within this subarea shall include a
public park that is no less than 3.5 acres.
b. Public Trails. The first phase of residential development shall include public trails for the
entire subarea that accommodate multiple modes of transit (i.e., walking and bicycling)
and connect to nearby community resources, as well as the existing trail system.
D. General Development Standards. The following development standards shall apply to all projects within
the Housing Opportunity zone, regardless of subarea:
1. Mixed-use developments. All mixed-use developments shall comply with Section 20.48.130
(Standards for Mixed-Use Projects). In addition, a minimum of 50% of the floor area of mixed-use
developments shall be dedicated to residential uses. For purposes of this section, floor area be
defined as all enclosed floor space, but exclude parking garages/spaces, utility areas, and storage
areas that are not directly accessible from the interior of a dwelling unit.
2. Landscaped Setbacks. All front and street side setbacks shall be landscaped, except for areas that
provide vehicle and pedestrian access to the right-of-way.
E. Review Process. Notwithstanding Sections 20.48.130(A) and 20.52.080, any residential or mixed-use
development in the HO Overlay Zone that includes a minimum of 20% of the units reserved for very-low-
and low-income residents shall not require a Site Development Review, but shall require an affordable
housing implementation plan (AHIP) and shall meet all the following criteria:
1. All units designated as affordable to very-low and/or low-income residents shall be subject to a
minimum 30-year affordability covenant;
2. Affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential
development project as a whole, but may be smaller and have different interior finishes and
features than market-rate units;
3. Affordable units shall be comparable in the facilities provided (e.g., laundry, recreation, etc.) and
in the quality of construction and exterior design to the market-rate units; and
4. Affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the residential development.
20.48.130 Mixed-Use Projects.
This section provides standards and criteria for the development of mixed-use projects. The
primary intent of these standards and criteria is to balance the needs of nonresidential uses for
access, visibility, parking, loading, safety, and economic development with the needs of
residential uses for privacy, security, and relative quiet.
23
August 30, 2023
A. Site Development Review Approval Required. Mixed-use projects shall require approval of a
site development review in compliance with Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews).
B. Development Standards. In addition to the development standards provided in this section,
development standards for mixed-use projects are provided in:
1. Table 2-10 (Development Standards for MU-V; MU-MM; MU-DW; and MUCV/15th St.);
2. Table 2-11 (Development Standards for MU-W1 and MU-W2 Mixed-Use Zoning
Districts);
3. Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones); and
4. Other sections in this Part 4 for specific uses that may be part of the proposed mixed-
use project.
C. Nonresidential Uses Required on Ground-Floor. All (i.e., one hundred (100) percent) of the
ground floor street frontage of mixed-use structures shall be a minimum depth of twenty-five
(25) feet and shall be occupied by retail and other compatible nonresidential uses except:
1. As specified otherwise by Table 2-10 or Table 2-11 in Part 2 of this title (Zoning
Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zoning District Standards); or
2. For common/shared building entrances for residences on upper floors.
D. Open Space Areas. Open space areas shall be provided in compliance with Table 2-10 or
Table 2-11 in Part 2 of this title (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zoning District
Standards).
1. Private Open Space. The private open space areas required for residential dwelling
units (e.g., balconies, decks, porches, etc.) shall be designed to limit intrusion by
nonresidents.
2. Common Open Space. The common open space areas required for residential
dwelling units shall be separated from nonresidential uses on the site and shall be sited
and designed to limit intrusion by nonresidents and customers of nonresidential uses.
However, the sharing of common open space may be allowed by the review authority
when it is clear that the open space will provide direct benefit to project residents.
Common open space uses may be provided on rooftops for use only by the project
residents.
E. Sound Mitigation. An acoustical analysis report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall
be submitted to the Director describing the acoustical design features of the structure that will
24
August 30, 2023
satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards. Projects shall be attenuated in compliance
with the report. Mixed-use projects shall comply with the noise standards in Chapter 10.26.
F. Parking, Loading, and Access.
1. Type and Layout of Parking Facility. Parking facilities shall be physically separated for
nonresidential uses and residential uses, except for residential guest parking. If enclosed
parking is provided for an entire mixed-use complex, separate areas/levels shall be
provided for nonresidential and residential uses with separate building entrances,
whenever possible, subject to confirmation and approval by the review authority.
2. Loading Areas. Loading areas for nonresidential uses shall be located as far away as
possible from residential uses and shall be completely screened from view from the
residential portion of the project and public rights-of-way. Loading areas shall be
compatible in architectural design and details with the overall project. The location and
design of loading areas shall mitigate nuisances from odors when residential uses might
be impacted.
3. Site Access Driveways. Separate site access driveways shall be provided, whenever
possible, for nonresidential and residential uses. Site access driveways shall incorporate
distinctive architectural elements, landscape features, and signs to help differentiate
access to nonresidential parking areas from access to residential parking areas.
G. Buffering and Screening. Buffering and screening shall be provided in compliance with
Section 20.30.020 (Buffering and Screening). Mixed-use projects shall locate loading areas,
parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noise sources away
from the residential portion of the development to the greatest extent feasible.
H. Notification to Owners and Tenants. Project applicants shall prepare a written disclosure
statement prior to sale, lease, or rental of a residential unit in a mixed-use project or located
within a mixed-use zoning district. The disclosure statement shall indicate that the occupants
will be living in an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity
levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area. The disclosure statement shall
include a written description of the potential impacts to residents of both the existing
environment and potential impacts based upon the allowed uses in the zoning district. Each
and every buyer, lessee, or renter shall sign the statement acknowledging that they have
received, read, and understand the disclosure statement. The project applicant shall covenant
to include within all deeds, leases or contracts conveying any interest in a residential unit in a
mixed-use project or located within a mixed-use zoning district (1) the disclosure and
notification requirement stated herein; (2) an acknowledgment by all grantees or lessees that
the property is located within an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and
outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area; and (3)
acknowledgment that the covenant is binding for the benefit and in favor of the City of Newport
Beach.
25
August 30, 2023
I. Deed Notification. As a condition of project approval for a residential unit in a mixed-use
project or in a mixed-use zoning district, applicants shall record a deed notification with the
County Recorder’s Office, the form and content of which shall be satisfactory to the City
Attorney. The deed notification document shall state that the residential unit is located in a
mixed-use project or in a mixed-use zoning district and that an owner may be subject to
impacts, including inconvenience and discomfort, from lawful activities occurring in the project
or zoning district (e.g., noise, lighting, odors, high pedestrian activity levels, etc.). (Ord. 2010-21
§ 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2010)
26
Attachment No. PC 3
Draft Objective Design Standards
27
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE28
FINAL DRAFT
June 30, 2023
NEWPORT BEACH
Multi-family
Objective Design
Standards
CITY OF
29
This page left intentionally blank
30
1
Multi-family Objective Design Standards
A. Purpose.
The purpose of this subsection is to provide the development and design
standards for multifamily development, including mixed-use development with
a residential component, and to provide property owners, developers, and
stakeholders with a predictable development approval process. The standards provided are supplemental to the development standards applicable to multifamily
residential development and mixed-use development as established within the
Municipal Code for each zoning district allowing such use, including any applicable
planned community development plan, specific plan, and/or applicable overlay
district.
B. Intent
It is the intent of this subsection to provide design standards that are objective
while also ensuring that the City’s requirements for quality design of multifamily
residential and mixed-use development are satisfied. These design standards
shall be applied uniformly, and without discretion, to enhance the built environment for both affordable and market-rate multifamily residential development.
C. Applicability.
The standards shall be used for ministerial review of multifamily development
applications. The development standards in this subsection shall apply to all 20
to 30 dwelling unit per acre minimum density and 50 dwelling per acre or greater minimum density multi-family residential development applications citywide.
Applications that comply with all provisions of this subsection and regulations
of the applicable zoning shall be eligible for a ministerial approval. When an
applicant elects to deviate from the objective development standards set forth in
this subsection, approval of site development review by the Planning Commission shall be required in compliance with Section 20.52.080. The Planning may waive
any of the design and development standards in this section upon finding that:
1. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the
purpose and intent of this section; and
2. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards.
31
2
This page left intentionally blank
32
3
Site Planning Standards
A. General Standards
1. Multifamily building orientation shall comply with the following standards:
a. Residential developments with more than 8 buildings shall provide
a minimum of two (2) distinct color schemes. A single-color scheme
shall be dedicated to no less than 30% of all residential buildings.
b. Residential developments with 30 or more buildings shall provide a minimum of three (3) distinct color schemes. The number of buildings
in single style shall be no less than 30%.
c. Pedestrian linkages to nearby neighborhoods, schools, parks,
commercial projects, and parking areas shall be provided.
d. Visual interest shall be provided through architectural variety, especially where several new buildings face streets, such as by using
different layouts and/ or architectural features. Abutting buildings shall
have complimentary architectural styles.
e. Except for garage entrances, structured parking shall not be visible from the primary streets or any public open space.
f. Loading docks and service areas on a corner lot must be accessed
from the side street.
g. Controlled entrances to parking facilities (gates, doors, etc.) shall be
located a minimum of 18 feet from the back of sidewalk, in order to accommodate a minimum of one vehicle entering the facility.
2. Mixed-use building orientation shall comply with all the standards mentioned above and the following standards:
a. Commercial/office unit entrances shall face the street, a parking area,
or an interior common space.
b. Entrances to residential units shall be physically separated from the
entrance to the permitted commercial uses and clearly marked with a physical feature.
Buildings along streets and open space shall provide visual interest by using different form, color, and materials.
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
33
4
B. Orientation
1. Building entries shall face the primary public street with pedestrian access provided from sidewalks to all building entries, parking areas, and publicly
accessible open spaces. For larger sites with multiple buildings, building entries may also be oriented to face internal open spaces, paseos, and
recreation amenities.
2. Parking areas, covered and uncovered, shall be screened from public street frontages. Screening may be accomplished through building placement,
landscaping, fencing, or some combination thereof.
3. For multifamily projects located across the street from a single family
residential zone, parking lot areas and carports shall not be located along the
single-family neighborhood street frontages.
4. Arrange buildings to provide functional common outdoors spaces (such as
courtyards, paseos, or parks) for the use of residents.
Building entries shall face a public street, internal open space, or paseo.
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
34
5
C. Parking Standards
1. Parking Lots
Parking shall comply with standards as specified in NBMC Section 20.40.070.
a. Parking lots shall be placed to the side or rear of buildings. Parking
lots shall be connected to all building entrances by means of internal pedestrian walkways
b. Parking lots larger than 10,000 square feet in size shall be broken
down into smaller parking areas with planted landscape areas with
a minimum width of 15 feet between them to minimize the perceived
scale of the total field of stalls
2. Residential Garages
a. Street-facing garage doors serving individual units that are attached
to the structure must incorporate one or more of the following so that the garage doors are visually recessive and complementary to other
building elements:
i. Garage door windows or architectural detailing consistent with
the main dwelling.
ii. Arbor or other similar projecting feature above the garage doors.
3. Parking Structures and Loading Bays
a. Parked vehicles at each level within the structure shall be shielded
from view from adjoining streets.
b. The exterior elevations of parking structures shall be designed to minimize the use of blank concrete facades. This shall be
accomplished through the use of textured concrete, planters or
trellises, or other architectural treatments.
Parking structures shall be shielded from view from adjoining streets
Parking lots shall be shielded from view from adjoining streets
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
35
6
D. Common Open Space
1. Primary common open space shall not be located at required front and street side setback areas of the property or dispersing smaller less usable areas
throughout the site.
2. Residential units shall be within a 1/4 mile (1,320 feet) walking distance of common open space.
3. Pedestrian walkways shall connect the common open space to a public right-of-way or building entrance.
4. Open space areas shall not be located directly next to arterial streets, service
areas, or adjacent commercial development to ensure they are sheltered from the noise and traffic of adjacent streets or other incompatible uses.
Alternatively, a minimum of ten (10) foot wide dense landscaping shall be provided as screening.
5. An area of usable common open space shall not exceed an average grade
of ten (10) percent. The area may include landscaping, walks, recreational facilities, and small decorative objects such as artwork and fountains.
6. All common open spaces shall include seatings and lights.
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
36
7
E. Recreation Amenities
1. The required front yard area shall not be counted toward satisfying the
common recreation area requirement.
2. Project shall include at least one children play area with a minimum
dimension of 150 square feet for buildings with more than 100 residential
units.
3. All play areas shall be located away from high automobile traffic and shall be
situated for maximum visibility from the dwelling units.
4. Senior housing and/or housing for persons with disabilities shall be exempt
from the requirement to provide play areas, but shall provide areas of
congregation that encourage physical activity.
5. One common recreational amenity shall be provided for each 30 units
or fraction thereof. Facilities that serve more people could be counted
as two amenities. The following listed amenities satisfy the recreational
requirements.
a. Clubhouse at a minimum of 750 square feet (two)
b. Swimming Pool at a minimum of 15x30 feet or equal surface area
(two)
c. Tennis, Basketball or Racquetball court
d. Weightlifting facility
e. Children’s playground at a minimum of 600 square feet
f. Sauna or Jacuzzi
g. Day Care Facility (two)
h. Community garden
i. Other recreational amenities deemed adequate by the director.
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
37
8
F. Landscaping
All landscaping shall comply with all standards as specified in Chapter 20.36.
1. A minimum of 8% of the total site shall be landscaped. Required setbacks
and required corner landscaping should not be counted toward this
requirement.
2. Landscaping materials shall comply with the following:
a. Ground cover instead of grass/turf; and/or
b. Decorative nonliving landscaping materials including, but not limited
to, sand, stone, gravel, wood or water may be used to satisfy a
maximum of 25 percent of the required landscaping area.
c. Turf areas shall be placed in areas for recreational use only and must have a 10’ minimum diameter.
3. Landscaping and irrigation shall comply with the State of Selection of
trees, plants, shrubs, and other plantings shall follow local and regional
requirements and guidance for approved plant lists to meet the needs of local
conditions, where available. For plants and planting materials addressing water retention areas, recommended resources include the Low Impact
Development Manual for Southern California prepared by the Southern
California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition, State of California Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) or local Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (WELO).
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
38
9
G. Frontage Types
1. Storefronts. A frontage that reinforces the commercial character and use of the ground floor of the building. The elevation of the ground floor is located at
or near the grade of sidewalk to provide direct public access into the building.
2. Live-work/office fronts. A frontage that reinforces both residential and work activities that can occur in the building. The elevation of the ground floor is
located at or near the grade of sidewalk to provide direct public access to the building.
3. Residential fronts. A frontage that reinforces the residential character and
use of the building. The elevation of the ground floor is elevated above the grade of the lot to provide privacy for residences by preventing direct views
into the home from the sidewalk.
Ground Floor Commercial
15 feet(min.) Retail/Commercial
Residential Flats
StreetGround Floor Live - Work / Office
12 feet (min.)
Residential
Ground floor common rooms or live / work StreetGround Floor Residential
10 feet (min.)
Ground floor residential raised no more than 6 feet above sidewalk level
Parking at half level down
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
39
10
1. Storefronts.
a. The ground floor elevation shall be located at the elevation of the
sidewalk to minimize the need for external steps and external ADA
ramps at public entrances.
b. Entrance shall be emphasized and clearly recognizable from the street. One or more of the following methods shall be used to achieve
this result:
i. Projecting non-fabric awnings or canopies above an entry
(covered entry);
ii. Varied building mass above an entry, such as a tower that protrudes from the rest of the building surface;
iii. Special corner building entrance treatments, such as a
rounded or angled facets on the corner, or an embedded
corner tower, above the entry;
iv. Special architectural elements, such as columns, porticoes, overhanging roofs, and ornamental light fixtures;
v. Projecting or recessed entries or bays in the facade;
vi. Recessed entries must feature design elements that call
attention to the entrance such as ridged canopies, contrasting
materials, crown molding, decorative trim, or a 45-degree cut away entry;
vii. Changes in roofline or articulation in the surface of the subject
wall.
c. Windows and/or glass doors shall cover not less than 50 percent of
the first floor elevation along street frontages.
d. At least 25 percent of the surface area of each upper floor façade shall be occupied by windows.
e. Development with retail, commercial, community or public uses on the
ground floor shall have a clear floor-ceiling height of at least 15 feet.
f. The minimum height for awnings or marquees is 8 feet above finished
grade and the maximum height for awnings or marquees is 12 feet above finished grade; except as otherwise required in the Building
Code approved by the City.
Ground Floor Commercial
8 feet to12 feet
Weather protection
15 feet (minimum)
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
40
11
2. Live-Work/Office Fronts
a. The ground floor elevation shall be located near the elevation
of the sidewalk to minimize the need for external steps and
external ADA ramps at public entrances.
b. All ground floor tenant spaces that have street frontage shall have entrances on a façade fronting a street. All other ground
floor uses may have a common lobby entrance along the front façade or private entrances along other facades.
c. Entrances to upper floor units may be provided through a
common lobby entrance and/or by a common entrance along
a façade fronting a street.
d. At least 40 percent of the surface area of the ground floor façade shall be occupied by display windows or translucent
panels.
e. At least 25 percent of the surface area of each upper floor
façade shall be occupied by windows
f. The ground floor shall have a clear floor-ceiling height of at least twelve (12) feet.
g. The minimum height for awnings or marquees is eight (8) feet
above finished grade and the maximum height for awnings or
marquees is twelve (12) feet above finished grade; except as otherwise required in the Building Code approved by the City.
h. If the front façade is set back from the public sidewalk, the
setback shall be landscaped and/or improved as an extension
of the public sidewalk
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
41
12
3. Residential fronts
a. A frontage that reinforces the residential character and use of the
building. The elevation of the ground floor is elevated above the grade
of the lot to provide privacy for residences by preventing direct views
into the home from the sidewalk.
i. Garages shall not exceed 40 percent of the length of the
building facade.
ii. Entrances to ground floor units that have street frontage
may be provided through a common lobby entrance and/or
by private entrances from the adjacent sidewalk.
iii. Entrances to upper floor units may be provided through
a common lobby entrance and/or by a common entrance along a façade fronting a street.
iv. At least 25 percent of the surface area of the ground and
upper floor façade shall be occupied by windows.
v. If the front façade is set back from the public sidewalk,
the setback shall be landscaped (excluding stoops/front porches and paved paths to building entrances).
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
42
13
H. Walls and Fences
1. Community perimeter or theme walls shall be solid decorative block walls located where they do not conflict with existing viewsheds.
2. Wrought iron or tubular steel fencing, or other transparent type of fencing
shall be included within projects where there is a viewshed from the project site.
3. Wall materials shall be brick, slump stone, tile, textured concrete, stucco on masonry, or steel framing, or other material walls which require little or no
maintenance are required. Plain concrete block walls (i.e. precision block)
nor chain link fencing with inserts shall not be used as wall materials.
4. The style of the wall shall be the same or similar to the architectural style of
the project.
5. All exterior perimeter walls located along public streets shall have an offset
a minimum of 5 feet deep for every 50 linear feet to 75 linear feet of the wall
length.
6. Retaining walls within the front and/or side street facade zone or visible from
the public sidewalk shall not exceed 4 feet in height, and with a minimum of 18 inches deep landscape in front of the wall.
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
43
14
I. Utilities
1. All utility equipment shall be located out of the pedestrian path of travel. All utility equipment shall be purposefully and aesthetically placed adjacent to
alleyways, within parking areas, rear or side yards, or within building “notch
outs” and screened from public view.
2. If the mechanical equipment cannot be placed in the back, it shall be either
placed on the ground and screened with landscape, or placed on the roof and screened with architectural materials such as roof or parapet consistent with
the overall architectural style.
3. All electrical utility equipment, electrical meters, and junction boxes shall be placed within a utility room. If a utility room is not feasible, then all utility
equipment shall be purposefully designed as an integral part of the building development, placed adjacent to alleyways, within parking areas, or within
rear or side yards, and screened from public view.
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall ArambulaPhoto credit: Crandall Arambula
44
15
SSZ
Build to line 5’
BAZ SWZDevelopment Site
Build-to line
SSZBAZ
BAZ
BAZSWZ
26-35 feet
41-50 feet
Build to line
Roadway: Asphalt, concrete or pavers
Sidewalk:Concrete or pavers Paving
Landscaping: 20 percent (minimum)
Permitted parallel parking (one side only)
Permitted Catenary Light
Curbless or rolled curb
Build-to line
5’ 5’
9’ 26’(optional)
Development Site
Development SiteDevelopment Site
Curb-to-curb
9’
(optional)
Permitted parallel parking
J. Private Street Standards.
The intent of Private Street realm standards is to foster a low speed, multi-modal internal site circulation network. Streets shall provide a limited amount of
curbside parking for visitors, loading, service, and accessible ADA spaces. The
streets shall be designed as an amenity for the site, including surface treatments and landscaping similar in character and quality to any paseos or common open
space.
1. Private Street Right-of Way. All new multi-family development sites that
provide private streets shall comply with a 41- 50 foot minimum width right-of-
way.
2. Private Street Zones. Three zones as described below comprise the right-
of-way:
a. Street Zone (SZ). treets shall be 26-35 feet in width from curb-to-curb
designed to provide motor vehicle and bicycle access. All Police and
Fire emergency and maintenance vehicle access standards shall be
met. Parallel curbside parking shall be permitted within roadways. Angled or head-in parking shall be prohibited.
b. Sidewalk Zone (SWZ). A minimum of one SWZ zone shall be
provided. A 5-foot wide zone shall be provided. Shrubs, groundcover,
and street trees are prohibited in the zone.
c. Landscaping and Paving Zone (LPZ). There shall be a minimum 5-foot Landscaping and Paving Zone. The zone is intended to provide
a transition between the street and private residences. Landscaping
shall be comprise of a minimum of 20 percent of the total building
frontage(s) area. Landscape planting beds shall have a minimum
width of 3 feet. Paving stone, brick or concrete unit pavers or poured in place concrete with integral color pigments is permitted in the Zone.
Steps are permitted to above grade first floor entrances.
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
45
16
DZ
Build to line
4’ min.
LPZDevelopment Site
Development Site
Development Site
Development Site
Build-to line
Back of curb
DZLPZ
LPZ
LPZ
4’ min.26 feet
34 feet minimum
Build to line
Back of curb
Curbless or rolled curb
K. Private Driveway Standards.
The intent of Driveway standards is to provide motor vehicle access to private garages and service areas pedestrian access between residential garages and
doors and private or public street network.
1. Private Driveway Right-of-Way. All private driveways shall comply with a 26-foot minimum width fire apparatus access standard. No driveway shall
exceed 150 feet in length.
2. Driveway Zones. Two zones described below comprise the driveway:
a. Driveway Zone (DZ). Paving shall be asphalt, stone, brick or
concrete unit pavers or poured in place concrete with integral color
pigment. Stamped concrete shall be prohibited.
b. Landscape and Paving Zone (LPZ). A 4-foot minimum width zone width shall be provided. The Zone shall be landscaped a minimum
of 20 percent of the total site frontage(s). A combination of vines,
ornamental, grasses, shrubs, groundcover, and ornamental trees shall be provided. Landscaping in pots is permitted.
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall ArambulaPhoto credit: Crandall Arambula
46
17
L. Publicly Accessible Open Space (PAOS) Standards.
PAOS is intended to serve as a amenity for multi-family tenant and surrounding neighbor-
hood residents, employees and visitors. The
PAOS shall be configured as passive paseo or promenade mobility corridors that provide
walking and biking connections through or along the development site, or more active
courtyard gathering spaces that can be the
focus for adjacent ground floor uses, especial-ly where ground floor commercial is provided.
The PAOS shall be contiguous, universally accessible, and shall be connected directly to
adjacent public realm. Development sites that
meet all requirements for providing PAOS, shall include one of the options as specified.
1. Required PAOS. Development sites with a combined street frontage 200 feet
or greater in width and a total development site area of 1 acre or greater shall provide a minimum of 5 percent PAOS of the net site area. All PAOS shall
be in addition to all residential zoning ordinance standards requirement of 75 square feet per unit common space.
2. Site Area Calculation. The net site area shall be the total site area minus the
following:
a. Public Easements. Total area measured between the right-of-way line to the build-to-line.
b. Utility Easements. The total area required easements for public
utilities through the site.
3. PAOS Design Standards. Paseos or promenades shall include a 12-foot minimum width multi-use path; all courtyards shall include a 8-foot minimum
width sidewalk.
a. Minimum PAOS width. No paseo, promenade, or courtyard right-of-
way shall be no narrower than 20 feet in width.
b. Access. All PAOS multi-use path access-ways shall be dedicated as a public easement.
OPTIONS
Promenades Courtyards Paseos
Multi-use path or sidewalk
Development Parcel (1 net acre minimum)
PAOS (minimum 5 percent of site)
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Paseo Publicly Accessible Open Space
Promenade Publicly Accessible Open Space
Courtyard PAOS
47
18
This page left intentionally blank
48
19
Multifamily Building Design Standards
A. Façade Modulation Standards.
The intent of the standards is to modulate the building’s massing and volume—
the external dimensions comprising of height, length, width, and depth in a
manner that results in buildings that are in proportion to development site context and provides opportunities for applied facade plane and surface architectural
visual interest. All multi-family buildings, or multi-family components of mixed-use
buildings shall be modulated both vertically and horizontally.
B. Vertical Modulation.
The intent of the standards is to minimize the height of a building by visually organizing the facade in a manner that reflects the function of the underlying
building floor(s) through the use of varied yet uniform application of height, form,
material, and color articulation.
1. Components. All buildings shall be organized into an identifiable base,
middle, and top to differentiate the first floor and upper function of the building. This tripartite articulation provides opportunities to create varied
application of materials, color, and fenestration.
a. Base. For all multi-story buildings, the first floor primary façade shall
constitute the building’s base. For buildings that are greater than 100 feet in height, the first and second floors shall also be constitute the
base.
b. Middle. The primary façade of floor(s) above the base and below the
top shall constitute the middle.
c. Top. The primary façade of the uppermost floor(s) to the parapet or ridge line of a building and any façade of a floor(s) that steps back
shall constitute the building’s top.
Buildings shall be vertically modulated with a base, middle, and top
Buildings shall be horizontally modulated with recesses or projections
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
49
20
2. Vertical Modulation Changes in Façade Material and/or Color.
a. Banding. Use of functional and/or decorative horizontal façade belt
course, trim, or other projections or recesses at floor lines between
the base, middle, and top. The projection or recess shall have a
minimum height of 12 inches and a depth of 4 inches.
b. Floor Heights. Change in floor-to-floor façade heights at the second
floor or above. No middle or top floor-to-floor height shall be less than 10 feet.
c. Fenestration. Changes in building window and door widths, heights,
depths, materials, and colors. Changes in trim and inclusion or
absence of shutters, mullions, muntins, transoms or other window components.
3. Additional Vertical Modulation Standards.
a. First Floor Height. The minimum first finished floor to second finished
floor plate elevation shall be:
i. 10 feet — for buildings with a 30 dwelling unit per acre minimum density
ii. 15 feet — for buildings with a 50 dwelling unit per acre
minimum density.
b. Vertical Variation. Base, middle, and top facade divisions shall be
consistent with the underlying floor plate heights.
i. 30 dwelling unit per acre minimum density buildings — combining, omitting, increasing or decreasing the base
or middle facade division height along building frontages
shall be prohibited.
ii. 50 dwelling unit per acre minimum density buildings — increasing the base and decreasing the middle facade
division height shall be shall be permitted for any building
facade greater than 60 feet in length. Stepping of plate
heights shall be limited to no more than 1/3 of any total
facade frontage length.
Top
Ridge or parapet line
60 foot length or less
Middle
Base
Changes in façade materials & colors
Changes in fenestration
Banding at floor lines
10’ minimum first floor height
VERTICAL MODULATION
Street No stepping of heightVERTICAL MODULATION
Street
Change in floor to floor height
Ridge or parapet line
Primary façade materials & colors
Top cladding material & color
Top
Middle
Base
Change in fenestration Permitted vertical variation in base height
Middle cladding material & color
Base cladding material & color
Greater than 200 feet
1/3 maximum
30 Dwelling unit per acre minimum base density buildings
50 Dwelling unit per acre minimum base density buildings
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
50
21
C. Horizontal Modulation.
The intent of the standards is to shorten the perceived length and mass of a building by providing facade recesses and projections that break up
the horizontal thrust of a building. The modulation provides opportunities
to accentuate and draw visual attention to key building features such as stairwells, elevators, lobbies, and entries, and create usable open spaces such
as courtyards. Horizontal modulation is intended to be complemented and strengthened by accompanying application of different facade materials, color,
and fenestration; and layering of additional recessed and projected architectural
elements such as bays, balconies, and patios.
1. 30 Dwelling Unit per Acre Density Building Standards.
a. Maximum building length. No building shall be greater than 100 feet
in length.
b. Required minimum modulation area. A minimum of 20 percent of
the total façade area shall be horizontally modulated.
c. Minimum depth. All recesses or projections shall be a minimum of 2-feet in depth.
d. Minimum width. All recesses or projections shall be a minimum of 20
feet in width.
e. Maximum number. No facade shall have no more than 2 total
recesses or projections per facade.
2. 50 Dwelling Unit per Acre Density Building Standards. :
a. Maximum building length. No building shall be greater than 200 feet
in length.
b. Required minimum modulation area. A minimum of 20 percent of the total façade area shall be horizontally modulated.
c. Minimum depth . All recesses or projections shall be a minimum of
4-feet in depth.
d. Minimum width. All recesses or projections shall be a minimum of 20
feet in width.
e. Maximum number. No facade shall have no more than 4 total recesses or projections per facade
80 feet maximum building façade length
4 maximum recesses or projections
Street
20 percent minimum facade areaMinimum depth
Total recessed or projected façade area
Primary façade
2’
20’
Minimum width
Excludes balconies, patios, terraces, and bay windows forms
Minimum depthExcludes balconies, patios, bays or oriel forms
Excludes top floor stepback
Street
200 feet maximum building façade length
20 percent minimum total façade area
20 foot minimum width
Total recessed or projected facade area
Primary façade
4’
30 Dwelling unit per acre minimum base density buildings
50 Dwelling unit per acre minimum base density buildings
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
51
22
D. First Floor Opening and Transparency Standards.
The standards are intended to foster passive ‘eyes on the street’ surveillance of the public realm by providing an adequate number of clear and direct sightlines
between first floor residences and adjacent public realm sidewalks and common
areas without compromising residential livability, privacy, and security. For multi-family buildings with commercial first floor uses, the standards are intended to
provide a greater amount of visibility of merchant goods and services for potential walking-by, rolling-by, or driving-by clients or customers. For all buildings, the
standards applies only to portions of the first floor that contain residential or
commercial conditioned/occupied floor areas fronting streets and open common open space.
1. 30 Dwelling Unit per Acre Density Building Standards.
a. Minimum Opening Standard. First floor multi-family building
frontages shall be comprised of transparent glazed door and window
openings based frontage adjacency and first floor use as follows:
i. 25 percent — for any at-grade or above-grade residential
first floor unit fronting a street or paseo.
ii. 50 percent — of the total calculated first floor facade area
shall be provide for any internal common areas, including
lobbies, recreation, meeting, dining, or exercise rooms
fronting streets, courtyards or paseos.
2. 50 Dwelling Unit per Acre Density Building Standards.
a. Minimum Opening Standard. First floor multi-family building
frontages shall be comprised of transparent glazed door and window
openings based public realm frontage adjacency and first floor use as follows:
i. 25 percent — for any at-grade or above-grade residential
first floor unit fronting a street or paseo.
ii. 50 percent — for any mixed use multi-family building with
a first floor commercial use fronting a street, courtyard or paseo.
First floor calculation area
10 feet above finished floor
Finished floor
FIRST FLOOR TRANSPARENCY
Street
30- 50 percent minimum openings
First floor facade
First floor openings
First floor calculation areaFirst finishedfloor
15’ above finished floor
FIRST FLOOR TRANSPARENCY
Street
30-70 percent minimum opening
First floor facade
First floor openings
Excluded non-occupied uses
30 Dwelling unit per acre minimum base density buildings
50 Dwelling unit per acre minimum base density buildings
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
52
23
E. First Floor Entry Standards.
The intent of the standard is to locate building individual unit and lobby entries along street frontages to foster pedestrian neighborhood access and street-
oriented activity. Unobstructed sight lines and pedestrian access from the public sidewalk shall be provided. The standards do not apply to service and loading
entrances.
1. Individual Residential Unit Entrances.
a. Residential Front Door Standards. At-grade or above-grade
first floor individual residential units entrances shall be accessed directly adjacent public realm or common area.
i. Minimum entry sidewalk width — walkway, ramp, and
stairs connecting to the public sidewalk shall be a
minimum of 5-feet in width.
ii. Entry stoop, terrace and patio area — shall be a minimum of 40 square feet, excluding any required stairs or ramp
area.
2. Lobby Entrances.
a. Standards. At-grade lobby entrances shall be required.
Residential and commercial lobby entrances shall be accessed directly from the adjacent public realm or PAOS.
i. No lobby door setback is required.
ii. Minimum entry sidewalk width — where entries are setback, walkway width connecting to the SWZ shall be a
minimum of 10-feet.
iii. Entry landing area — shall be a minimum of 100 square feet.
iv. Prohibited — lobby entrance primary entries are prohibited from driveways, at-grade parking lots, parking
structures, or alleys.
.
Primary façade
Primary entrance
Stoop, terrace or patio
Primary entrance
Direct access to public realm
200 square foot minimum entry stoop or terrace
5’
Primary façade Minimum entry setback
Build-To Line
Public realm
Individual residential unit front door standards
Lobby entrances shall accessed directly from the street.
Graphic credit: Crandall Arambula
Photo credit: Crandall Arambula
53
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE54
Attachment No. PC 4
Draft August 21, 2023 Meeting Minutes of
the General Plan Advisory Committee
55
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE56
Page 1 of 6
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
COMMUNITY ROOM – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
AUGUST 21, 2023
REGULAR MEETING – 5 P.M.
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER – 5:00 p.m.
II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL
Present: Co-Chair Jeremy Evans, Dennis Baker, Curtis Black, Matthew Brady,
James Carlson, Jeff Cefalia, Annie Clougherty, Susan DeSantis, Nancy
Gardner, David Guder, Charles Klobe, Scott Laidlaw, Anthony Maniscalchi,
Jim Mosher, Robert Rader, Nancy Scarbrough, Amber Snider, Debbie
Stevens, Graham Wahlberg, and Christy Walker
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell and Principal
Planner Ben Zdeba
Absent: Co-Chair Arlene Greer (excused), Lynn Hackman, Laird Hayes, Ruth
Kobayashi (excused), Katie Love (excused), Thomas Meng, Maxwell
Pearson, Harrison Rolfes, Paul Watkins (excused), and Lori Williams
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Debra Allen-Moore questioned the unit size, capacity per unit, play areas, and grocery
options in the airport area that will be addressed during the Land Use Element item.
Committee Member Baker questioned if a reduced membership could help make a
quorum. Nancy Gardner stated that the General Plan Update Steering Committee
(GPUSC) recommended to the City Council that membership be removed after three
unexcused absences.
IV. CURRENT BUSINESS
a. Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2023
Motion made by Committee Member Baker and seconded by Committee Member
DeSantis to approve the minutes of July 19, 2023.
The motion carried unanimously with Co-Chair Evans abstaining.
b. Land Use Element Policy Revisions for Housing Element Implementation
At the June 19, 2023, GPAC Land Use Element Subcommittee meeting, the
Subcommittee conducted a final review of the proposed changes to the Land Use Element
policies that are necessary to implement the adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element for the
57
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
August 21, 2023
Page 2 of 6
2021-2029 planning period. At the July 19, 2023, GPAC meeting, the GPAC raised
questions about the inclusion of Banning Ranch and increase density limits in each focus
areas. The GPAC voted to send the Policy Matrix back to the Land Use Element
Subcommittee for further discussion. At the July 26, 2023, Subcommittee meeting, the
members in attendance discussed the policies. Additionally, they supported the removal
of Banning Ranch from consideration for housing development.
Recommended Actions: (1) Review and discuss. Recommend to the GPUSC that the
revisions (or modified revisions) proceed to the Planning Commission for the study
session on September 21, 2023, for further input and, ultimately, to the City Council for
review and consideration; and (2) Consider making a recommendation to the GPUSC that
the City Council remove development potential from Banning Ranch when reviewing the
Land Use Element update.
Committee Member Scarbrough provided handouts and reviewed the approved adopted
housing element, total development capacity, and a unit capacity study without Banning
Ranch and varying affordable and market rate units. She noted that a lot of new units are
needed to conform to the housing element, a 10,000-unit count with a 35-38 percent
affordable, raw numbers without the density bonus, density bonus law, and highlighted
that there is only an inclusionary housing requirement in the airport area. She expressed
concern for offering incentives.
Co-Chair Evans relayed the matter before the GPAC to review the recommendations by
the Land Use Subcommittee and vote and consider removing Banning Ranch from the
development piece.
Committee Member DeSantis requested disclosing subcommittee attendees.
Principal Planner Zdeba reported the following in attendance at the July 26 Land Use
Element Subcommittee meeting: Matthew Brady, Anthony Maniscalchi, Robert Radar,
Debbie Stevens, Jim Mosher, Nancy Gardner, and Christy Walker.
Committee Member Stevens directed individuals to the site analysis, reviewed the areas
that would be subject to one hundred dwelling units per acre, expressed concern for the
recommended density at every site minus Westcliff, thought data was needed to support
the idea, and opposed the recommendation.
Committee Member Klobe clarified the dwelling units and affordable units for apartments,
thought the City should not make housing development more attractive than the law
requires, and supported leaving the policy the way it is and removing Banning Ranch.
In response to Committee Member Guder’s comment, Deputy Community Development
Director Campbell clarified that the Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) has certified the housing element that included assumptions in the housing element
analysis and the density increase recommendations were born from the current economic
conditions. He summarized three matters for review by the GPAC: overall matrix
recommendation, Banning Ranch removal, and density.
Committee Member Scarbrough suggested incentivizing projects with a large affordable
unit count.
58
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
August 21, 2023
Page 3 of 6
Committee Member Wahlberg supported the recommendation as written, thought the way
to provide more affordable housing is to build more overall housing, disagreed that
increased density will create more traffic, and believed that by limiting the number of
housing units enriches Irvine Company. He added that freeing and liberating housing
opportunities will create places for people to live in Newport Beach who want to.
Committee Member Mosher questioned how the density in the Coyote Canyon Focus Area
will impact other sites included in that area that may have a different vision with reduced
development standards, such as the Sage Hill School site.
Committee Member Laidlaw thought that risk management is necessary to help
developers, opposed a subjective review process for every project, and suggested
capping the project size and a codified process.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted an unlimited number of
allowable development standard waivers for density bonus entitled to the developer and
the City must process density bonus projects by law as long it is demonstrated that the
project cannot fit within the development standards.
In response to Committee Member Maniscalchi’s inquiry, Deputy Community
Development Director Campbell thought that an attempted legislature goal is to eliminate
local City discretionary approvals and Senate Bill 35 will not be applicable to Newport
Beach, as long as it is compliant with the housing element, noted examples of local control
being taken away by the State, provided background on the plan versus production
requirements of the housing element, and noted standards, zoning code, and other code
modifications so they are objective and applicable.
Committee Member DeSantis noted having served on the Housing Element Update
Advisory Committee and its support of workforce housing for essential workers and
suggested the GPAC support it too. She supported the Housing Element approved by
HCD and thought the other increases pose a challenge for different areas in the City and
would not get community support in Coyote Canyon.
Committee Member Rader shared conversations with developers that revealed a 75 per
acre unit minimum with 90-100 being better, that includes affordable housing and thought
this would open opportunities and the City should not be scared of density. He noted
benefits to higher density development and highly endorsed the proposal.
Principal Planner Zdeba provided a framework to review the Land Use Policy Matrix for a
supportive recommendation or provide a substitute motion with modifications, next steps
for further Planning Commission and public conversation, and a recommendation for
Banning Ranch in the Land Use Element Update. He emphasized that the Land Use
Element Policy Matrix includes revisions that will implement the Housing Element. He
emphasized there will be future opportunities to review other parts of the Land Use
Element outside the housing arena.
Committee Member Klobe expressed support for affordable housing, noted the proposal
includes market rate housing only, and shared his concern for the matter not passing a
vote of the public in November 2024 and the State overriding Charter 423. He suggested
leaving the policy the way it is, so it has a better chance of passing a vote.
59
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
August 21, 2023
Page 4 of 6
Committee Member Stevens supported leaving the policy as is, letting developers come
forward, and not appropriating 100 dwelling units per acre in all parts of the City.
Committee Member Scarbrough supported housing and more opportunities for affordable
housing and expressed concern for consultant input, public outreach, and the ballot.
Committee Member Mosher expressed concern for supporting a recommendation that
does not have a boundary on entitlement eligibility for market rate housing relative to
workforce housing.
Committee Member Maniscalchi noted a debate over density and a compromise at the
Land Use Element Subcommittee meeting and a greater chance for voter approval with
an increased understanding of the impact to developers and the City.
Committee Member Stevens requested to see financial information that substantiates the
need for a higher density.
Motion made by Committee Member Wahlberg and seconded by Committee Member
Rader to recommend to the GPUSC that the Land Use Element Policy Matrix revisions
proceed to the Planning Commission.
The motion failed 8 – 10.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell recommended the GPAC endorse
the Policy Matrix as it stands with zero density increases, indicated that the Land Use
Policy Matrix has never been approved by the GPAC, and explained the timeline.
Motion made by Committee Member Klobe and seconded by Committee Member
DeSantis to approve the Land Use Policy Matrix to forward to the Planning Commission
minus the four density increases and other changes made over time. The motion was
bifurcated for a separate vote for Banning Ranch.
The motion passed 10 – 7 with Co-Chair Evans abstaining.
Motion made by Committee Member Klobe and seconded by Committee Member Baker
to approve the Land Use Element Policy Matrix removing Banning Ranch.
In response to Committee Member Mosher’s questions, Deputy Community Development
Director Campbell clarified the intention to remove all references to the existing 1375
Banning Ranch housing units that are provided for in the housing element and include a
few policy changes to eliminate references to housing.
Committee Member Wahlberg opposed removing Banning Ranch totally from the housing
element.
Nancy Gardner stated that the owners of Banning Ranch would like the property removed
because they will not be adding housing to the property due to a dead restriction.
Committee Member Wahlberg advocated that land uses, conservation easements, and
State laws change over time and thought it is short sighted to remove something that has
an opportunity.
60
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
August 21, 2023
Page 5 of 6
Committee Member Carlson elaborated on the housing development restrictions at
Banning Ranch.
Committee Member Walker stated that Banning Ranch must remain open public space
because of the source of the dollars that purchased the property.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained the current General Plan
unit allocation for Banning Ranch and stated that the site was left as an opportunity site,
yet excluded from the construction goals so it can be removed without any penalty or
reallocation.
Committee Member Maniscalchi’s question revealed that the Conservancy that bought
Banning Ranch is dictating open space.
Committee Member Rader thought that the GPAC should make a recommendation, and
the City Council will decide.
The motion passed 16 – 2.
c. Brief Overview of City’s Budget and Demographics
Principal Planner Zdeba provided a short overview of the City’s budget for the fiscal year
2023-2024, as well as information on Newport Beach’s demographics, and agreed to send
an email with the presentation.
Committee Member Klobe noted that the City will have $45 million per year available once
the pension debt is paid off.
In response to Committee Member Mosher’s question, Principal Planner Zdeba noted
housing occupancy and tenure date in the demographics profile on page 33 of the agenda
attachments and offered to discuss offline turnover rates in different housing types and
furnish the GPAC with housing data.
In response to Committee Member DeSantis’ questions, Principal Planner Zdeba was
unsure of the population decline in Newport Beach but thought about 2,000 people and
noted that the effects to large employment industries, not just financial institutions, remains
to be seen with technological advances and possible trends. He relayed that demographic
research can be shared with the GPAC. Deputy Community Development Director
Campbell relayed a 0.3 population reduction year-over-year for 2022-23 as per the State
Department of Finance - Demographics Unit.
Committee Member Klobe noted a decrease in population in Corona del Mar and the
Peninsula attributed to an increase in short term lodging that displaced permanent
residents.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted that there has been no
decrease in housing stock and the occupancy is changing with short term lodging playing
a role.
61
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
August 21, 2023
Page 6 of 6
d. Subcommittee Updates
Co-Chair Evans asked that updates to the roster on page 39 – 41 be reported to Principal
Planner Zdeba, encouraged the GPAC to review the outreach memorandum on page 42,
and pointed out the timeline on the last page of the packet.
e. Future Meeting Speakers
Principal Planner Zdeba mentioned that staff can seek a futurist if there are no specific
recommendations.
Committee Member Baker suggested Jeremy Rifkin as a futurist speaker and a formal
subcommittee update reporting process.
Nancy Gardner hoped the consultant will help get subcommittee discussions posted on
the website.
Principal Planner Zdeba relayed that moving forward the subcommittee updating process
approach will be more organized, productive, meaningful, and structured.
Committee Member DeSantis suggested Wallace Walrod be invited to speak.
Co-Chair Evans suggested Dr. Chris Mattmann, Chief Technology and Innovation Officer
and Division Manager for Artificial Intelligence at NASA, as a futurist presenter.
Committee Member Wahlberg suggested John Burns, real estate consultant and housing
research expert, as a speaker.
V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE
PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-
DISCUSSION ITEM)
In response to Committee Member Scarbrough’s question, Principal Planner Zdeba noted
that Dudek and Kearns & West, the consultants, are under contract, actively working, and
figuring out the outreach component to determine the rest of the timeline.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, Co-Chair Evans adjourned the meeting. The next meeting is to
be determined.
62
Attachment No. PC 5
State Housing Laws Synopsis
63
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE64
State Housing Law Synopsis
Overview
The development of residential multi-family projects and mixed-use projects in the City of Newport Beach
is regulated by a variety of documents including the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Planned
Community Development Plans. Following the passage of several California State bills, the City of Newport
Beach is required to adopt objective design standards and streamline its housing development and review
process to ensure high quality design and facilitate the efficient delivery of new residential units.
Several State housing laws rely upon objective standards and emphasize the need for this document. The
following paragraphs summarize the laws, which, when layered together, create the policy context within
which Newport Beach must develop its objective standards.
Senate Bill 35 (SB35), or “Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process”, was passed in 2017. SB 35
requires cities and counties to streamline review and approval of eligible affordable housing projects
through a ministerial process, exempting such projects from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This process does not allow public hearings to consider the merits of
the project; rather only design review or public oversight of the development is allowed, which must be
objective and strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects as
well as objective design review of the project.
SB 35 requires the availability of a streamlined ministerial approval process for multifamily residential
developments in jurisdictions that have not yet made sufficient progress toward meeting their Regional
Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) goal for construction of above-moderate income housing and/or housing
for units below 80% Area Median Income (AMI).
As a part of this streamlining process, Newport Beach is required to establish objective design standards
for multifamily residential development. SB 35 defines an objective design standard as one that involves
“no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an
external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant…
and the public official prior to submittal.” Like quantitative development or zoning standards, objective
design standards provide a clear and straight forward application and approval process for multifamily
housing construction.
Projects eligible for SB 35 streamlining include multifamily infill developments with a portion of affordable
units. They must be consistent with underlying zoning and be evidenced to have no human health impacts
or impacts to natural or historical resources.
HHA (Housing Accountability Act) Code Section 65589.5 According to the Housing Accountability Act
(HAA), no “housing development project” can be denied or reduced in density if it complies with objective
general plan, zoning, and design standards, unless it is shown to have a “specific adverse impact” to public
health that cannot mitigated. The amended law states that cities and counties must identify any
inconsistencies with any applicable “plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or similar
provision” within 30 days after an application for 150 units or less has been deemed complete, or within
60 days for projects with more than 150 units. If the local agency does not identify an inconsistency within
the required period, the project will be “deemed consistent.”
65
HAA also states that If the zoning for a project site is inconsistent with the general plan, but the housing
project is consistent with objective general plan standards, the project is considered consistent, and no
rezoning or zoning variance is required.
Unlike SB 35 streamlining legislation, the provisions of the HAA apply to all market rate and affordable
housing projects. These include projects with residential units only, mixed-use developments with at least
2/3 the square footage dedicated to housing and transitional or supportive housing projects.
Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), or “Housing Crisis Act”, was passed in 2019 and was supplemented by AB8 in
2021. It allows a housing developer to submit a “preliminary application” to a local agency for a housing
development project. Submittal of a preliminary application allows a developer to provide a specific subset
of information on the proposed housing development before providing the full amount of information
required by the local government for a housing development application. Upon submittal of a preliminary
application and payment of the permit processing fee, a housing developer is allowed to “freeze” the
applicable fees and development standards that apply to a project while the rest of the material necessary
for a full application submittal is assembled. After an application is deemed complete, local agencies
cannot “disapprove” an eligible housing development project or condition its approval at a “lower density,”
as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(g), if the project is consistent with objective standards.
SB 330 also places additional limitations on an “affected” agency’s ability to limit development, and
requires HCD to develop a list of cities (“affected cities”) and census designated places (CDPs) within the
unincorporated county (“affected counties”) that are prohibited from taking certain zoning-related
actions, including, among other things:
• Downzoning or actions resulting in lesser intensification
• Imposing a moratorium on development
• Imposing design standards that are not objective
The law also requires replacement housing when a residential development project demolishes existing
housing units. Most of these provisions sunset on January 1, 2030, unless extended by the legislature and
governor.
Senate Bill 6 (SB 6), or The Middle Crisis Housing Act was passed in 2022. It allows residential development
on property zoned for retail and office space without needing a rezoning, and allows project applicants to
invoke the Housing Accountability Act to limit local discretion to deny or condition approval. However, SB
6 does not provide a ministerial approval pathway, and it requires applicants to commit to both prevailing
wage and more costly “skilled and trained workforce” requirements for project labor but does rely on
Objective Design Standards. SB 6 does not contain any affordability requirements.
Assembly Bill (AB 2011), or “The Housing and High Roads Job Act,” was passed in 2022. It creates a
ministerial, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)-exempt, time-limited approval process for
multifamily housing developments on commercially zoned property. Projects must pay prevailing wages
to construction workers and meet specified Below Market Rate (BMR) affordable housing targets. The
legislation provides two distinct options: one for 100 percent BMR projects and a second for mixed-income
(typically 15 percent BMR) projects located specifically on “commercial corridors.” Eligibility is further
limited by numerous site and project criteria requiring careful review. The streamlined review process
relies on Objective Design Standards. AB 2011 sunsets in 2033.
66
Attachment No. PC 6
Correspondence Received
67
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE68
From: Tony Maniscalchi <tonymaniscalchi@gmail.com>
Sent: September 07, 2023 10:34 AM
To: Ellmore, Curtis; Rosene, Mark; Barto, Bradford; Harris, Tristan; Langford, Jon;
Lowrey, Lee; Salene, David
Cc: Campbell, Jim; Zdeba, Benjamin
Subject: Independent Opinion by GPAC member
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Good Morning, I know you will be evaluating the Newport Beach Land Use Matix
together with other materials and I want to take a moment and give you some
feedback (opinion), together with the Land Use Sub-committees considerations . As
you are well aware the GPAC is a 30+- member body appointed by Council to review
and recommend a host of issues and in particular, the Housing Element.
It’s important to know that the Land Use Sub-Committee of the GPAC had voted to
increase the current densities in the Airport Environs, West Newport Mesa, Newport
Center, Dover/Westcliff and Coyote Canyon to accommodate 75 units per acre. In
fact, discussions during our meetings had suggested densities up to 100 units per
acre in some areas before coming to a compromise and recommending to the
General Members of the GPAC 75 units per acre.
In the GPAC’s last meeting, discussions and debate resulted in a narrow vote margin
to recommend no changes to the densities in the Policy Matrix…essentially leaving
the maximum densities at 50 units per acre in all areas except Coyote Canyon, which
remains at 60 units per acre.
While I clearly understand some of the concerns of GPAC members at large, having
been involved in several land/development sales for housing, including market rate
housing, affordable housing and projects qualified for SB35 (mostly in Los Angels
County) getting a project to “pencil” at 75 units per acre remains a big challenge
even with density bonus. Leaving the density at this low of a number really fails to
recognize the economics and the marketability of potential projects.
I know you’ll be meeting on this and wanted to express my thoughts. TONY
Tony Maniscalchi SIOR
Systems Real Estate Management Inc
69
Sales / Leasing / Management
700 North Brand Blvd. #260
Glendale CA 91203
818-606-8606 Cell
818-500-4900 Office
Tony@systemsrealestate.com
TonyManiscalchi@gmail.com
DRE# 00630926
70
September 21, 2023, Planning Commission Item 5 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 5. HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AMENDMENT
Draft Land Use Element Update for Housing Element Implementation
As an appointed member of the City’s General Plan Advisory Committee, and an attendee at all
but one of its Land Use Element Subcommittee meetings (and, most recently, a member of that
subcommittee), I have followed the public aspect of the development of the “Land Use Element
Policy Matrix” (Attachment No. PC 1) from its inception.
I have found that process quite confusing, arbitrary and driven by a consultant whose interests
the public has no reason to believe are aligned with their own.
Committee members were told what revisions to the Land Use Element were “Necessary,” “Not
Necessary,” or “Nice to have, but not necessary.” At no time that I can recall were they asked to
actually read the new Housing Element to form their own opinion as to whether they agreed with
those assessments, nor were they asked to consider whether these proposals were the best
way to achieve consistency. For the most part, GPAC involvement was limited to wordsmithing
or making minor tweaks to what was provided to them. In addition, other revisions to the Land
Use Element, specifically those which the Planning Commission saw on August 3, 2023,
regarding allowing housing in previously prohibited high-noise areas, were not reviewed by
GPAC at all.
As to confusion, as recently as the last Land Use Element Subcommittee meeting it appeared to
me that senior City planning staff was unaware at least some of the Housing Element’s “Focus
Areas” include properties quite distant from the area one would guess from their titles: “Dover-
Westcliff,” for example, apparently being a catch-all name for anything not in another focus
area.
Regarding my own confusions, I am not sure I know what is meant by something as basic
“housing opportunity sites,” a term used frequently in the new Housing Element, including in
Appendix B, which Policy Action 4F says lists them. When the August 3 LUE item was heard by
this Commission, it was told “The Airport Area includes 62 new housing opportunity sites that
could accommodate up to 2,577 housing units.” Yet, when I look to Appendix B, I find no such
list. Instead, on pages B-29 through B-39, I find a table of what looks like perhaps 100 parcels
with a “development potential” of 8,272 units,1 plus, continuing on page B-40, a list of 8
“pipeline” parcels, expected to yield another 1,146 units. Guessing how those translate into “62
new housing opportunity sites that could accommodate up to 2,577 housing units,” is, without
further guidance, a formidable challenge.
I do not claim to be an expert on the new Housing Element, but, despite its having been certified
by HCD, everywhere I look in it, on even the most casual examination, I find it replete with
errors and inconsistencies. For example, in the above referenced table, on page B-29, the
second and third parcels listed are the same: APN 427 121 24 (Map ID 18). The last parcel
1 When I attempt to add the listed “Assumed Net Yields,” I get 8,246. I have been unable to find a reason
for the 26 unit discrepancy.
Plannning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5a - Additional Materials Received Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
September 21, 2023, PC agenda Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6
listed on that page is has the same APN (445 161 03) as the first listed on the next, but a
different Map ID. The “pipeline projects” listed on pages B-39 through B-40 are all indicated as
having a current zoning and general plan designation of “PF” (Public Facility). That seems
unlikely to be correct. The County-owned Harbor Justice Center parcel at 4601 Jamboree (APN
445 151 01, Map ID 52) is correctly listed near the bottom of page B-32 as having PF/PC land
use designation/zoning. But this 7.78-acre parcel, given a housing potential of 388 units, is also
described in terms of “Existing Use and Explanation of Propensity” as “This parcel is already
approved by the City for Newport Crossings multi-tenant housing project.” That does not seem
correct.
It also includes many curiosities. Who, for example, would have guessed that the “Coyote
Canyon Focus Area” would include a 5.168229152-acre parcel, not currently accessed by any
roads, on a canyon top east of Newport Coast Drive (APN 477 261 54, page B-84, Map ID
265)? Or that the “Dover-Westcliff Focus Area” would include a Marine Commercial parcel at
the northeast entry to the Balboa Island Bridge (APN 050 391 12, 1101 Bayside Drive, page B-
51, Map ID 337), not shown on the overview map on page B-48, as well as Mariners Mile, and
many parcels on the Peninsula, and elsewhere, including, apparently, everything identified, but
not built, in the 5th RHNA cycle?
In short, the Housing Element, and its “Sites Inventory,” seems a very sloppily-prepared and
unreliable document.
The “Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Matrix” (Attachment No. PC 1) seems to me a
document of the same ilk. And what “input and direction” staff expects from the Planning
Commission is similarly unclear. For example, the staff report does not even mention the issue
of what to do with Banning Ranch,2 which has seemed important to both GPAC and the Council.
I have several philosophical differences with staff as to how the Housing Element should be
implemented in the LUE:
1. When the Commission saw the previous set of LUE policy amendments on August 3,
staff recommended changes to the LUE narrative to provide context and justification for
them. I would think adding these additional new goals and policies would similarly
require revision of the LUE narrative to provide context and justification for them. It
likewise seems improbable the proposed policy revisions can be added in any sensible
way without making revisions to the General Plan’s Implementation Program (Chapter
13) and possibly its Glossary (Chapter 14).
2. I believe it is inequitable to assign overlay opportunities on a parcel-by-parcel basis, with
some included and other similarly-zoned properties excluded. I believe the overlays
should be provided on an inclusive geographic basis, with all properties within the
specified area, or at least all with specified kinds of current zoning, being given an equal
chance to participate.
3. The public understanding is the overlays are being considered, rather reluctantly, as a
means to accommodate state-mandated requirements. I am concerned there is no
assurance in this proposal that the overlays will be used to generate the required
workforce/affordable housing and not simply more luxury housing.
2 Now the “Randall Preserve” as I understand it.
Plannning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5a - Additional Materials Received Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
September 21, 2023, PC agenda Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6
4. I am equally concerned that staff seems to be proposing massive new permanent
entitlements. I believe there should be a policy to terminate developer access to the
proposed overlays, citywide, when and if the RHNA requirements have been met.
5. I also think there should be a policy to terminate access to the overlays when the current
RHNA cycle ends, at which time new solutions can and should be considered.
The following are specific comments about the “Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy
Matrix,” some of which I have made regarding earlier iterations. For the most part, they do not
include any comprehensive review of whether there may be other policies that need revision,
something GPAC did not consider:
“Necessity”: I cannot guess if the Commission will be asked to give direction as to: (1) whether
they agree with the designations in the “Necessity” column; and (2) which Necessity
categories they recommend advancing to the Council (all, or only some)? Some GPAC
members suggested only the “Necessary” revisions should be made at this time, and the
others reserved for a later, more comprehensive review of the LUE and other elements.
Policy LU 1.1: Newport Beach is also defined by non-harbor open space, including the Upper
Bay and Newport Coast, not to mention its beaches. Public views are the subject of existing
Policy LU 1.6.
Policy LU 1.2: The proposed revision has lost the intent of the original policy, which was to
promote a citywide identity separate from the individual districts and neighborhoods. As
revised, it seems to say doubling down on unique district and neighborhood identities will
somehow create a unique citywide identity. It is unclear how this would work or how
Implementation Program 1.1 would be sufficient to ensure it happens.
Policy LU 1.5: The proposed revisions relate to the purported economic benefits of housing
development. Why is this “Necessary”? If necessary, why are they being added here, rather
than to Policy LU 2.4 (“Economic Development”)? And why is it not necessary to revise
Policy LU 2.4?
Policy LU 3.3:
The reference to “Polices 6.3.1 through 6.22.7” seems erroneous for two reasons: (1)
These existing LUE policies refer to districts and corridors that do not align with the
Focus Areas of the new Housing Element; and (2) although the current Policy LU 3.3
refers to “Polices 6.3.1 through 6.22.7,” the highest numbered policy I can find in the
existing LUE is LU 6.20.6. There does not seem to be any LU 6.22.7.
Because the areas don’t align, the revision does not appear to accomplish its stated
purpose. Many of the “opportunity sites” of the Housing Element do not lie in the areas
identified for “Transition of Land Uses.” For example:
o The YMCA and Baview Marriot lie in neither Santa Ana Heights nor the Airport
Area, a described.
o Describing Coyote Canyon as the landfill only precludes the other parcels in that
focus Area.
o Dover-Westcliff does not seem to be identified at all, and many other parcels
identified in the Housing Element do not appear to lie any area described.
Plannning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5a - Additional Materials Received Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
September 21, 2023, PC agenda Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6
It is also unclear why specific plans are being recommended for some areas, but not
others, such a Mariners Mile, which had one at the time of the last General Plan update.
Goal LU 4: I am generally ignoring grammatical typos, but “complimentary” should be
“complementary.”
Policy LU 4.1: It is good to know the tables and figures are going to be updated. But who will be
doing that, and when? I have great difficulty guessing how the overlay districts will be
represented. And why is this being done, since proposed Policy LU 4.4 says this policy and
its tables can be ignored when considering overlays?
Policy LU 4.2:
I have asked repeatedly, but never received an answer. The existing LUE contains a
Policy 4.2 (“Prohibition of New Residential Subdivisions”). Is this intended to replace it?
If so: (1) why does the “Current Goal/Policy” column say “N/A”?; and (2) why is it being
replaced?
The proposed policy refers to “These areas.” Will there be a map defining them?
Why does the last sentence of the preamble say “The goal is.” Aren’t goals supposed to
be listed separate from the policies supporting them?
The references to “total dwelling units” are confusing. These are apparently not total
units for the areas, but rather new units available through the overlay process. Shouldn’t
it say “additional” rather than “total”?
In any event, the numbers are hard to reconcile with the Housing Element.
o For example, for the Airport Area Environs, Tables B-1 and B-6 assume 2,557
units, but Table B-11 says the “capacity and opportunity” is 2,440 units.
o Similarly, the first two of those tables list 512 units for Dover-Westcliff, but Table
B-16 says the number is 458, and that likely doesn’t include the 5th Cycle sites
which appear to be included in the focus area (on pages B-52 through B-60).
Under “Coyote Canyon” how is “viable land” defined?
Proposed Policies 4.2 through 4.8 have no implementation programs assigned to them.
A policy with no implementation seems of little value.
Policy LU 4.4: Why does this policy go into detail about the maximum density is an average
without mentioning the minimum density. Isn’t that also an average?
Policy LU 4.5: While this policy allows existing uses to continue, it is unclear to what extent they
can continue if the housing overlay opportunity is exercised. If the housing overlay
opportunity is exercised, can other currently-allowed uses also be developed to the full extent
currently allowed? Or is there a reduction in the allowed intensity of those other uses? That
question appears to be deferred to Policy LU 4.7, but I don’t find a clear answer there, either.
Policy LU 4.7:
This policy appears to address existing (built) intensity only. It remains unclear, at least
in my mind, if a property can both expand development to the extent currently allowed
plus exercise their housing overlay right.
It is also unclear why this policy includes “Transfer of Development Rights” in its title
when it seem only to acknowledge the existing TDR policies.
Plannning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5a - Additional Materials Received Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
September 21, 2023, PC agenda Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6
It leaves unanswered the question of whether an owner in an overlay district can transfer
their overlay allowance to a property not “in” the overlay. That would make it even more
inequitable that some properties are “in” the overlay and others are not based on some
rather arbitrary (and error-prone) listing in an appendix to the Housing Element.
Policy LU 4.8:
Why does this come at the end? Isn’t it a companion to Policy LU 4.2 – and should,
perhaps, even be incorporated into it?
Why are the overlays called “zones” here, but “districts” in Policy LU 4.2?
Shouldn’t it say it is quoting state law (and, ideally, what law), rather than articulating
Newport-specific policies?
Couldn’t the minimum of 16 units per site yield a very high density if the site is very
small? Is this being quoted correctly?
The last bullet point appears garbled. “: to” appears to have been inadvertently inserted
in the third line from the end; and the final “and to …” may have been intended as a
separate bullet.
Policy LU 5.1.3: The implementation programs cited have to do with annual review. They have
nothing to do with ensuring new standards will be established.
Policy LU 6.2.4: This policy is proposed to be inserted into a LUE section limited to residential
neighborhoods. Can’t ADU’s also be developed in non-residential areas? If not, should we
allow it?
Policy LU 6.4.2: I believe the Commission should know the inclusion of this policy affirming an
allowance for housing on Banning Ranch is contrary to the direction recommended by the
GPAC (see handwritten pages 60 to 61 of the current agenda packet).
Policy LU 6.6.2: Why does it say “provided that the overall average project density of 30 to 50
dwelling units per acre is not exceeded”? Is it “30” or “50” that cannot be exceeded? My
guess is it’s 50.
Policy LU 6.10.2: I don’t know why the GPAC LUE subcommittee recommended deleting this
existing policy. I don’t recall the full GPAC ever discussing or knowingly endorsing the
recommendation. Either way, what does this have to do with implementing the new Housing
Element?
Policy LU 6.12.2: I appreciate the City no longer has a Cannery Village/McFadden Square
Specific Plan, but why single this out for deletion while leaving intact Policy LU 6.10.3, which
also refers to it, or Policy LU 6.19.6, which refers to the equally non-existent Mariners’ Mile
Specific Plan District. And again, what does this have to do with implementing the new
Housing Element? This seems completely arbitrary and unrelated revision of policies that by
chance the outside consultant presented for review.
Policy Goal LU 6.15: The Figure LU22 that has been included in the agenda packet includes
the Newport Airport Village mixed-use proposal as Anomaly 86, but it is shown as in Subarea
B, which according to the caption at the bottom is reserved for “Airport Supporting
Businesses.”
Plannning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5a - Additional Materials Received Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
September 21, 2023, PC agenda Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6
Policy LU 6.15.4: I believe the MU-H2 designation already includes horizontal and vertical
mixed use (see LUE Table LU1). The revision appears redundant with that.
Draft Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts
This seems premature until there is agreement on the policies this code will be implementing.
Draft Objective Design Standards
I have not reviewed the content, but this looks like a very professionally formatted document. Is
it modeled on something adopted elsewhere? Or is it an original work? If so, by whom?
Draft August 21, 2023 Meeting Minutes of the General Plan Advisory
Committee
The draft minutes do not enumerate which GPAC members voted “yes” and which voted “no” on
the various motions, including the two Policy Matrix proposals. Generally speaking, the Brown
Act requires that disclosure.
Plannning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5a - Additional Materials Received Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAM AMENDMENTS (PA2017-141)
Planning Commission Study Session
September 21, 2023
Community Development Department
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
BRIEF BACKGROUND
2
•Housing Element adopted with strategy to meet RHNA and certified by State HCD (October 2022)
•6th cycle RHNA allocation assigned: 4,845 new units (2021-29)
•Housing Element Policy Actions to rezone for housing: 8,154 units
•Rezone deadline February 2025(one additional year for Coastal Zone)
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
HOUSING STRATEGY: REZONE FOCUS AREAS
3
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Land Use Element Update
Revise goals and/or policies to support housing production in the focus areas and provide guidance for the implementing zoning standards
Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts
Rezone properties through applying Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones that establish appropriate development standards
Objective Design Standards
Remove subjectivity and
create certainty of
compliance for
developers while
fostering good design
and maintaining Newport
Beach’s character
4
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE
5
•Draft policies to implement the Housing Element implementation – consistent with the Housing Element
•Draft policies developed with significant input/discussion
•3-member Steering Committee
•30-member General Plan Update Committee
•Land Use Element Subcommittee
•Multiple meetings
•GPAC recommended approvalon August 30th
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
6
NEW POLICIES 4.2 THROUGH 4.8
4.2 (Rezoning to Accommodate Housing Opportunities)
establishes policy framework for rezoning focus areas consistent with the Housing Element
– density and focus area unit caps consistent with the Housing Element
4.4 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities)
allows residential use regardless of underlying land use designation, average density to
provide flexibility across a site
4.5 (Continuation of Existing Development)
clarifies that new residential opportunity does not affect existing development
4.6 (Consistency Required)
requires consistency with overlays or existing Zoning
4.7 (Redevelopment and Transfer of Development Rights)
allows existing nonresidential intensity to be reestablished or converted to other allowed
use on the same site or different site within the same statistical area
4.8 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones)
sets forth the minimum parameters required by State Law including no discretionary review
for housing projects that include at least 20% low-income units
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
REZONING: DRAFT HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY ZONES
7
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY
8
•Compliance with State Law
•Rezone for consistency with Housing Element’s housing opportunity sites
•Provide appropriate zoning and development standards for residential development
•Establish development limits based on Housing Element focus area caps
•Only applies to housing opportunity sites or those rezoned for housing in focus areas
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
9
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Housing Opportunity Subareas
HO-1 Airport Area Environs
HO-2 West Newport Mesa
HO-3 Dover-Westcliff
HO-4 Newport Center
HO-5 Coyote Canyon
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
10
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY ZONE MAP
Housing Opportunity Subareas
HO-1 Airport Area Environs
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS(ODS)
11
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
PURPOSE
12
•Compliance with State Law
•Provide clear standards and certainty for developers
•Preserve the City’s ability to foster good design
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
13
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
APPLICABILITY
14
•Multi-unit and mixed-use developments with densities of 20 du/ac or greater
•Discretionary projects or by-right projects
•Waiver or modification of standards through site development review
•Project possesses compensating design and development features
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
DESIGN REVIEW IN NEWPORT BEACH
15
•Strong objective standards for single-unit and two-unit developments to control bulk and scale (3rd floor massing)
•No design review = design flexibility for developers
•Design Guidelines
•Balboa Village, Lido Village, Mariners’ Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework, and various Planned Community Development Plans
•Site development review allows decisionmakers discretion to review compliance with codes and applicable design guidelines
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
DESIGN GUIDELINE VERSUS DESIGN STANDARD
16
Design Guideline
Subjective
Recommendations, may not be enforceable or
have same “teeth” as regulations
Open to interpretation, difficult to measure or
verify
Use words such as “should” or “may”
Adopted by resolution
Design Standard
Objective
Requirements, enforceable as regulation
Measurable and verifiable
Use language such as “shall”, “must”, or “is
required to”
Adopted by ordinance
Objective design standards: “involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public
official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark
or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent
and the public official before submittal.”
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
ODS APPROACHES
Basic
•More design flexibility
•Difficult to enforce high quality design
•Easier for staff to review
•Expediates processing
Detailed
•Very prescriptive
•Ensures higher quality design
•Uniformity in design
•Less design flexibility
•Complicates development review
•Longer reviews
17
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
18
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
19
Parking Lots
Common Open Space
Recreational Amenities
Storefronts
Live/Work Office
Residential Fronts
Walls/Fences and Utilities
Private Streets
Private Driveways
Publicly Accessible Open
Space
Vertical Modulation
Horizontal Modulation
Transparency
First Floor Entry
•Low-speed, multi-modal internal site circulation
•Designed as an amenity for the site
•Street, sidewalk, landscape zones
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
20
Parking Lots
Common Open Space
Recreational Amenities
Storefronts
Live/Work Office
Residential Fronts
Walls/Fences and Utilities
Private Streets
Private Driveways
Publicly Accessible Open
Space
Vertical Modulation
Horizontal Modulation
Transparency
First Floor Entry
•Additional amenity for residents and neighborhood
•Passive or active
•1 acre+ sites
•Paseos: 12’ minimum
•Courtyards: 8’ minimum
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
21
Parking Lots
Common Open Space
Recreational Amenities
Storefronts
Live/Work Office
Residential Fronts
Walls/Fences and Utilities
Private Streets
Private Driveways
Publicly Accessible Open
Space
Vertical Modulation
Horizontal Modulation
Transparency
First Floor Entry
•Shorten perceived length and mass
•Minimum plate heights
•Complemented with different façade materials, color, and fenestration
•Layering of recesses and projected elements
•Variation based on density
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
NEXT STEPS
22
•Comments draft requested by Friday, September 29th
•Draft Programmatic EIR for public comment anticipated November/December 2023
•Planning Commission and City Council public hearings anticipated second quarter of 2024
•Land Use Element update and rezonings must become effective by February 2025
•One additional year for Local Costal Program (LCP) changes for sites in the coastal zone
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)
THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?
Jim Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director
Jaime Murillo, AICP, Planning Manager
Ben Zdeba, AICP, Principal Planner
Planning Commission - September 21, 2023 Item No. 5b - Additional Materials Presented by Staff Study Session for the Housing Element Implementation Amendments (PA2017-141)