HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments_PA2019-070
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 17, 2020
Agenda Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments
(PA2019-070)
Code Amendment No. CA2019-004
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006
SITE LOCATION: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach
PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner
949-644-3209 or jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The City is proposing amendments to Title 20 (Zoning Code) and Title 21 (Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) revising
development standards applicable to single- and two-unit residential development. The
proposed amendments were previously considered by the Planning Commission on May 7,
2020. Due to concerns related to compliance with recent changes in State law (Senate Bill
330; Housing Crisis Act of 2019), the Planning Commission voted to remove the item from
calendar and directed staff to seek guidance from the State of California Housing and
Community Development Department (HCD) to address the concerns. On July 31, 2020,
HCD issued a letter to the City indicating adoption of the proposed amendments would not
violate State law.
Generally, the proposed amendments would reduce bulk and mass associated with future
residential development by clarifying the definition of gross floor area, regulating covered
third floor decks, and expanding the application of third floor and open volume standards
to all single-unit and two-unit residential developments constructed in the R-BI zoning
district. Third floor step backs (front and rear) would apply to lots 25 feet wide or less in
the R-2 zoning district and third floor step backs (front, sides, and rear) would apply to
single- and two-unit dwellings in Multiple Residential (RM) zones. The amendments would
not result in the reduction of allowable density on a lot. Furthermore, no changes in overall
height limits, allowable floor area, lot coverage, or setbacks are proposed that would lessen
the intensity of housing on a site.
1
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, September 17, 2020
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060
(c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a
significant effect on the environment; and
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-031 (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the City
Council approve Amendment No. CA2019-004; and of the proposed amendments to
the City Council; and
4) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-032 (Attachment No. PC 2) recommending the City
Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-
006 to the California Coastal Commission.
DISCUSSION
May 7, 2020, Planning Commission Hearing
On May 7, 2020, the proposed amendments were considered by the Planning
Commission. At the hearing, approximately 12 members of the public spoke in support of
the proposed amendments and 9 spoke in opposition. A summary of public comments is
provided in Table 1 below. Many members of the public also commented that they did not
like the telephonic format of the meeting. Minutes from the hearing are included as
Attachment No. PC 3.
Table 1 - Summary of Public Testimony
Support Opposed
x 3rd floors too large and should be
further regulated to control mass and
scale
x Negatively affects property rights and
values
x Current designs negatively impacting
charm and character of neighborhoods
x Violates SB330 by reducing intensity
x Large homes devalue and negatively
impact adjoining homes due to
incompatible scale and shadows
created
x Opposed to a one-size-fits-all
approach
x Not a citywide problem; different
neighborhoods should be exempt
x Needed to eliminate loopholes
3
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, September 17, 2020
Page 3
At the conclusion of the hearing, the general consensus of the Planning Commission was
that adequate public outreach had been provided; however, there remained concerns
related to compliance with Senate Bill 330 (SB330) and the potential for litigation. With a
majority vote of 4 ayes and 2 noes, the Commission voted to continue the item to a future
date to allow staff time to attempt to obtain feedback from the State related to compliance
with SB330 and to consider comments from the community and Commission.
Summary of Proposed Code Amendment
The May 7, 2020, Planning Commission staff report includes a detailed and illustrative
explanation of each component of the proposed code amendment (Attachment No. PC 4).
As discussed in this report, two revisions to the proposed amendment have been made
since the May 7, 2020, meeting. The most current redline/strikeout version of the proposed
amendment is included as Attachment No. PC 5 and incorporates the following
components:
Revisions to Third Floor Standards
x Third floor step backs would apply to covered deck areas (currently applies only to
enclosed floor area). [No change from May 7, 2020, version.]
x Third floor side step backs would apply to lots 30 feet wide or greater (currently
applies to lots wider than 30 feet). [No change from May 7, 2020, version.]
x Maximum covered third floor area (enclosed or unenclosed) limited to 50 percent
of buildable area. Uncovered deck area would remain unrestricted. [This standard
has been revised from the May 7, 2020, version for clarification of intent.]
x Third floor step back standards (front and rear) would apply to 25-foot-wide or less
lots zoned R-2 (currently exempt). [No change from May 7, 2020, version.]
x Third floor step back standards (front, sides, and rear) would apply to single- and
two-unit dwellings in RM zones (currently exempt). [The May 7, 2020, version also
recommended applying third floor area limits and maximum covered area limits to
RM lots, but that component has since been eliminated to address loss of intensity
concerns.]
Clarification of Gross Floor Area
x Unfinished attics with a ceiling height of 6 feet or higher would count as floor area
(currently only finished attics count). [No change from May 7, 2020, version.]
x Covered patios, decks, and balconies above the first floor would count as floor
area unless completely open on at least two sides, rather than one side. [No
change from May 7, 2020, version.]
x Carports only open on one side would count as floor area. [No change from May
7, 2020, version.]
4
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, September 17, 2020
Page 4
Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings in the R-BI Zoning District
Third floor and open volume standards applicable to R-1 and R-2 zones would now
apply to all single- and two-unit dwellings in R-BI. [No change from May 7, 2020,
version.]
The following table clarifies which components of the residential design standards apply
to the various zoning districts:
Summary of Residential Design Standards Applicability Based on Zoning District
Residential Design Standard R-1 R-2
(lots wider than 25’)
R-2
(25’ wide lots or less)
R-BI RM
3rd Floor Front & Rear Step Backs C C P P P
3rd Floor Side Step Backs (lots
30’ wide or greater) 1
C C X P P
3rd Floor Area Limit C C X P X
3rd Floor Coverage Limit P P X P X
Open Volume C C X P C
C- Current Applicability, P- Proposed Applicability, X- Exempt
1 Applicability of side step back standard proposed to change from “lots wider than 30 feet” to “lots 30 feet wide or
greater”
Revisions to Code Language
Subsequent to the May 7, 2020, Planning Commission hearing, staff has discussed the
proposed amendments with design professionals working on preliminary designs for new
residences and the need for two revisions to the proposed standards were identified and
incorporated into the draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1).
Revisions to Third Floor Coverage Standard
The proposed amendment establishes a maximum 50 percent third floor coverage limit
for new residential development in the R-1, R-2, and R-BI zoning districts. The coverage
limit would be calculated as 50 percent of the buildable area1 of the lot and would include
both enclosed area (green shading, Fig. 1) and unenclosed covered third floor deck area
(blue shading, Fig. 1). Currently, only enclosed floor area is subject to an area limit on
third floors (20 percent of the buildable area for lots 30 feet wide or less; and 15 percent
of the buildable area for lots wider than 30 feet). The intent of the 50 percent coverage
standard is to limit the amount of additional covered deck area beyond the current
allowable third floor enclosed area limits. The standard was revised to clarify that it would
not include roof area, including eaves not over decks and roofed area that does not count
as gross floor area (e.g., stair and elevator area on upper levels). As revised, the standard
is clear that the coverage limit applies to gross floor area and covered deck area only.
1 The buildable area of a lot is the lot area minus the total area of all required setbacks.
5
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, September 17, 2020
Page 5
Figure 1. Third Floor Coverage Limit
Table 2- Revised NBMC Section 20.48.180.A.3.b (3rd Floor Coverage Limit)
Original Proposed
Standard
Allowed Roof Area. The maximum roof area, enclosed and
unenclosed, that may be located on a third floor shall not be greater
than fifty (50) percent of the total buildable area.
Revised Proposed
Standard
Allowed Combined Floor Area and Covered Deck Area. The
combined total maximum gross floor area and covered deck area that
may be located on a third floor shall not be greater than fifty (50) percent
of the total buildable area.
Applicability to RM Lots
In working with a design professional on a preliminary duplex design for an RM zoned lot,
it was discovered that there is a unique scenario where the application of the proposed
third floor area limits for enclosed floor area could limit the maximum achievable floor area
limit afforded to these RM lots. The reason for this is due to the fact that lots within the
RM zoning district are provided an additional floor area allowance of 200 square feet per
required parking spaces that are enclosed. This additional floor area allowance for
enclosed parking is not afforded to lots within the R-1, R-2, or R-BI zoning districts.
For example, a duplex requires a minimum of 2 enclosed garage spaces and two covered
parking spaces.. In this scenario, an RM lot on the Balboa Peninsula would be subject a
floor area limit (FAL) of 1.75 times the buildable area plus an additional allowance of 400
square feet to accommodate the two enclosed garage spaces. Analysis (Figure 1 of
Attachment No. PC 6) illustrates that this configuration, in combination with previously
proposed third floor area limits and existing open volume requirements, would not be
precluded from achieving the maximum allowable floor area. However, should a property
choose to develop a duplex with an optional four garage spaces, the property would be
entitled to a FAL of 1.75 times the buildable area plus an additional allowance of 800
6
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, September 17, 2020
Page 6
square feet. Analysis (Figure 2 of Attachment No. PC 6) illustrates that with this optional
configuration, in combination with previously proposed third floor area limits and existing
open volume requirements, would be impacted from achieving the maximum allowable
floor area.
Therefore, to accommodate property owners of RM lots the ability to achieve the
maximum allowable floor area, it is recommended that RM lots be excluded from the third
floor area and coverage limits. Application of the proposed third floor step backs would
still provide needed articulation of the upper levels, but would not impact the potential to
achieve maximum allowable floor area.
Additional Newport Heights Analysis
At the May 7, 2020, Planning Commission meeting, public comments were provided by
Mr. Christopher Budnik, board member of the Newport Heights Improvements
Association (NHIA), recommending the proposed amendments target certain
geographical areas where there are increased concerns about massing, such as Balboa
Island, but where those concerns are not prevalent, such as Newport Heights, should be
exempted. He also requested additional outreach to property owners of Newport Heights.
Subsequent to the meeting, staff has discussed the amendments in greater detail with
Mr. Budnik and prepared an analysis of the proposed amendments to development in
Newport Heights. Mr. Budnik has distributed the analysis to members of the NHIA.
The analysis (Attachment No. PC 7) is not comprehensive but intended to provide an
illustrative example of how recent development in Newport Heights would have been
affected by these proposed amendments. The analysis includes five properties in the area
suggested by Mr. Budnik. The analysis supports staff’s position that given the larger lot
sizes in Newport Heights, third level designs are less common, and the proposed changes
are not expected to have a significant impact on the design of typical new homes in the
area. Third story designs are commonly utilized in communities with much smaller lots,
such as Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula, to
maximize the development potential of these smaller, yet valuable properties due to their
proximity to coast.
Staff does not recommend exempting Newport Heights from the proposed amendments
for the following reasons:
x The City’s zoning standards, including Residential Design Standards, are already
complex. Creating additional exceptions would complicate the Zoning Code
further, and in staff’s opinion, for little benefit.
x Maintaining as much consistency as possible with the applicability of development
standards minimizes staff error in implementing code and affords better
communication of standards to public.
7
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, September 17, 2020
Page 7
x Concerns with third floor massing is not as prevalent from the Newport Heights
community given that third floor designs are not common in the area. Three level
residential structures typically compromise ceiling heights in exchange for
maximizing floor area potential of the lot. Given the larger lot sizes in Newport
Heights, the allowable floor area is generally significantly higher than the typical
residential designs constructed the area and there is typically not a need or desire
to incorporate a third level.
x Should a property owner choose to design a larger three level dwelling, there is
more opportunity to accommodate a larger design subject to the proposed
amendment due to the larger Newport Heights lots as opposed to a smaller lot.
Compliance with Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019)
Senate Bill 330 – also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 – restricts the adoption
of zoning amendments that would result in the reduction of allowed density or intensity of
land uses than what is allowed under the regulations in effect on January 1, 2018. The
law defines “less intensive use” to include, but is not limited to, reductions to height,
density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or
increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot
coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing. To confirm
the City’s own analysis of compliance with SB 330, staff consulted with HCD and prepared
additional floor area analysis as discussed further below.
State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Review
On May 8, 2020, staff reached out to HCD to review the proposed amendments and
obtain a determination of compliance with SB 330. HCD agreed to review the proposed
amendments, including the May 7, 2020, Planning Commission agenda materials. On July
31, 2020, they concluded their review and issued a letter to the City finding that upon review
of the materials, the pending revisions do not trigger the “less intensive use” provisions
under Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(A). Their letter also confirms
staff’s position that the term “less intensive use” likely refers to reducing the number of
allowed units on a site pursuant to their statement that “HCD understands the revisions
do not impact the ability to achieve maximum densities independently or cumulatively in
combination with all other development standards.” A copy of the HCD determination
letter and staff email correspondence is included as Attachment No. PC 8.
8
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, September 17, 2020
Page 8
Intensity Analysis
While HCD confirmed that the proposed amendments would not lessen the intensity of
housing, staff has revised the applicability of the standards to RM lots in order to address
concerns raised by the public related to any reduction in the allowable floor area.
With this objective in mind, the draft ordinance was revised to exempt lots within the RM
zone from the third floor area and coverage limits with the result being: no reduction of
allowable density (number of units) on a lot, and no change in overall height limits, allowable
floor area, lot coverage, or setbacks. Each lot will maintain the same allowed height limits,
building setbacks, and floor area limits as previously entitled, and the application of the
applicable third floor step backs and open volume regulations wouldn’t preclude the ability
for a homeowner to achieve the same development intensity.
To ensure the application of the proposed residential standards to lots previously exempt
do not restrict the ability to achieve the maximum allowable floor area or intensity of
development, staff has prepared a floor area analysis (Attachment No. PC 9) exhibit for the
zoning districts impacted. The analysis illustrates that with the application of the proposed
standards, the lots could physically accommodate more floor area than is currently permitted
under the existing floor area limits. As a result, there is no loss of allowable floor area and
the proposed amendment would be consistent with State law.
Environmental Review
The action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt from
the CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on
the environment. Lastly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local
governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption
of a Local Coastal Program. The Amendment itself does not authorize development that
would directly result in physical change to the environment.
Public Notice
Pursuant to Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations, a review draft of the
Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment was made available and a Notice of Availability
was distributed on April 23, 2020, to all persons and agencies on the Notice of Availability
mailing list.
In addition, notice of these amendments was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth-
page advertisement, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. The item also appeared
on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
9
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, September 17, 2020
Page 9
Lastly, notice of this hearing was emailed to interested parties that have requested notice
and/or attended the community meetings.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution - Title 20 Zoning Code Amendments
PC 2 Draft Resolution - Title 21 LCP Amendment
PC 3 May 7, 2020, Planning Commission Minutes
PC 4 May 7, 2020, Planning Commission Staff Report
PC 5 Current Redline/Strikeout Version of Amendments
PC 6 RM Intensity Analysis with 3rd Floor Area Limits Applied
PC 7 Newport Heights Analysis
PC 8 HCD Letter and Staff Correspondence
PC 9 Floor Area Intensity Analysis
10
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution - Title 20 Zoning Code
Amendments
11
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE12
RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-031
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2019-004
TO AMEND TITLE 20 (PLANNING AND ZONING) OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (PA2019-070)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. As a result of growing community concerns related to the loss of small residential
cottages and the bulk and mass associated with new single- and two-unit dwelling
developments in the City, the City Council held a study session on April 23, 2019.
2. An amendment to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) (“Code Amendment”) of the City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”) is necessary to minimize bulk and mass
associated with recent development trends.
3. On May 14, 2019, the City Council initiated portions of the Code Amendment under
Resolution No. 2019-43 authorizing staff to investigate code revisions to reduce third floor
mass and overall building bulk associated with single- and two-unit developments.
4. On May 28, 2019, the City Council initiated the remaining portion of the Code Amendment
under Resolution No. 2019-45 authorizing staff to initiate code revisions to restrict single-
and two-unit dwellings developed on lots zoned for Multiple Residential (RM) to the
development standards applicable to the standards of the Two-Unit Residential (R-2)
Zoning District.
5. On August 19, 2019, Community Development Department staff hosted a community
meeting attended by 64 interested members of the public, including design
professionals. The intent of the meeting was to share proposed changes to residential
design standards and receive community feedback.
6. On September 10, 2019, the City Council held a study session to receive a staff update
regarding the status of the amendment proposals, summary of the comments received
at the August 19, 2019, community meeting, and to provide staff further direction.
7. On March 9, 2020, Community Development Department staff hosted a second
community meeting attended by 25 interested members of the public, including design
professionals. The intent of the meeting was to share current refinements to the
residential design standards and receive further community feedback.
8. A telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 7, 2020, in the
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, observing
13
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Page 2 of 8
restrictions due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local
Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public
hearing was given in accordance with the California Government Code Section 54950
et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this public hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning
Commission voted to remove the item from calendar to allow staff time to seek guidance
from the State regarding compliance with Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330).
9. At the request of the City, the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) reviewed the proposed amendments, including the May 7, 2020,
Planning Commission agenda materials, for compliance with the Housing Crisis Act of
2019. The Housing Crisis Act generally prohibits a locality from enacting a development
policy, standard or condition that reduces intensity, imposes moratoriums, enforces
subjective design standards or implements any provision that limits approvals or caps
population. Specifically, Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(A) does
not allow a locality to enact requirements that result in less intensive use. On July 31,
2020, HCD issued a letter to the City finding that upon review of the materials, the pending
revisions do not trigger the Housing Crisis Act “less intensive use” provisions under
Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(A).
10. A telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 17, 2020,
in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California,
observing restrictions due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of
Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public
hearing was given in accordance with the California Government Code Section 54950
et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this public hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
The action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and
Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects
which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The Amendment
itself does not authorize development that would directly result in physical change to the
environment.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. With the adoption of the revisions to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) in 2010 (“2010 Zoning
Code Update”), changes to development standards were intended to streamline the review
process and simplify the development standards applicable to residential development, while
14
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Page 3 of 8
maintaining allowable building envelopes and preserving the character of existing
communities. However, changes to height measurement standards and definition of gross
floor area have inadvertently resulted in proliferation of covered third level decks.
2. The 2010 Zoning Code Update attempted to regulate third floor mass and bulk through the
use of NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria),
which includes third floor area limits, third floor step backs for enclosed floor area, and open
volume area standards to increase building modulation. However, the third floor limits do not
apply to unenclosed covered deck areas or unfinished attics, resulting in building designs with
third levels (enclosed and unenclosed) that visually appear larger and bulkier than the code
intended.
3. As currently defined, gross floor area excludes unfinished attics with a ceiling height of 6
feet or greater and is not clear with respect to the threshold of what constitutes an enclosed
deck or patio. As a result, the bulk and scale of new residential developments appear larger
than what the applicable floor area limits intend. In some cases, attics are illegally finished
without permits and partially enclosed decks and patios are illegally fully enclosed with
windows resulting in structures exceeding allowable floor area limits. Revisions to the
definition are necessary to appropriately regulate large attics and partially enclosed covered
patios and decks. The proposed changes will also help to discourage unpermitted
conversions of these spaces by increasing the visibility and difficulty of modifying these
spaces for use as living area.
4. Revisions to the NBMC Section 20.48.180 are necessary to implement the design principles
identified in General Plan Land Use Policies LU 5.1.5 (Character and Quality of Single-
Family Residential Dwellings) and LU 5.1.9 (Character and Quality of Multi-Family
Residential). Applying additional step backs to covered third floor decks and requiring
additional openings will help articulate the building masses and avoid the appearance of
“box-like” buildings. The changes will also improve the architectural treatment visible from
public places and improve compatibility of new development with the density, scale, and
street elevations of existing communities. Lastly, the changes will help modulate roof
profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and
variety.
5. NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) currently
only applies to R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, but excludes residential dwellings constructed in
the RM and R-BI Zoning Districts. As a result, third floor and open volume area standards are
not being applied in the Balboa Island residential community nor to single- and two-unit
dwellings constructed on RM lots Citywide. Application of these standards, including proposed
revisions, to these communities and zoning districts is essential to preserve community
character and uniformly regulate bulk and scale. Lots zoned R-2 that are 25 feet wide or less
are also exempt. Application of the front and rear third floor step back requirements to these
narrow lots will provide improve building scale as viewed from streets and alleys.
6. The amendments would impose new objective standards that regulate bulk and articulation of
new single-unit and two-unit dwellings and are in compliance with recent changes in state law
(Housing Crisis Act of 2019). The amendments would not result in the reduction of allowable
15
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Page 4 of 8
density on a lot. Furthermore, no changes in overall height limits, allowable floor area, lot
coverage, or setbacks are proposed that would lessen the allowable intensity of housing site.
Each lot will maintain the same allowed height limits, building setbacks, and floor area limits
as previously entitled, and the application of third floor and open volume regulations would not
preclude the ability for a homeowner to achieve the same development intensity. Furthermore,
on July 31, 2020, HCD issued a letter to the City confirming the proposed amendments would
not violate the provisions of the Housing Crisis Act.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission finds the proposed code amendments are not a project subject
to CEQA pursuant to Section 21065 of Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also statutorily
exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to
have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends approval of
Code Amendment No. CA2019-004 as set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Erik Weigand, Chairman
BY:_________________________
Lauren Kleiman, Secretary
16
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT “A”
Proposed Code Amendment No. CA2019-004 Related to Residential Design
Standards
Section 1: Amend Table 2-3 of Section 20.18.020 (Residential Zoning Districts Land Uses
and Permit Regulations) of Chapter 20.18 (Residential Zoning Districts (R-A, R-1, R-BI, R-2,
RM, RMD)) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, revising
the “Open Space” row and adding a “Residential Development Standards” row as follows:
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Development
Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Open Space Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more units).
Common: 75 square
feet/unit
N/A
Common: 75 square
feet/unit
Single-unit and two-unit dwellings
developed on a single site shall comply
with Open Volume Area standards of
Section 20.48.180 (Residential
Development Standards and Design
Criteria).
Minimum dimension
shall be 15 feet.
Private: 5% of the
gross floor area for
each unit.
Minimum dimension
shall be 15 feet.
Private: 5% of the
gross floor area for
each unit.
Minimum dimension
shall be 6 feet.
Minimum dimension
shall be 6 feet.
The minimum dimension is for length and
width.
Residential
Development
Standards
See Section 20.48.180.
Section 2: Amend Subsection A of Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards
and Design Criteria) of Chapter 20.48 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) of Title 20 (Planning
and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as follows:
17
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Page 6 of 8
20.48.180 Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria.
A. Development Standards.
1. Applicability. The development standards in this subsection shall apply to all R-1 Zoning Districts,
R-BI Zoning District, all R-2 Zoning Districts, and to all RM Zoning Districts Citywide, except as
provided below:
a. Exceptions. This subsection shall not apply to:
i. R-1-6,000, R-1-7,200, R-1-10,000, RMD, and RM-6000 Zoning Districts;
ii. Planned community zoning districts; or
iii. Residential developments consisting of three or more units in the RM Zoning District.
b. Limited Application. This subsection shall be limited in its application below:
i. For lots twenty-five (25) feet wide or less in the R-2 Zoning District, only subsection
(A)(2)(c) shall apply.
ii. Residential developments consisting of one or two units in the RM Zoning District, only
subsections (A)(2)(c) and (A)(3) shall apply.
2. Third Floor Limitations.
a. Allowed Floor Area. The maximum gross floor area that may be located on a third floor shall
not be greater than either of the following:
i. Fifteen (15) percent of the total buildable area for lots wider than thirty (30) feet; or
ii. Twenty (20) percent of the total buildable area for lots thirty (30) feet wide or less.
On sloping lots, if the slope of the grade on which the structure is located is greater than five
percent, subject to Section 20.30.050(B)(3), the Director shall determine which story is the third
story for the purpose of implementing this requirement.
For example, on a thirty (30) foot wide lot, if the total buildable area of the lot is two thousand five
hundred fifty (2,550) square feet, then the maximum square footage that may be located on the
18
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Page 7 of 8
third floor is five hundred ten (510) square feet (two thousand five hundred fifty (2,550) sq. ft. x
twenty percent (20%) = five hundred ten (510) sq. ft.).
b. Allowed Combined Floor Area and Covered Deck Area. The combined total maximum gross
floor area and covered deck area that may be located on a third floor shall not be greater than
fifty (50) percent of the total buildable area.
c. Location of Third Floor Structure. Enclosed floor area and covered deck area located on the
third floor shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front and rear setback lines
and for lots thirty (30) feet in width or greater a minimum of two feet from each side setback line,
including bay windows.
3. Open Volume Area Required.
a. Calculation. Open volume area shall be provided in addition to the required setback areas
and shall be a minimum area equal to fifteen (15) percent of the buildable area of the lot.
b. Location. The open volume area may be provided anywhere on the lot within the buildable
area and below twenty-four (24) feet from grade. The open air space volume may be provided on
any level or combination of levels and may extend across the entire structure or any portion
thereof.
c. Minimum Dimensions. The open volume area shall meet the following standards:
i. Have a minimum dimension of at least five feet in depth from the wall plane on which it
is located and a minimum clear vertical dimension of at least seven and one-half feet; and
ii. Be open to the outdoors on at least one side.
Section 3: Amend the definition of “Floor Area, Gross” of Section 20.70.020 (Definitions of
Specialized Terms and Phrases) of Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) of Title 20 (Planning and
Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as follows:
Floor Area, Gross.
1. Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings.
a. For single-unit and two-unit dwellings, the following areas shall be included in calculations of gross
floor area:
19
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Page 8 of 8
i. The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls;
ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios above the first floor;
iii. Any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than six feet from
finished floor to ceiling; and
iv. Covered parking spaces which are open only on one side.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; and
ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, with the exception of required
safety railings and minimal structural supports. Railings shall be constructed of either transparent
material (except for supports) or opaque material (e.g., decorative grillwork, wrought iron,
latticework, or similar open materials) so that at least forty (40) percent of the railing is open.
2. Multi-Unit Residential (3+ dwellings), Mixed-Use, and Nonresidential Structures.
a. For multi-unit residential, mixed-use, and nonresidential structures, the following areas shall be
included in calculations of gross floor area:
i. The area within surrounding exterior walls; and
ii. Any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than four feet from
finished floor to ceiling.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level;
ii. Outdoor dining areas associated with an eating and drinking establishment, and
iii. Parking structures associated with an allowed use within the same development.
20
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Resolution- Title 21 LCP Amendment
21
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE22
RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-032
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. LC2019-006 TO THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION TO AMEND TITLE 21 (LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (PA2019-070)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. Section 30500 of the California Public Resources Code requires each county and city
to prepare a local coastal program (“LCP”) for the portion of the coastal zone within its
jurisdiction.
2. In 2005, the City of Newport Beach (“City”) adopted the City of Newport Beach Local
Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (“Local Coastal Program”) as amended from
time to time including most recently on February 12, 2019, via Resolution No. 2019-16.
3. The California Coastal Commission effectively certified the City’s Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan on January 13, 2017, and the City added Title 21 (Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan) (“Title 21”) to the Newport Beach Municipal Code
(“NBMC”) whereby the City assumed coastal development permit-issuing authority as
of January 30, 2017.
4. The City is considering revisions to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) development
standards to minimize the bulk and mass associated with recent residential
developments, including limiting the area of third level covered decks and redefining
gross floor area (Code Amendment No. CA2019-004). An amendment to Title 21 (Local
Coastal Program Implementation Plan) (“LCP Amendment”) is necessary to ensure
consistency with changes in Code Amendment No. CA2019-004 affecting Title 20
(Planning and Zoning).
5. Pursuant to Section 13515 (Public Participation and Agency Coordination Procedures)
of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 5.5, Chapter 8, Subchapter 2, Article
5 (“Public Participation”), a draft of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006
was made available and a Notice of Availability was distributed on April 23, 2020, at least
six (6) weeks prior to the City Council public hearing.
6. A telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 7, 2020, in the
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, observing
restrictions due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local
Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public
23
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-032
Page 2 of 6
hearing was given in accordance with the California Government Code Section 54950
et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”), Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC and
Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to remove the item from
calendar to allow staff time to seek guidance from the State regarding compliance with
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330).
7. At the request of the City, the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) reviewed the proposed amendments, including the May 7, 2020,
Planning Commission agenda materials, for compliance with the Housing Crisis Act of
2019. The Housing Crisis Act generally prohibits a locality from enacting a development
policy, standard or condition that reduces intensity, imposes moratoriums, enforces
subjective design standards or implements any provision that limits approvals or caps
population. Specifically, Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(A) does
not allow a locality to enact requirements that result in less intensive use. On July 31,
2020, HCD issued a letter to the City finding that upon review of the materials, the pending
revisions do not trigger the Housing Crisis Act “less intensive use” provisions under
Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(A).
8. A telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 17, 2020,
in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California,
observing restrictions due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of
Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public
hearing was given in accordance with the California Government Code Section 54950
et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this public hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
The LCP Amendment is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and
Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The LCP Amendment is also exempt pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects
which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Lastly, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local governments are statutorily exempt from the
requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a local coastal program. The LCP
Amendment itself does not authorize development that would directly result in physical change
to the environment.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. With the adoption of the revisions to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) in 2010 (“2010 Zoning
Code Update”), changes to development standards were intended to streamline the review
24
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-032
Page 3 of 6
process and simplify the development standards applicable to residential development, while
maintaining allowable building envelopes and preserving the character of existing
communities. Many of these development standards were incorporated into Title 21 (Local
Coastal Program Implementation Plan).
2. One change that occurred was related to the definition of gross floor area. As currently
defined, gross floor area excludes unfinished attics with a ceiling height of six (6) feet or
greater and is not clear with respect to the threshold of what constitutes an enclosed deck
or patio. As a result, the bulk and scale of new residential developments appear larger than
what the applicable floor area limits intend. In some cases, attics are illegally finished
without permits and partially enclosed decks and patios are illegally fully enclosed with
windows resulting in structures exceeding allowable floor area limits. Revisions to the
definition are necessary to avoid a “box-like” appearance and to appropriately regulate large
attics and partially enclosed covered patios and decks. The LCP Amendment will also help
discourage unpermitted conversions of these spaces by increasing the visibility and
difficulty of modifying these spaces for use as living area.
3. A minor clarification is needed to the Open Space row of Table 21.18-4 (Development
Standards for Multi-Unit Residential Coastal Zoning Districts) clarifying that common and
private open space requirements only apply to multi-unit residential developments of three
(3) units or more.
4. The LCP Amendment shall not become effective until approval by the California Coastal
Commission and adoption, including any modifications suggested by the California Coastal
Commission, by resolution and/or ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach.
5. The Local Coastal Program and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan),
including the proposed LCP Amendment, will be carried out fully in conformity with the
California Coastal Act.
6. The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the
operative part of this resolution.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission finds the LCP Amendment is not a project subject to CEQA
pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060
(c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the
environment. Finally, the adoption of local coastal programs is statutorily exempt according
to Section 15265(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends submittal of
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006 amending Table 21.18-4 of Section
21.18.030 (Residential Coastal Zoning Districts General Development Standards) and Section
25
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-032
Page 4 of 6
21.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit “A,” which
is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to the California Coastal
Commission.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Erik Weigand, Chairman
BY:_________________________
Lauren Kleiman, Secretary
26
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-032
Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT “A”
Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006
Related to Residential Design Standards (PA2019-070)
Section 1: Amend the Open Space row of Table 21.18-4 of Section 21.18.030
(Development Standards for Multi-Unit Residential Coastal Zoning Districts) of Title 21 (Local
Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as
follows:
Open
Space
Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more unit development).
Common: 75 square feet/unit
Minimum dimension shall be 15
feet. Private: 5% of the gross
floor area for each unit.
Minimum dimension shall be 6
feet.
The minimum dimension is for length
and width.
Section 2: Amend the definition of “Floor Area, Gross” of Section 21.70.20 (Definitions of
Specialized Terms and Phrases) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as follows:
Floor Area, Gross.
1. Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings.
a. For single-unit and two-unit dwellings, the following areas shall be
included in calculations of gross floor area:
i. The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls;
ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios above the first floor;
iii. Any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that
measures more than six feet from finished floor to ceiling; and
27
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-032
Page 6 of 6
iv. Covered parking spaces which are open only on one side.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; and
ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, with
the exception of required safety railings and minimal structural
supports. Railings shall be constructed of either transparent material
(except for supports) or opaque material (e.g., decorative grillwork,
wrought iron, latticework, or similar open materials) so that at least
forty (40) percent of the railing is open.
2. Multi-Unit Residential (3+ dwellings), Mixed-Use, and Nonresidential Structures.
a. For multi-unit residential, mixed-use, and nonresidential structures, the
following areas shall be included in calculations of gross floor area:
i. The surrounding exterior walls; and
ii. Any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures
more than four feet from finished floor to ceiling.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level;
ii. Outdoor dining areas associated with an eating and drinking
establishment; and
iii. Parking structures associated with an allowed use within the same
development.
28
Attachment No. PC 3
May 7, 2020, Planning Commission Minutes
29
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE30
1 of 10
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2020
REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., with most members attending by video
conference.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – was led by Community Development Director Jurjis
III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Vice Chair Erik Weigand (remotely), Secretary Lee Lowrey (remotely),
Commissioner Curtis Ellmore (remotely), Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier (remotely),
Commissioner Lauren Kleiman (remotely)
ABSENT: Commissioner Mark Rosene
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim
Campbell (remotely), Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine (remotely),
Principal Planner Jaime Murillo (remotely), Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative
Support Technician Amanda Lee
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Mosher expressed his belief that the virtual format of the meeting is not appropriate for the public to address
the Commission. Controversial topics should be delayed until in-person meetings can be scheduled.
V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None
VI. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2020
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Klaustermeier to approve the minutes
of the April 23, 2020, meeting with the revisions suggested by Mr. Mosher.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Rosene
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-070)
Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
Amendments to Title 20 (Zoning Code) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) revising development standards applicable to single- and two-
unit residential development. Specifically, the proposed amendments are designed to reduce bulk and
mass associated with future residential development as follows:
Revisions to Third Floor Development Standards
31
Planning Commission Minutes
May 7, 2020
2 of 10
x Application of existing third floor front and rear step back requirements to covered deck areas and
to narrower lots 25-foot wide or less lots that are zoned R-2 (the narrower lots are currently exempt).
x Application of existing third floor side step-back requirements to lots 30 feet wide or greater.
x Establish a new maximum coverage standard for third floor structures (enclosed or unenclosed) by
limiting them to 50 percent of buildable area of a lot. Uncovered deck area would remain
unrestricted.
Clarification of the Definition of Gross Floor Area
x Currently finished attics with a ceiling height of 6 feet or higher meet the definition and the
amendment would change the definition to include unfinished attics.
x Covered patios, decks, and balconies above the first floor would be defined as floor area unless
completely open on at least two sides, rather than one side.
x Carports only open on one side would be defined as floor area.
Changes Applicable to Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings in the R-BI and RM Zones
Existing third floor and open volume standards applicable to residences and duplexes in the R-1
(Single-unit Residential) and R-2 (Two-unit Residential) zones would apply to future single- and two-
unit dwellings in Two-Unit Residential, Balboa Island (R-BI) and Multiple Residential (RM) zones.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378. The
proposed action is also exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it
has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-013 recommending the City Council approve Amendment No.
CA2019-004; and of the proposed amendments to the City Council; and
4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-014 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local
Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006 to the California Coastal Commission.
Principal Planner Jaime Murillo reported the proposed amendments resulted from complaints to the City Council
regarding the bulk and mass of residential developments over the past ten years. In May 2019, the City Council
directed staff to propose ways to reduce third-floor massing and the height and bulk of single-unit dwellings and
duplexes including those constructed in Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Zoning Districts and to incentivize the
preservation of beach cottages. Amendments to the Municipal Code in 2010 retained height limits of 24 feet for a
flat roof and 29 feet for a sloped roof, deleted the requirement to measure to the midpoint of a sloped roof, required
a 3:12 roof pitch, and required a third story to step back 15 feet from the front and rear setbacks. The 15-foot step-
back requirement applies to enclosed floor area only and does not apply to Balboa Island properties, RM Zones,
and 25-foot wide or less R-2 lots. The definition of floor area excludes unfinished attics and is silent regarding the
openness of patios.
Principal Planner Murillo indicated the intent of the proposed amendments is to address the unintended
consequences of the 2010 comprehensive update to the Zoning Code and to provide more consistency in the
application of residential design standards. The proposed amendments are not intended to overhaul design
standards, change allowed heights, prohibit covered roof decks, or change allowed floor area potential. Public
outreach included an August 19, 2019, community meeting, a September 10, 2019, Council Study Session,
adoption of the Cottage Preservation Ordinance on February 11, 2020, various staff meetings with community
members and designers, and a March 9, 2020, community meeting.
First and second floors are required to comply with front and rear setbacks, but the third floor is required to step
back 15 feet from both the front and rear setback lines. The enclosed area of the third floor is limited to either 15%
or 20% of the buildable area depending on lot width. Covered unenclosed third-floor area is not restricted by the
15-foot step-back; therefore, the third floor can cover the entire buildable area. The proposed amendments
maintain the existing third-floor limits for enclosed floor area, apply the 15-foot step-back to any covered
unenclosed area, and limit third-floor covered area to 50% of buildable area (including the 20% enclosed area).
32
Planning Commission Minutes
May 7, 2020
3 of 10
Currently, third floor side step-backs apply to enclosed floor area only and to lots greater than 30 feet in width. The
majority of lots in the City, especially in Corona del Mar, Balboa Island and the Peninsula, are 30 feet wide;
therefore, the side step-back requirement is not applied. The proposed amendments would apply the side step-
back to floor area and covered decks and to lots at least 30 feet in width.
Prior to 2010, a patio was not considered as floor area if two sides were open. Current Code provisions are silent
as to this point. In current practice, one side must be completely open or two sides must be substantially open for
a patio not to be defined as gross floor area. The proposed amendment requires two sides to be open except for
minimal structural supports and guardrails with a minimum 40% open design or made of transparent materials.
The current Zoning Code does not regulate unfinished attics as floor area regardless of the ceiling height. The
proposed amendment would regulate an attic as any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that
measures more than 6 feet from finished floor to ceiling. The desired outcome is reduced attic heights, which will
minimize the mass and bulk associated with attics.
The proposed amendments would apply the design standards to Balboa Island and one- and two-unit structures
in RM Zones. In addition, the proposed amendments would apply front and rear step-backs to R-2 lots measuring
25 feet or less in width; however, the lots would remain exempt from the third-floor area, side step-back, and the
open volume requirements.
Principal Planner Murillo further stated that Senate Bill (SB) 330 expedites housing development applications,
increases tenant protections, attempts to prevent the loss of housing, suspends downzoning, and suspends
changes in development standards that result in less intense use. Any new development standard cannot reduce
density or reduce the intensity of development. Staff is confident the proposed amendments will not result in a
change in achievable height, setbacks, floor area, or density and will incentivize more density in RM Zones. The
proposed third-floor step-backs are not setbacks as defined in the Zoning Code. The proposed open volume
requirement does not impact the potential floor area of a dwelling. If the proposed amendments are adopted, staff
proposes discretionary applications deemed completed and projects submitted for plan check prior to the effective
date of the ordinance not be subject to the proposed amendments.
In response to Secretary Lowrey's questions, Principal Planner Murillo advised that several projects have been
submitted and, if the proposed amendments are adopted, would not be subject to the new standards. The original
intent of the RM Zone was to provide flexibility in development. R-2 lots are already constrained by their small
size. The intent was not to change the standards for Balboa Island in 2010.
In reply to Commissioner Klaustermeier's inquiries, Principal Planner Murillo indicated enforcement of unpermitted
enclosed areas relies on complaints and tips from the public, discovery by building inspectors, and the residential
building report process for homes in escrow.
In answer to Chair Koetting's query, Principal Planner Murillo explained that the enforcement process includes
notice of the unpermitted enclosure to the property owner and requirement to comply. If the property owner does
not comply with a deadline to return the enclosed area to an open area, the property owner is issued a citation and
further enforcement can be taken.
At Vice Chair Weigand's request, Principal Planner Murillo reiterated public outreach including a newsplash and
emails sent to parties who have requested notice. Based on public comments during outreach and comments
provided by the development community, staff developed the proposed amendments.
In response to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Principal Planner Murillo stated staff believes the proposed
amendments comply with SB 330 and implement the intent of 2010 Zoning Code update changes while preserving
existing property rights. The Code includes a number of subjective design standards that are difficult to enforce
because of their subjectivity. SB 330 requires any new design standards to be objective. Assistant City Attorney
Yolanda Summerhill referred to the legislative intent of SB 330. The proposed amendments will not compromise
the housing supply as public comments have suggested. Principal Planner Murillo explained that residential
design standards related to third-story massing and open volume are contained in the Zoning Code, not the Local
33
Planning Commission Minutes
May 7, 2020
4 of 10
Coastal Program (LCP). Proposed amendments defining gross floor area and clarifying the application of open
space for RM properties will affect the LCP.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Mark Becker, 410 Belvue Lane, supported the proposed amendments. Third-story massing has been a problem,
and most people would eliminate third floors. Third floors reduce air circulation, increase shading on properties
and increase the use of heating and cooling devices, which is contrary to efforts to reduce global warming.
Properties have been devalued as a result of third-story guidelines, and proposed amendments will not affect the
value because they do not address square footage.
Jim Mosher supported restrictions on massing and felt the proposed amendments could be stricter. The virtual
format is not appropriate for public hearings and controversial topics. He expressed concerns about the legality
of the proposed amendments under SB 330 and staff's consideration of accessory dwelling units in the calculation
of gross floor area. The proposed amendments inconsistently apply standards to lots measuring 30 feet in width.
Christopher Budnik, Newport Heights, encouraged the Commission to look at the problem and to consider a
targeted approach. He suggested the Commission exempt Newport Heights from all proposed amendments and
requested staff send formal notice to all Newport Heights property owners if the proposed amendments apply to
Newport Heights.
Lee Pearl, a resident from Balboa Island, indicated residents support the staff recommendation and the realtors'
notices appear to misstate the issues.
Jim Moloney, Balboa Island, remarked that three-story homes create shadows, block views, and devalue
surrounding properties. The purpose of SB 330 is to create housing, but three-story homes displace residents.
Joni Martin, 1824 West Ocean Front, explained that the original intent of not applying the standards to RM Zones
was to allow a mixture of single-family and multifamily dwellings. The virtual format is not a good format for
hearings. The March 2020 community meeting was not well attended because the coronavirus outbreak was just
beginning. She spoke with a staff person in SB 330's sponsor's office, and he indicated the proposed amendments
could violate SB 330.
Mike Mack, Corona del Mar, requested the percentage of undeveloped properties in zoning areas that would be
affected by the proposed amendments.
Principal Planner Murillo indicated that he did not have that information at hand. Properties in Corona del Mar are
subject to existing standards for enclosed third-floor area and would be subject to new proposed standards for
covered decks.
John Davies, a resident from Balboa Island, supported the proposed amendments and stated third-floor massing
is too much.
Nancy Scarbrough supported the proposed amendments and closing the loopholes created by the 2010
amendments.
Andrew Goetz, Corona del Mar, was in favor of the proposed amendments, but suggested the Commission
continue the item for more deliberation.
Don Abrams, from Balboa Island, opposed the proposed amendments. The title of third-floor massing is
inflammatory and pejorative. The proposed amendments do not favor homeowners. Balboa Island is less dense
and homes are less massive than in other areas of the City. Allowing third-floor roof decks on Balboa Island would
balance the floor area allowed in other areas of the City.
Wallace Rodecker, 328 Poppy, liked the virtual format. Step-backs for third floors may dramatically restrict the
feasibility of development on a small lot.
34
Planning Commission Minutes
May 7, 2020
5 of 10
Randy Black, Bay Front, supported the proposed amendments because they would maintain property values and
the charm and character of neighborhoods. All City planning, zoning and development regulations could be said
to restrict the rights of property owners.
Art Pease, Corona del Mar, opposed the proposed amendments. RM Zones are unique and special zoning and
were created with the specific intent of increasing density. The proposed amendments should not apply to RM
Zones.
Charles Klobe agreed with comments about the awkwardness of the forum and supported the staff
recommendation with no changes.
David Waite, the Martin Family Trust attorney, advised that the proposed amendments directly conflict with the
Housing Crisis Act of 2019, result in spot zoning, and are not fair to property owners planning to redevelop
properties to their full potential. The proposed amendments will result in less buildable area and less habitable
space on third floors.
Jim Kasuba opposed the proposed amendments because they could adversely affect small lots.
Jodi Bole, Balboa Island Preservation Association, commented that the current regulations allow construction of
massive homes, which has changed the history, ambience, and character of Balboa Island. She encouraged the
Commission to adopt the proposed amendments.
Erin Walsh Moloney, Balboa Island, supported the proposed amendments, which would restore the requirements
of 2010.
Ryan Gunderson related that the proposed amendments could be detrimental to property values and limit future
construction.
Shirley Golnick, a resident at 106 Pearl, supported the proposed amendments as she is opposed to McMansions.
Seeing no further speakers, Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
In reply to Commissioner Ellmore's questions, Principal Planner Murillo advised that, in drafting the proposed
amendments, staff focused on smaller lots to ensure the proposed standards would not reduce the ability to
construct floor area to which a property owner is entitled. He did not view the proposed standards as constraints
on larger lots. Three-story homes are rare in Newport Heights because lot sizes are larger than elsewhere in the
City.
In answer to Chair Koetting's queries, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill believed the proposed amendments
comply with SB 330. Staff is not changing the setbacks but requiring articulation of the third floor. Principal Planner
Murillo related that any plans currently under review would be subject to existing standards.
In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated staff seeks a
recommendation to the City Council, but the Planning Commission may continue the item.
Vice Chair Weigand proposed continuing the item so that a community discussion could be held with an ad hoc
committee composed of a Council Member, a Commissioner, representatives from the Balboa Island Improvement
Association (BIIA) or the Corona del Mar Residents' Association (CdMRA), realtors, and architects.
Commissioner Ellmore preferred to make a recommendation because the March 9, 2020, community meeting was
well attended and interactive and staff has vetted the proposed amendments thoroughly.
Commissioner Kleiman did not believe additional community engagement is needed but suggested staff submit
the proposed amendments to the State for review prior to the Commission making a recommendation to the
Council. As she interpreted SB 330, the proposed amendments could be in conflict with SB 330.
35
Planning Commission Minutes
May 7, 2020
6 of 10
Secretary Lowrey agreed with continuing the item and forming an ad hoc committee. He had some concern about
property rights and the potential for litigation.
Commissioner Klaustermeier expressed some concern that the State would not accept the proposed amendments
because of SB 330 provisions. Staff did a good job of addressing loopholes. She wanted to move forward with a
recommendation given the amount of public outreach staff conducted.
Chair Koetting expressed concern about the proposed amendments complying with SB 330 and agreed with
continuing the item.
In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that staff sent questions to the
legislative counsel approximately a month prior but has not received a response. He did not know if staff would
receive any direction from either legislative counsel or the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD).
Vice Chair Weigand felt staff probably would not receive a response from the State legislative counsel’s office.
Motion made by Chair Koetting and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to continue the item to a future date with
staff to attempt to obtain feedback from the State and to consider comments from Commissioners.
Commissioner Kleiman noted SB 330 imposes a penalty for violation. Her main concern is the ability to enact
an amendment that may conflict with State law.
In answer to Commissioner Klaustermeier's query, Community Development Director Jurjis understood the
item would return to the Planning Commission in 30-45 days.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman
NOES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Rosene
The Planning Commission recessed for a short break.
ITEM NO. 3 EXTENSION OF AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019-
184)
Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
Amendments to Section 20.42.140(A) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section 21.30.065(E) of Title
21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to extend
an amortization period for nonconforming signs. NBMC currently requires nonconforming signs to be
removed by October 27, 2020. These amendments would extend the deadline for the removal to October
27, 2025.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3;
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-015 recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code
Amendment No. CA2019-007 to amend Section 20.42.140(A) (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20
(Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and
4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-016 recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal
Commission to amend Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan)
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
36
Attachment No. PC 4
May 7, 2020, Planning Commission Staff
Report
37
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE38
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
May 7, 2020
Agenda Item No. 2
SUBJECT:Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments
(PA2019-070)
Code Amendment No. CA2019-004
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006
SITE LOCATION:Citywide
APPLICANT:City of Newport Beach
PLANNER:Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner
949-644-3209 or jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The City is proposing amendments to Title 20 (Zoning Code) and Title 21 (Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) revising
development standards applicable to single- and two-unit residential development.
Generally, the proposed amendments would reduce bulk and mass associated with future
residential development by clarifying the definition of gross floor area, regulating covered
third floor decks, and expanding the application of third floor and open volume standards
to all single-unit and two-unit residential developments constructed in the R-BI and RM
zoning districts. Third floor step backs (front and rear) would also apply to lots 25 feet
wide or less in the R-2 zoning district. The amendments would not result in the reduction
of allowable density on a lot. Furthermore, no changes in overall height limits, allowable floor
area, lot coverage, or setbacks are proposed that would lessen the intensity of housing on
a site.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing;
Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060
(c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a
significant effect on the environment; and
Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-13 (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the
CityCouncil approve Amendment No. CA2019-004; and of the proposed
amendments tothe City Council; and
11 39
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE22 40
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 2
4)Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-14 (Attachment No. PC 2) recommending the City
Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-
006 to the California Coastal Commission.
INTRODUCTION
Background
With the adoption of the 2010 Zoning Code Update, changes to residential development
standards were made with the intent to streamline the review process while maintaining
allowable building envelopes and preserving the character of existing communities.
However, changes to height measurement standards and definition of gross floor area have
inadvertently resulted in proliferation of covered third level decks and bulkier building
designs. Despite measuring the same in terms of enclosed gross floor area, newer
development appears larger and at times out of scale with the pre-2010 development. Staff
believes it is due in part to unarticulated third floor decks, minimal covered deck openings,
and manipulation of attic floor area exceptions.
The 2010 Zoning Code attempted to regulate third floor mass and bulk through the use of
NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria), which
includes third floor area limits and third floor step backs for enclosed floor area to provide
building modulation. It includes a minimum open volume standard to increase building
modulation/articulation on the first or second floors. However, the third-floor limits do not
apply to unenclosed covered deck areas or unfinished attics, resulting in building designs
with third levels (enclosed and unenclosed) that visually appear larger and bulkier than
intended. Furthermore, these standards do not currently apply to the Two-Unit Residential,
Balboa Island (R-BI) zoning district, the Multiple Residential (RM) zoning district, and to lots
25 feet wide or less located in the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) zoning district.
Figure 1. Examples of third floor mass associated with covered decks
33 41
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 3
As a result of growing community concerns related to the loss of small residential cottages
and the bulk and mass associated with new single- and two-unit dwelling developments
in the City, the City Council held a study session on April 23, 2019. The City Council
directed staff to prepare amendments regulating these concerns (Attachment No. PC3 -
Study Session Minutes).
Initiation of Code Amendment
On May 14, 2019, the City Council initiated portions of subject amendment under Resolution
No. 2019-043 (Attachment No. PC4) authorizing staff to investigate code revisions to reduce
third floor mass and overall building bulk associated with single-unit and two-unit
developments.
On May 28, 2019, the City Council initiated the remaining portion of the subject amendment
under Resolution No. 2019-045 (Attachment No. PC5) authorizing staff to investigate code
revisions to restrict single-unit and two-unit dwellings developed on lots zoned for Multiple
Residential (RM) to the development standards applicable to the standards of the Two-
Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District.
DISCUSSION
Summary of Proposed Revisions
The proposed amendments would reduce bulk and mass associated with future residential
development as follows and illustrated in more detail further below. A redline/strikeout
version of the proposed code revisions is included as Attachment No. PC6.
Revisions to Third Floor Standards
x Third floor step backs
1 would apply to covered deck areas (currently applies only
to enclosed floor area).
x Third floor sidestep backs would apply to lots 30 feet wide or greater (currently
applies to lots wider than 30 feet).
x Maximum covered third floor area (enclosed or unenclosed) limited to 50 percent
of buildable area. Uncovered deck area would remain unrestricted.
x Third floor step back standards (front and rear) would apply to 25-foot wide or less
lots zoned R-2 (currently exempt).
Clarification of Gross Floor Area
x Unfinished attics with a ceiling height of 6 feet or higher would count as floor area
(currently only finished attics count).
1 A step back is an additional offset of a wall of building feature beyond the minimum setback line.
44 42
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 4
x Covered patios, decks, and balconies above the first floor would count as floor
area unless completely open on at least two sides, rather than one side.
x Carports only open on one side would count as floor area.
Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings in the R-BI and RM Zone
Third floor and open volume standards applicable to R-1 and R-2 zones would now
apply to single- and two-unit dwellings in R-BI and RM zones.
Comparison of Pre-2010 and Current Building Height Measurements
Prior to the 2010 Zoning Code Update, there were no third floors regulations; however, third
floor designs were limited through the method to measure building height in effect at the
time. Within the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, heights are limited to 24 feet for flat roofs and
29 for sloping roofs, and within the RM zone flat roofs are limited to 28 feet and sloping roofs
limited to 33 feet. Pre-2010, sloping roofs were required to maintain a midpoint of no higher
than 24 feet, which proved difficult to calculate and was further complicated by an allowance
to project imaginary roof lines for the purposes of computing allowable midpoints. Post 2010,
the Zoning Code eliminated the midpoint measurement sloped roofs in exchange for a
requirement that the sloping roof maintain a minimum pitch of 3:12.
Pre-2010 Height Measurement Post-2010 Height Measurement
Figure 2. Comparison of building height measurements
55 43
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 5
In 2010 with a recognition that building bulk may increase, third floor step backs
requirements and maximum third floor area limitations were added in most cases, but not
all. Specifically, the enclosed third floor area is required to be stepped back an additional
15 feet from the required front and rear setback line. On lots greater than 30 feet in width,
the third floor is required to be stepped back an additional 2 feet from the required side
setback lines. Furthermore, the maximum enclosed third floor area is limited to either 15
percent or 20 percent (depending on lot width) of the buildable area of a lot. Buildable
area is calculated as lot size minus required setback area. Figure 3 below conceptually
illustrated how third floor area is regulated.
Figure 3. Current third floor regulations
Unfortunately, third floor regulations only apply to enclosed floor area and do not apply to
covered unenclosed third floor area. As a result, third floor covered decks, often referred
to as loggia or cabanas, have become popular design amenities becoming larger over
the years adding to the visual building bulk. These requirements also do not apply to
enclosed third floor area within R-BI residential zoning district for Balboa Island, the RM
zoning district citywide, or lots 25 feet wide or less within the R-2 zoning district.
Proposed Third Floor Change –Application of step backs and coverage limits to
third floor covered decks
The proposed amendment would apply the third-floor step back requirements to both
enclosed and unenclosed third floor area to reduce third floor building bulk. As illustrated
in Figure 4 below, the allowed third floor enclosed area would remain the same (illustrated
in green shading), but the covered deck area (illustrated in shaded light blue) will be
required to observe the 15-foot front and rear step backs and be limited to a maximum 50
percent third floor coverage limit. The coverage limit would be calculated as 50 percent
of the buildable area of the lot (lot size minus setbacks) and would include both enclosed
area and unenclosed covered third floor deck area. The end result is a third-floor mass
66 44
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 6
that is located closer to the middle of the building farther away from the building edges,
reducing the visual mass as viewed from the public streets and alleys.
Current Code
x Only enclosed area
subject to step
backs and third floor
area limits (green)
x No limits on
covered decks
(blue)
Proposed Code
x Covered decks
subject to step
backs
x Maximum 50% third
floor coverage limit.
Figure 4. Comparison of current and proposed third floor regulations
Figure 5. Examples of desired outcome
Proposed Third Floor Change –Expanded Applicability to Side Step Backs
In addition to front and rear step backs, current regulations require that development on
lots wider than 30 feet provide additional 2-foot step backs from the required side setback
lines on third levels. The intent is to articulate and pull the third level mass back away
side facades (Figure 6). However, this requirement currently only applies to enclosed floor
77 45
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 7
area and not covered decks. Also, the standard lot width in Corona del Mar, Balboa Island,
and in many neighborhoods within the Balboa Peninsula consist of 30-wide lots;
therefore, this side step back requirement is not typically applied in most new
developments. As a result, new three level residential developments lack upper level side
articulation. When located adjacent to private property, this has the effect of impacting
light and air to the narrow side yards between lots. This lack of articulation is more
pronounced and visible when located adjacent to a street.
Comparison Outcome
No side step back
applied
2-foot side step
back applied
Figure 6. Application of side step back comparison
88 46
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 8
The proposed code change would:
x Apply side step back to lots 30 feet wide or greater. With the exception of extremely
narrow lots, this would ensure that most new residential development is subject to
the side step back requirement.
x Apply side step back to both enclosed and covered decks. This would ensure that
the covered third level decks are subject to the same articulation requirement.
x Exception- Stairs and elevator shafts do not count as floor area on upper levels
and would therefore remain exempt from third floor step back requirements. This
also minimizes structural and spatial design impacts associated with
accommodating side step backs. A good example of this is seen in the lower
picture in Figure 6.
Figure 7. Examples with no third floor side step backs
Figure 8. Examples of desired outcome with side step backs applied
Proposed Gross Floor Area Change- Fix the Attic Loophole
Both the Zoning Code (Title 20) and the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal
Program (Title 21) of the NBMC primarily regulate building bulk and mass through the
application of a floor area limit, which is a ratio of gross floor area to the buildable area of
the lot. For example, in Corona del Mar, the maximum allowed floor area of a lot is equal
99 47
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 9
to the buildable area of the lot (lot area minus setbacks) times a factor of 1.5. Gross floor
area includes interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures
more than 6 feet from finished floor to ceiling. This is intended to account for large attics
that visually add to the bulk and mass of structures. However, since the third-floor
regulations only applies to finished areas, the definition does not include unfinished attics,
including those with unfinished attics higher than 6 feet. Furthermore, the third-floor step
backs previously discussed do not apply to unfinished attics since they are not considered
enclosed floor area.
As a result, many new developments are designed with large unfinished attics to
accommodate mechanical equipment and resident storage needs. Although not intended
to be used as habitable floor area, from the street, these structures appear to have large
third floors and are visually bulkier than the floor area limits intend (see Figure 9). In some
cases, these large attics are illegally converted without permits by future property owners
seeking to take advantage of the additional space.
The proposed code change would eliminate the word finished from the definition of gross
floor area, resulting in any interior portion of a structure with a ceiling height higher than
six feet counting towards maximum floor area limits. As illustrated in Figure 10, this would
discourage designs with large attics, reducing the visual building bulk of new structures
and minimizing future opportunities for illegal attics conversions into livable space.
Figure 9 - Bulk associated with large attics
Figure 10 - Desired Outcome of Revised Definition
1010 48
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 10
Proposed Gross Floor Area Change- Application to Covered Decks and Carports
Prior to the 2010 Zoning Code Update, the definition of gross floor area excluded covered
decks, patios, and carports provided they were open on at least sides. Unfortunately, the
current definition of gross floor area is silent with respect to covered decks, patios, and
carports. As a result, it has been interpreted that absent of any clear code language,
covered decks, patios, and carports completely open on one side, or substantially open
on two sides, do not count towards gross floor area simply because these areas are not
enclosed.
The lack of regulation of these features has contributed to increased visual bulk
associated with new residential development as follows:
x Visually bulky decks and patios
x Relocation of patios from front and rear of structure to sides where they are less
visible to public
x Design is easily enclosed with windows by some owners seeking to increase
privacy and comfort by creating an all-weather enclosure.
Figure 11. Examples of covered decks and patios designs under current code
The proposed code change would revise the definition of gross floor area requiring
covered decks, patios, and carports to be at least open on two side s, similar to the pre-
2010 Zoning Code requirements. To ensure that the sides are completely open and not
Easy to encloseBulky design
Easy to enclose
Less visible side open
1111 49
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 11
easily able to be illegally enclosed in the future, the open side of the deck or patio will
be required to fully open with the exception of minimal structural supports and required
safety railings. The safety railing will need to be constructed of transparent material
(except for supports) (e.g., glass, decorative grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, or
similar material) so that at least 40 percent of the railing is open with the space between
the railing and the structural support above completely open. Examples illustrating
compliance with the code revisions are illustrated below. The revised definition would
continue to allow first floor outdoor spaces such as patios and foyers to be open only
on one side,given they are less visible to the public and in some case required by code
for entry ways facing side yards.
Figure 12. Examples of desired openness of covered decks and patios
Proposed Applicability Change- Balboa Island
A majority of residential lots on Balboa Island are zoned Two-Unit Residential, Balboa
Island (R-BI). The R-BI zone is currently exempt from the third floor and open volume
regulations contained in the NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development
Standards and Design Criteria). As a result, the existing and proposed aforementioned third
floor limits (i.e., step backs, area, and coverage limits) and open volume requirements do
not apply.
Open above Required open volume
moved to front
Glass Guardrails Open Guardrails
1212 50
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 12
The proposed code amendment would revise the applicability of Section 20.28.180 to
include the proposed new residential development standards within the R-BI zone so they
would apply to all new construction on Balboa Island.
Proposed Applicability Change- Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Zone
The Multiple Residential (RM) zoning district allows for a range of residential density
ranging from single-unit dwellings to higher density apartments and condominiums. As a
result, the RM zone development standards are designed for higher density development
and include a higher height limit of 28 feet for flat roofs and 33 feet for sloped roofs (R-1
and R-2 are limited to 24 feet flat/29 feet sloped) and private and common open space
requirements for residents. Typically, RM zoned lots are larger, but there are pockets of
RM lots located in Corona del Mar and the Balboa Peninsula that are smaller lots,
including 30-foot-wide lots (Attachment No. PC7). On these smaller lots, it is difficult to
accommodate current code-required parking (2 spaces/unit + one guest) for a three-unit
development, so it is common to see many of these lots developed and redeveloped with
single- and two-unit dwellings.
In addition to the height benefit of the RM zone, single-unit and two-unit dwellings
developed in the RM zone are currently exempt from the third-floor limitations of Section
20. 48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) described above. In
other words, a single- or two-unit dwelling can be constructed with three full levels of living
area to a maximum height of 33 feet and not be required to provide front, rear, or side step
backs to control mass as would normally be required in the R-2 zone.
Figure 13. Examples of two-unit development in RM zone with no third floor step backs
Initially, the City Council directed staff to prepare amendments that would limit single-unit
and two-unit dwellings to the same development standards that would apply in the R-1
and R-2 zones, including the reduced height limit. This potential change resulted in strong
opposition from property owners during community outreach. Many of these pockets of
smaller RM lots have already been redeveloped, and SB 330 (see expanded SB 330
section of report) precludes the City from changing zoning standards that would reduce
No 3rd floor area
limits
No 3rd step backs
1313 51
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 13
the intensity of residential development. As a result, the suggestion to possible reduce
height limits for single- and two-family development in the RM zones have been
eliminated from the proposed amendments.
As currently proposed, the amendments would revise the applicability of Section
20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) to only exclude multi-
unit developments consisting of 3 or more units within the RM zone. Single- and two-unit
dwellings will be required to comply with the aforementioned existing and proposed third
floor limitations (i.e., step backs and coverage limits) and open volume requirements in order
to enhance third floor building articulation and minimize bulk.
The private and common open space requirements applicable to the RM zone are in place
to ensure higher density developments include adequate outdoor spaces for the residents
of the development; however, these standards are not practical for single-unit and two-
unit dwellings. Based on language in the code, staff has interpreted the private and
common open space standards as applying only to developments of three units or more.
For developments of two units or less, staff has applied the open volume requirements of
Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria), which are
intended to provide building modulation and not necessarily useable outdoor living area.
The proposed code amendment would include revisions to clarify and codify this existing
practice.
Proposed Applicability Change- Two-Unit Residential (R-2) lots 25 wide or Less
NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria)
currently exempts lots 25 feet wide or less in the R-2 zone from the third floor and open
volume regulations. The rationale was that these lots are already so narrow that the
application of additional design limitations would overly constrain the development potential
of these lots for two units. Of the 3,791 R-2 lots in the City, 584 of these lots (15%) are 25
feet wide or less. A majority of these lots are located on the Balboa Peninsula and
concentrated in between 27th Street and 40th Street (Attachment No. PC8).
As a result of input received from the community meeting and in consultation with members
of the City’s design community, it has become apparent that new residential development
on these lots could benefit from application of the additional 15-foot front and rear third floor
step back requirements. Application of these step backs would not constrain the
development potential of these lots, but would greatly enhance the aesthetics and visually
reduce the upper level bulk.
Therefore, the proposed amendments would revise the applicability of Section 20.48.180 to
continue to exempt the 25-foot wide lots from the third-floor area limits and open volume
requirements, but will now require the application of the 15-foot front and rear step backs.
1414 52
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 14
Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment (Title 21)
Properties located in the Coastal Zone (Attachment No. PC 9) of the City are regulated
by the Local Coastal Program (LCP), which is comprised of the Coastal Land Use Plan
(CLUP), a policy document, and the Implementation Plan (IP or Title 21), a regulatory
document. Any amendments to the LCP must be reviewed and approved by the City
Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, prior to submitting the
amendment request to the Coastal Commission for review and approval.
Although the third floor and open volume regulations contained within NBMC Section
20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) don’t exist within the
IP of the LCP, the definition of gross floor area does. To ensure that the IP of the LCP
maintains the same definition of gross floor area as the zoning code, an amendment to the
LCP is necessary. The amendment will also include clarification that the RM coastal zoning
district open space standards contained in the IP apply on to multi-unit unit dwellings
consisting of three-units are more. For single-unit or two-unit dwellings constructed in the
RM coastal zoning district will still be subject to the third floor and open volume regulations
contained in the zoning code (Section 20.48.180).
Community Outreach
On August 19, 2019, the Community Development Department staff hosted a community
meeting to share proposed changes to residential design standards. Notice of the meeting
was distributed to affected homeowners’ associations, distributed as a Newsplash to
interested members of community who have requested notice of important planning and
land use activities in the City, and distributed to a list of known designers and architects that
work in Newport Beach. The meeting was well attended by 64 members of the public,
including design professionals.
Included in the discussion were proposed changes to expand third floor step back
requirements to covered third floor decks, fix the definition of gross floor area to included
finished and unfinished attics measuring more than 6 feet in height, and reducing the height
limit of single-unit and two-unit developments constructed in the RM zoning district. The
proposed changes related to third floor covered decks were overwhelmingly supported by
meeting attendees. The proposal to reduce height limits in the RM zone proved controversial
with property owners of RM lots adamantly opposed.
General comments in support and recommendations included:
x Covered patios and decks are not adequately open on sides, resulting in many
property owners illegally enclosing these spaces through the addition of windows.
These spaces should be required to be more open and increased code enforcement
and penalties needed to discourage illegal enclosures.
1515 53
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 15
x Three story development is negatively impacting the character and charm of historic
communities. Third levels should be prohibited or further regulated to minimize bulk
and mass.
x Third floor limitations should apply to Balboa Island.
x Related to covered decks and patios, the determination of open is subjective; more
objective standards should be developed.
General comments in opposition of modifying RM standards included:
x Reducing heights limits for single-unit and two-unit developments in the RM zone
would result in unequal application of standards on same blocks.
x Single-unit and two-unit development in RM zone is currently desirable due to
increased height limits afforded to RM lots (four additional feet). Changing the height
limit would result in a financial penalty to property owners by removing this benefit.
Furthermore, changing the height limit now will have little impact in some RM blocks
as the have already been redeveloped.
x Consider applying third floor restrictions, but maintain existing height limits in RM
zones.
On September 10, 2019, a study session was held with the City Council to share the results
of the August 2019 community meeting and proposed code amendments (Attachment No.
PC10- Minutes). At the conclusion of the study session, the City Council directed staff to
continue working on the amendments, refine the opening requirements for covered decks,
and to consider the impacts of SB 330.
On March 9, 2020, Community Development Department staff hosted a second
community meeting attended by 25 interested members of the public, including design
and real estate professionals. The intent of the meeting was to share refinements to the
residential design standards and receive further community feedback. Approximately half
the attendees voiced their concerns with the amendment citing loss of property values,
creation of nonconformities, and government overreach. The other half voiced support for
the proposed amendments indicating that they seem to strike a reasonable balance
between property values and community issues concerning bulk.
In addition to the two community meetings and study sessions associated with these
amendments, staff has met or consulted with multiple community members and design
professionals familiar with the City’s zoning regulations. Some of these meetings were
formal and others informal over-the-counter discussions. These include, Eric Aust (Eric
Aust Architect), Mark Becker (Mark Becker Inc.), Chris Brandon (Brandon Architects,
Inc.), William Guidero (Guidero Design), Ian Harrison (Ian Harrison Architect), Brion
1616 54
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 16
Jeannette (Brian Jeannette Architecture), Rod Jeheber (R.A. Jeheber Residential Design,
Inc.), (Edward Selich, former Mayor and member of Zoning Code Update/LCP Update
Committee), Bradford Smith (Bradford C Smith Architect), Mark Teale (Teale
Architecture), and Ron Yeo (Ron Yeo Architect). While there were diverse opinions and
thoughts, there was near universal agreement that refinement of the development
standards should occur.
Impact of SB 330 to proposed developments standards
On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 330 –also
known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 –aimed to stimulate homebuilding amid the
housing shortage in California. The law took effect January 1, 2020, and while it tries to
reduce the time it takes to approve housing developments, it also mandated new restrictions
further eroding local control of housing. The new law imposes several new restrictions on
local agencies, including: 1) suspending the ability to downzone properties, adopt new
development standards or change land-use in residential and mixed-use areas if the
change results in less-intensive uses; 2) allows developers to request approval of housing
developments that exceed density and design controls of the underlying zoning, if the
existing zoning is in conflict with the General Plan or a Specific Plan; 3) expedites the
permitting process for all housing development and limits the list of application materials that
cities can review; and 4) includes increased tenant protections for housing development
projects that involve redevelopment of existing residential units, including no net loss in units.
As it relates to the subject code and LCP amendments, the concern is SB 330’srestriction
on the adoption of zoning amendments that would result in the reduction of allowed
density or intensity of land uses than what is allowed under the regulations in effect on
January 1, 2018. The law defines “less intensive use” to include, but is not limited to,
reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size
requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements,
or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of
housing.
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the draft code revisions and determined that they
do not violate SB 330 in that they would not result in the reduction of allowable density
(number of units) on a lot, nor result in any changes in overall height limits, allowable floor
area, lot coverage, or setbacks that would lessen the allowable intensity of housing site.
Each lot will maintain the same allowed height limits, building setbacks, and floor area limits
as previously entitled, and the application of third floor and open volume regulations wouldn’t
preclude the ability for a homeowner to achieve the same development intensity. For
example, a single-unit dwelling constructed in the RM zoning district will retain the ability to
develop up to the increased 28-foot flat roof/33-foot sloped roof height limit with no changes
in total allowed floor area; however, the difference is that the third floors will now be required
to be articulated and covered patios designed to be more transparent. Should a property
owner choose to develop a more dense multi-unit development of three units or more on a
1717 55
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 17
RM lot, the project would continue to be exempt from these revised regulations and third
floor standards.
Environmental Review
The action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt from
the CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on
the environment. Lastly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local
governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption
of a Local Coastal Program. The Amendment itself does not authorize development that
would directly result in physical change to the environment.
Public Notice
Pursuant to Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations, a review draft of the
LCP Amendment was made available and a Notice of Availability was distributed on April
23, 2020, to all persons and agencies on the Notice of Availability mailing list.
In addition, notice of these amendments was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth-
page advertisement, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. The item also appeared
on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Lastly, notice of this amendment was emailed to interested parties that attended the
community meeting.
Prepared by:Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution - Title 20 Zoning Code Amendments
PC 2 Draft Resolution- Title 21 LCP Amendment
PC 3 April 23, 2019, City Council Study Session Minutes
PC 4 City Council Resolution No. 2019-43
PC 5 City Council Resolution No. 2019-45
PC 6 Redline Strikeout Version of Amendments
1818 56
Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission, May 7, 2020
Page 18
PC 7 Map of Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Lots
PC 8 Map of Two-Unit (R2) Residential Lots 25 Feet Wide or Less
PC 9 Coastal Zone Map
PC 10 September 10, 2019, City Council Minutes
PC 11 Planning Commission Correspondence
1919 57
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2020 58
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution - Title 20 Zoning Code
Amendments
2121 59
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Resolution-Title 21 LCP
Amendment
3131 60
Attachment No. PC 3
April 23, 2019, City Council Study Session
Minutes
3939 61
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4040 62
4141 63
4242 64
4343 65
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4444 66
Attachment No. PC 4
City Council Resolution No. 2019-43
4545 67
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4646 68
4747 69
4848 70
4949 71
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE5050 72
Attachment No. PC 5
City Council Resolution No. 2019-45
5151 73
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE5252 74
5353 75
5454 76
5555 77
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE5656 78
Attachment No. PC 6
Redline Strikeout Version of
Amendments
5757 79
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE5858 80
Proposed Amendments to Residential Design Standards (PA2019-070)
April 29, 2020 Version -Response to Community Meeting
Revisions illustrated as red underline and deletions as strikeouts
Proposed Zoning Code (Title 20) Amendments:
20.18.020 Residential Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements.
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Continued)
Development
Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Lot Dimensions Minimum dimensions required for each newly created lot.
Lot Area (1) (2)
(3)
Corner lot 6,000 sq. ft.6,000
sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
Interior lot 5,000 sq. ft.5,000
sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
Lot Width
Corner lot 60 ft.60 ft.60 ft.
Interior lot 50 ft.50 ft.60 ft.
Lot Depth N/A N/A 80 ft.
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit
Minimum required site area per dwelling unit based on net area of the lot unless the maximum
number of units is shown on the Zoning Map.
1,200 sq. ft. (7)1,000
sq. ft.
1,500 sq. ft.
Site Coverage Maximum percentage of the total lot area that may be covered by structures.
5959 81
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Continued)
Development
Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
N/A N/A 60%
Floor Area Limit
(gross floor
area)
1.75 (4)N/A N/A
Setbacks The distances below are minimum setbacks required for primary structures. See Section
20.30.110 (Setback Regulations and Exceptions) for setback measurement, allowed
projections into setbacks, and exceptions. The following setbacks shall apply, unless different
requirements are identified on the setback maps in which case the setback maps shall control.
(See Part 8 of this title.) Side and rear setback areas shown on the setback maps shall be
considered front setback areas for the purpose of regulating accessory structures. Also refer to
Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria).
Front:20 ft.20 ft.20 ft.
Side (interior,
each):
Lots 40 ft. wide
or less
3 ft.N/A 6 ft.
Lots 40'1" wide
to 49'11" wide
4 ft.5 ft.6 ft.
Lots 50 ft. wide
and greater
8% of the average
lot width (5)
N/A 6 ft.
Side (street
side):
5 ft.
6060 82
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Continued)
Development
Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Lots 40 ft. wide
or less
3 ft.N/A
Lots 40'1" wide
to 49'11" wide
4 ft.N/A
Lots 50 ft. wide
and greater
8% of the average
lot width (5)
6 ft.
Rear:10 ft.25 ft.6 ft.Lots abutting a 10 ft. alley or less that are
directly across the alley from the side yard of a
lot abutting the alley shall provide a setback for
the first floor of at least 10 ft. from the alley.
Abutting Alley
10 ft. wide or
less
N/A N/A N/A
15 ft. wide or
less
5 ft.N/A
15'1" to 19'11"3'9"N/A
20 ft. wide or
more
0 N/A
Waterfront 10 ft.N/A
Bluff edge
setback
As provided in Section 20.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District).
Bulkhead
setback
Structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the bulkhead in each zoning district.
Height (6)
Maximum height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section 20.30.060(C)
(Increase in Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit.
Flat roof 28 ft.28 ft.28 ft.
6161 83
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Continued)
Development
Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Sloped roof;
minimum 3/12
pitch
33 ft.33 ft.33 ft.See Section 20.30.060(C) (Increase in Height
Limit)
Open Space Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more units).
Common: 75
square feet/unit
N/A
Common: 75
square feet/unit
Single-unit and two-unit dwellings developed
on a single site shall comply with Open Volume
Area standards of Section 20.48.180
(Residential Development Standards and
Design Criteria).See Section 20.48.180
(Residential Development Standards and
Design Criteria) for R-2 open space standards.
Minimum
dimension shall be
15 feet. Private:
5% of the gross
floor area for each
unit.
Minimum
dimension shall be
15 feet. Private:
5% of the gross
floor area for each
unit.
Minimum
dimension shall be
6 feet.
Minimum
dimension shall be
6 feet.
The minimum dimension is for length and
width.
Bluffs See Section 20.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District).
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).
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).
6262 84
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Continued)
Development
Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Residential
Development
Standards
See Section 20.48.180.
Notes:
(1) All development and the subdivision of land shall comply with the requirements of Title 19
(Subdivisions).
(2) Lots may be subdivided so that the resulting lot area and dimensions for each new lot are less than
that identified in this table in compliance with the provisions of Title 19 (Subdivisions). The minimum lot
size shall not be less than the original underlying lots on the same block face and in the same zoning
district. Lot width and length may vary according to the width and depth of the original underlying lots.
New subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units beyond what the original underlying lots
would allow are not permitted unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA).
(3) On a site of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet that existed prior to March 10, 1976, a two-
family dwelling may be constructed; provided, that there shall be not less than one thousand (1,000)
square feet of land area for each dwelling unit.
(4) The total gross floor area contained in all buildings and structures on a development site shall not
exceed 1.75 times the buildable area of the site or 1.5 times the buildable area of the site in Corona del
Mar; provided, that up to two hundred (200) square feet of floor area per required parking space devoted
to enclosed parking shall not be included in calculations of total gross floor area.
6363 8585
(5) Interior and street side setback areas are not required to be wider than fifteen (15) feet; however, the
side setback area on the street side of a corner lot, where the abutting lot has a reversed frontage, shall
not be less than the front setback area required on the abutting reversed frontage.
(6) On the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, the maximum height shall not exceed the elevation of the top of
the curb abutting the lot.
(7) Portions of legal lots that have a slope greater than two-to-one (2:1) or that are submerged lands or
tidelands shall be excluded from the land area of the lot for the purpose of determining the allowable
number of units.
(8) The floor area of a subterranean basement is not included in the calculation of total gross floor area.
(9) The maximum gross floor area for a residential structure is determined by multiplying either 1.5 or 2.0
times the buildable area of the lot.
20.48.180 Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria.
A. Development Standards.
1. Applicability. The development standards in this subsection shall apply to all R-1 Zoning
Districts, R-BI Zoning District, and to all R-2 Zoning Districts, and to all RM Zoning Districts
Citywide, except as provided in subsection (A)(2) of this section.
2. Exceptions. This section does not apply or shall be limited in its application to:
a.R-BI,R-1-6,000, R-1-7,200, and R-1-10,000, RMD, and RM-6000 Zoning Districts;
b. Lots twenty-five (25) feet wide or less in the R-2 Zoning District;
cb. Planned community zoning districts ; or
c. Residential developments consisting of three or more units in the RM Zoning District.
d. Limited Application. For lots twenty-five (25) feet wide or less in the R-2 Zoning
District, application of this section shall be limited to subsection (A)(3)(c).
6464 86
3. Third Floor Limitations.
a. Allowed Floor Area. The maximum gross floor area of habitable space that may be
located on a third floor or above twenty-four (24) feet in height shall not be greater than
either of the following:
i. Fifteen (15) percent of the total buildable area for lots wider than thirty (30) feet;
or
ii. Twenty (20) percent of the total buildable area for lots thirty (30) feet wide or
less.
On sloping lots, if the slope of the grade on which the structure is located is greater than
five percent, subject to Section 20.30.050(B)(3), the Director shall determine which story is
the third story for the purpose of implementing this requirement.
For example, on a thirty (30) foot wide lot, if the total buildable area of the lot is two
thousand five hundred fifty (2,550) square feet, then the maximum square footage of
habitable space that may be located on the third floor, or above twenty-four (24) feet in
height is five hundred ten (510) square feet (two thousand five hundred fifty (2,550) sq. ft.
x twenty percent (20%) = five hundred ten (510) sq. ft.).
b. Allowed Roof Area. The maximum roof area, enclosed and unenclosed, that may be
located on a third floor shall not be greater than fifty (50) percent of the total buildable
area.
bc. Location of Third Floor Structure. Enclosed square footage floor area and covered
deck area, and enclosed or partially enclosed outdoor living areas,located on the third
floor shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front and rear setback lines
and for lots greater than thirty (30) feet in width or greater a minimum of two feet from
each side setback line, including bay windows.
4. Open Volume Area Required.
a. Calculation. Open volume area shall be provided in addition to the required setback
areas and shall be a minimum area equal to fifteen (15) percent of the buildable area of the
lot.
6565 87
b. Location. The open volume area may be provided anywhere on the lot within the
buildable area and below twenty-four (24) feet from grade. The open air space volume may
be provided on any level or combination of levels and may extend across the entire
structure or any portion thereof.
c. Minimum Dimensions. The open volume area shall meet the following standards:
i. Have a minimum dimension of at least five feet in depth from the wall plane on
which it is located and a minimum clear vertical dimension of at least seven and one-
half feet; and
ii. Be open to the outdoors on at least one side.
20.70.020 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases.
Floor Area, Gross.
1. Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings.
a. For single-unit and two-unit dwellings, the following areas shall be included in calculations of
gross floor area:
i. The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls; and
ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios above the first floor;
iii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more
than six feet from finished floor to ceiling; and
iv. Covered parking spaces which are open only on one side.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; and
iii. Covered decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, with the exception of
required safety railings and minimal structural supports. Railings shall be constructed of
either transparent material (except for supports) or opaque material (e.g., decorative
6666 88
grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, or similar open materials) so that at least forty (40)
percent of the railing is open.
2. Multi-Unit Residential (3+ dwellings), Mixed-Use, and Nonresidential Structures.
a. For multi-unit residential, mixed-use, and nonresidential structures, the following areas shall be
included in calculations of gross floor area:
i. The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls; and
ii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than
four feet from finished floor to ceiling.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level;
ii. Outdoor dining areas associated with an eating and drinking establishment, and
iii. Parking structures associated with an allowed use within the same development.
6767 89
Proposed Local Coastal Program (Title 21) Amendments:
21.18.030 Residential Coastal Zoning Districts General Development Standards
TABLE 21.18-4
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Development
Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Lot Dimensions Minimum dimensions required for each newly created lot.
Lot Area (1)(2):
Corner lot 6,000 sq. ft.6,000 sq. ft.
Interior lot 5,000 sq. ft.6,000 sq. ft.
Lot Width:
Corner lot 60 ft.60 ft.
Interior lot 50 ft.60 ft.
Lot Depth N/A 80 ft.
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit (7)
Minimum required site area per dwelling unit based on net area of the lot unless the
maximum number of units is shown on the Coastal Zoning Map.
1,200 sq. ft. (6)1,500 sq. ft.
Site Coverage
Maximum percentage of the total lot area that may be covered by structures.
N/A 60%
Floor Area Limit
(gross floor area)
1.75 (3)N/A
Setbacks The distances below are minimum setbacks required for primary structures. See Section
21.30.110 (Setback Regulations and Exceptions) for setback measurement, allowed
projections into setbacks, and exceptions. The following setbacks shall apply, unless
different requirements are identified on the setback maps in which case the setback maps
shall control. (See Part 8 of this Implementation Plan.) Side and rear setback areas shown
6868 90
TABLE 21.18-4
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Development
Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
on the setback maps shall be considered front setback areas for the purpose of regulating
accessory structures.
Front 20 ft.20 ft.
Side (interior,
each):
Lots 40 ft. wide
or less
3 ft.6 ft.
Lots 40'1" wide
to 49'11" wide
4 ft.6 ft.
Lots 50 ft. wide
and greater
8% of the average lot
width (4)
6 ft.
Side (street
side):
Lots 40 ft. wide
or less
3 ft.N/A
Lots 40'1" wide
to 49'11" wide
4 ft.N/A
Lots 50 ft. wide
and greater
8% of the average lot
width (4)
6 ft.
Rear 10 ft.6 ft.
Lots abutting a 10 ft. alley or less that
are directly across the alley from the
side yard of a lot abutting the alley
Abutting Alley:
10 ft. wide or less N/A N/A
15 ft. wide or less 5 ft.N/A
6969 91
TABLE 21.18-4
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Development
Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
15'1" to 19'11"3'9"N/A shall provide a setback for the first
floor of at least 10 ft. from the alley.20 ft. wide or
more
0 N/A
Waterfront 10 ft.N/A
Bluff edge
setback
As provided in Section 21.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District).
Canyon face
setback
As provided in Section 21.28.050 (Canyon (C) Overlay District).
Bulkhead
setback
Structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the bulkhead in each zoning district.
Waterfront lots Setbacks on waterfront lots may be increased to avoid coastal hazards through the
approval of a coastal development permit. See Sections 21.30.015(D) (Waterfront
Development) and 21.30.015(E) (Development in Shoreline Hazardous Areas).
Height (5)
Maximum height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section 21.30.060(C)
(Increase in Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit.
Flat roof 28 ft.28 ft.
See Section 21.30.060(C) (Increase
in Height Limit).
Sloped roof;
minimum 3/12
pitch
33 ft.33 ft.
Open Space
Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more unit development).
Common: 75 square feet/unit
Minimum dimension shall be 15 feet. Private: 5% of
the gross floor area for each unit.
Minimum dimension shall be 6 feet.
The minimum dimension is for length
and width.
7070 92
TABLE 21.18-4
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Development
Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Bluffs See Section 21.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District).
Canyons See Section 21.28.050 (Canyon (C) Overlay District).
Fencing See Section 21.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls).
Landscaping See Sections 21.30.075 (Landscaping) and 21.30.085 (Water Efficient Landscaping).
Lighting See Section 21.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting).
Parking See Chapter 21.40 (Off-Street Parking).
Signs See Section 21.30.065 (Signs).
Notes:
(1) All development and the subdivision of land shall comply with the requirements of Section 21.30.025
(Coastal Zone Subdivisions).
(2) On a site of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet that existed prior to March 10, 1976, a two-
family dwelling may be constructed; provided, that there shall be not less than one thousand (1,000)
square feet of land area for each dwelling unit.
(3) The total gross floor area contained in all buildings and structures on a development site shall not
exceed 1.75 times the buildable area of the site or 1.5 times the buildable area of the site in Corona del
Mar; provided, that up to two hundred (200) square feet of floor area per required parking space devoted
to enclosed parking shall not be included in calculations of total gross floor area.
(4) Interior and street side setback areas are not required to be wider than fifteen (15) feet; however, the
side setback area on the street side of a corner lot, where the abutting lot has a reversed frontage, shall
not be less than the front setback area required on the abutting reversed frontage.
7171 93
(5) On the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, the maximum height shall not exceed the elevation of the top of
the curb abutting the lot.
(6) Portions of legal lots that have a slope greater than two-to-one (2:1) or that are submerged lands or
tidelands shall be excluded from the land area of the lot for the purpose of determining the allowable
number of units.
(7) Density bonuses may be granted for the development of housing that is affordable to lower-, low-, and
moderate-income households and senior citizens in compliance with Government Code Sections 65915
through 65917. Any housing development approved pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 shall
be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, and in a manner most protective of coastal resources, with
all otherwise applicable Local Coastal Program policies and development standards.
(Ord. 2019-1 § 2, 2019; Ord. 2016-19 § 9 (Exh. A)(part), 2016)
21.70.020 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases.
Floor Area, Gross.
1. Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings.
a. For single-unit and two-unit dwellings, the following areas shall be included in
calculations of gross floor area:
i. The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls; and
ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios above the first floor;
iii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures
more than six feet from finished floor to ceiling; and
iv. Covered parking spaces which are open only on one side.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; and
7272 94
ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, with the
exception of required safety railings and minimal structural supports. Railings
shall be constructed of either transparent material (except for supports) or
opaque material (e.g., decorative grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, or similar
open materials) so that at least forty (40) percent of the railing is open.
2. Multi-Unit Residential (3+ dwellings), Mixed-Use, and Nonresidential Structures.
a. For multi-unit residential, mixed-use, and nonresidential structures, the following areas shall be
included in calculations of gross floor area:
i. The surrounding exterior walls; and
ii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than
four feet from finished floor to ceiling.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level;
ii. Outdoor dining areas associated with an eating and drinking establishment; and
iii. Parking structures associated with an allowed use within the same development.
7373 95
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE7474 96
Attachment No. PC 7
Map of Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Lots
7575 97
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE7676 98
777799
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE7878100
Attachment No. PC 8
Map of Two-Unit (R2) Residential Lots 25
Feet Wide or Less
7979 101
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8080 102
NTA ANAVER JETTYNEWPORTPIERLIDOPENINSULALIDOISLEBAYISLANDHARBORISLANDLINDAISLENEWPORTSHORESCOLLINSISLANDBALBOAPIERFASHIONTHEWEDGEWEST JETTYEAST JETTYBIGCORONALITTLE CORONANEWPORTDUNESNORTHSTARBEACHBALBOA ISLANDISLANDBuck GullyBigCanyonHARBOR ENTRANCE
CHANNELBALBOAISLANDC H A N N E L
LIDOCHANNELNEWPORTWEST
L
I
D
O
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
TURNINGBASINPACIFIC OCEANHOSPITALRDORANGE ST15TH ST WWESTAVEBLVDFIFTH AVEBAL
B
O
A
38TH STRIVERSIDEAVE28TH STEAST23RD ST15TH ST8TH STBLV
D BALBOABLVD32ND STANEWPORTDRVIALID OMARINERSDR
HIGHWAYPROSPECT STHIGHWAY
DOVERDRGALAXYDRCLIFF16THST17THST19THSTIRVINESANTACOASTRDVISTAROEASTBLUBISONFORDRDBLVDCARNATIONAVECENTERDRMACARTHSANB A R BARA D R E A ST NEWPORTWESTJAMBOREES ANTA
MAIN STAGATE AVEBAYSIDEDRAVOCADOAVEGOLDENROD AVEWESTCOASTSUPERIORAVEMARGUERITEBLV DMARIGOLDOCEAN
MARINE AVEPARK AVEPLACENTIA AVEWESTCLIFF DRPOLARISDRSP51ST STPA2019_070 - Lot_Width_25_ft_or_Less.mxdCity of Newport BeachGIS DivisionMarch 29, 202000.40.2MilesITextLegendR-2 Lots 25 ft or Less (584 - 15%)R-2 Lots greater than 25 feet (3,207 - 85%)Total Lots: 3,7918181103
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8282104
Attachment No. PC 9
Coastal Zone Map
8383 105
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8484 106
TSBanning RanchDeferred Certification AreaNewport Coast Segment(Not A Part)RM-CRM-CRM-CRM-CCity of Newport Beach, California ICoastal Zone 00.450.90.225MilesLegendLocal Coastal Plan BoundaryCity BoundaryCoastal Zone AreaCoastal_Zone_Featured_Areas.mxd November/20088585107
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8686108
Attachment No. PC 10
September 10, 2019, City Council Minutes
8787 109
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8888 110
8989 111
9090 112
9191 113
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE9292 114
$WWDFKPHQW1R3&
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ&RUUHVSRQGHQFH
9393 115
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE116
Attachment No. PC 5
Current Redline/Strikeout Version of
Amendments
117
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE118
Proposed Amendments to Residential Design Standards (PA2019-070)
August 6, 2020 Version
Revisions illustrated as red underline and deletions as strikeouts
Proposed Zoning Code (Title 20) Amendments:
20.18.020 Residential Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements.
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Continued)
Development
Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Lot Dimensions Minimum dimensions required for each newly created lot.
Lot Area (1) (2)
(3)
Corner lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000
sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
Interior lot 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000
sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
Lot Width
Corner lot 60 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft.
Interior lot 50 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft.
Lot Depth N/A N/A 80 ft.
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit
Minimum required site area per dwelling unit based on net area of the lot unless the maximum
number of units is shown on the Zoning Map.
1,200 sq. ft. (7) 1,000
sq. ft.
1,500 sq. ft.
Site Coverage Maximum percentage of the total lot area that may be covered by structures.
119
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Continued)
Development
Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
N/A N/A 60%
Floor Area Limit
(gross floor
area)
1.75 (4) N/A N/A
Setbacks The distances below are minimum setbacks required for primary structures. See Section
20.30.110 (Setback Regulations and Exceptions) for setback measurement, allowed
projections into setbacks, and exceptions. The following setbacks shall apply, unless different
requirements are identified on the setback maps in which case the setback maps shall control.
(See Part 8 of this title.) Side and rear setback areas shown on the setback maps shall be
considered front setback areas for the purpose of regulating accessory structures. Also refer to
Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria).
Front: 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
Side (interior,
each):
Lots 40 ft. wide
or less
3 ft. N/A 6 ft.
Lots 40'1" wide
to 49'11" wide
4 ft. 5 ft. 6 ft.
Lots 50 ft. wide
and greater
8% of the average
lot width (5)
N/A 6 ft.
Side (street
side):
5 ft.
120120
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Continued)
Development
Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Lots 40 ft. wide
or less
3 ft. N/A
Lots 40'1" wide
to 49'11" wide
4 ft. N/A
Lots 50 ft. wide
and greater
8% of the average
lot width (5)
6 ft.
Rear: 10 ft. 25 ft. 6 ft. Lots abutting a 10 ft. alley or less that are
directly across the alley from the side yard of a
lot abutting the alley shall provide a setback for
the first floor of at least 10 ft. from the alley.
Abutting Alley
10 ft. wide or
less
N/A N/A N/A
15 ft. wide or
less
5 ft. N/A
15'1" to 19'11" 3'9" N/A
20 ft. wide or
more
0 N/A
Waterfront 10 ft. N/A
Bluff edge
setback
As provided in Section 20.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District).
Bulkhead
setback
Structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the bulkhead in each zoning district.
Height (6)
Maximum height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section 20.30.060(C)
(Increase in Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit.
Flat roof 28 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft.
121
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Continued)
Development
Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Sloped roof;
minimum 3/12
pitch
33 ft. 33 ft. 33 ft. See Section 20.30.060(C) (Increase in Height
Limit)
Open Space Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more units).
Common: 75
square feet/unit
N/A
Common: 75
square feet/unit
Single-unit and two-unit dwellings developed
on a single site shall comply with Open Volume
Area standards of Section 20.48.180
(Residential Development Standards and
Design Criteria). See Section 20.48.180
(Residential Development Standards and
Design Criteria) for R-2 open space standards.
Minimum
dimension shall be
15 feet. Private:
5% of the gross
floor area for each
unit.
Minimum
dimension shall be
15 feet. Private:
5% of the gross
floor area for each
unit.
Minimum
dimension shall be
6 feet.
Minimum
dimension shall be
6 feet.
The minimum dimension is for length and
width.
Bluffs See Section 20.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District).
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).
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).
122
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Continued)
Development
Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Residential
Development
Standards
See Section 20.48.180.
Notes:
(1) All development and the subdivision of land shall comply with the requirements of Title 19
(Subdivisions).
(2) Lots may be subdivided so that the resulting lot area and dimensions for each new lot are less than
that identified in this table in compliance with the provisions of Title 19 (Subdivisions). The minimum lot
size shall not be less than the original underlying lots on the same block face and in the same zoning
district. Lot width and length may vary according to the width and depth of the original underlying lots.
New subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units beyond what the original underlying lots
would allow are not permitted unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA).
(3) On a site of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet that existed prior to March 10, 1976, a two-
family dwelling may be constructed; provided, that there shall be not less than one thousand (1,000)
square feet of land area for each dwelling unit.
(4) The total gross floor area contained in all buildings and structures on a development site shall not
exceed 1.75 times the buildable area of the site or 1.5 times the buildable area of the site in Corona del
Mar; provided, that up to two hundred (200) square feet of floor area per required parking space devoted
to enclosed parking shall not be included in calculations of total gross floor area.
123
(5) Interior and street side setback areas are not required to be wider than fifteen (15) feet; however, the
side setback area on the street side of a corner lot, where the abutting lot has a reversed frontage, shall
not be less than the front setback area required on the abutting reversed frontage.
(6) On the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, the maximum height shall not exceed the elevation of the top of
the curb abutting the lot.
(7) Portions of legal lots that have a slope greater than two-to-one (2:1) or that are submerged lands or
tidelands shall be excluded from the land area of the lot for the purpose of determining the allowable
number of units.
(8) The floor area of a subterranean basement is not included in the calculation of total gross floor area.
(9) The maximum gross floor area for a residential structure is determined by multiplying either 1.5 or 2.0
times the buildable area of the lot.
20.48.180 Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria.
A. Development Standards.
1. Applicability. The development standards in this subsection shall apply to all R-1 Zoning
Districts, R-BI Zoning District, and to all R-2 Zoning Districts, and to all RM Zoning Districts
Citywide, except as provided as provided below: in subsection (A)(2) of this section.
2a. Exceptions. This subsection shall does not apply to:
ai. R-BI, R-1-6,000, R-1-7,200, and R-1-10,000, RMD, and RM-6000 Zoning
Districts;
b. Lots twenty-five (25) feet wide or less in the R-2 Zoning District;
cii. Planned community zoning districts; or
iii. Residential developments consisting of three or more units in the RM Zoning
District.
b. Limited Application. This subsection shall be limited in its application below:
124
i. For lots twenty-five (25) feet wide or less in the R-2 Zoning District, only
subsection (A)(2)(c) shall apply.
ii. Residential developments consisting of one or two units in the RM Zoning
District, only subsections (A)(2)(c) and (A)(3) shall apply.
32. Third Floor Limitations.
a. Allowed Floor Area. The maximum gross floor area of habitable space that may be
located on a third floor or above twenty-four (24) feet in height shall not be greater than
either of the following:
i. Fifteen (15) percent of the total buildable area for lots wider than thirty (30) feet;
or
ii. Twenty (20) percent of the total buildable area for lots thirty (30) feet wide or
less.
On sloping lots, if the slope of the grade on which the structure is located is greater than
five percent, subject to Section 20.30.050(B)(3), the Director shall determine which story is
the third story for the purpose of implementing this requirement.
For example, on a thirty (30) foot wide lot, if the total buildable area of the lot is two
thousand five hundred fifty (2,550) square feet, then the maximum square footage of
habitable space that may be located on the third floor, or above twenty-four (24) feet in
height is five hundred ten (510) square feet (two thousand five hundred fifty (2,550) sq. ft.
x twenty percent (20%) = five hundred ten (510) sq. ft.).
b. Allowed Combined Floor Area and Covered Deck Area. The combined total maximum
gross floor area and covered deck area that may be located on a third floor shall not be
greater than fifty (50) percent of the total buildable area.
bc. Location of Third Floor Structure. Enclosed square footage floor area and covered
deck area, and enclosed or partially enclosed outdoor living areas , located on the third
floor shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front and rear setback lines
and for lots greater than thirty (30) feet in width or greater a minimum of two feet from
each side setback line, including bay windows.
125
43. Open Volume Area Required.
a. Calculation. Open volume area shall be provided in addition to the required setback
areas and shall be a minimum area equal to fifteen (15) percent of the buildable area of the
lot.
b. Location. The open volume area may be provided anywhere on the lot within the
buildable area and below twenty-four (24) feet from grade. The open air space volume may
be provided on any level or combination of levels and may extend across the entire
structure or any portion thereof.
c. Minimum Dimensions. The open volume area shall meet the following standards:
i. Have a minimum dimension of at least five feet in depth from the wall plane on
which it is located and a minimum clear vertical dimension of at least seven and one-
half feet; and
ii. Be open to the outdoors on at least one side.
B. Design Criteria.
1. Applicability. The design criteria provided in this subsection shall apply to all single-unit and two-unit
residential buildings Citywide. The following design criteria shall be used in determining a project’s
consistency with the purpose of this Zoning Code and with the policies of the General Plan related to
architecture and site design. The criteria shall apply to all new single-unit and two-unit residential
buildings and additions thereto. Review of projects under this subsection is ministerial and shall occur
concurrently with the review of plans for building permit issuance.
2. Design Criteria.
a. Walls. Long, unarticulated exterior walls are discouraged on all structures. The visual massing
of a building should be reduced by incorporating appropriate design elements; including variation in
the wall plane, building modulation, openings, recesses, vertical elements, varied textures, and
design accents (e.g., moldings, pilasters, etc.). Front facades shall include windows.
b. Upper Floors. Portions of upper floors should be set back in order to scale down facades that
face the street, common open space, and adjacent residential structures. Upper story setbacks are
126
recommended either as full-length “stepbacks” or partial indentations for upper story balconies,
decks, and/or aesthetic setbacks.
c. Architectural Treatment. Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places,
including alleys, is encouraged. Treatments may include window treatments, cornices, siding,
eaves, and other architectural features.
d. Front Facade. Where the neighborhood pattern is for the primary entrance to face the street,
the primary entry and windows should be the dominant elements of the front facade. Primary
entrances should face the street with a clear, connecting path to the public sidewalk or street.
Alternatively, entry elements may be visible from the street without the door necessarily facing the
street.
e. Main Entrance. The main dwelling entrance should be clearly articulated through the use of
architectural detailing.
20.70.020 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases.
Floor Area, Gross.
1. Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings.
a. For single-unit and two-unit dwellings, the following areas shall be included in calculations of
gross floor area:
i. The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls; and
ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios above the first floor;
iii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more
than six feet from finished floor to ceiling; and
iv. Covered parking spaces which are open only on one side.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; and
127
iii. Covered decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, with the exception of
required safety railings and minimal structural supports. Railings shall be constructed of
either transparent material (except for supports) or opaque material (e.g., decorative
grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, or similar open materials) so that at least forty (40)
percent of the railing is open.
2. Multi-Unit Residential (3+ dwellings), Mixed-Use, and Nonresidential Structures.
a. For multi-unit residential, mixed-use, and nonresidential structures, the following areas shall be
included in calculations of gross floor area:
i. The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls; and
ii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than
four feet from finished floor to ceiling.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level;
ii. Outdoor dining areas associated with an eating and drinking establishment, and
iii. Parking structures associated with an allowed use within the same development.
128
Proposed Local Coastal Program (Title 21) Amendments:
21.18.030 Residential Coastal Zoning Districts General Development Standards
TABLE 21.18-4
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Development
Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Lot Dimensions Minimum dimensions required for each newly created lot.
Lot Area (1)(2):
Corner lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.
Interior lot 5,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.
Lot Width:
Corner lot 60 ft. 60 ft.
Interior lot 50 ft. 60 ft.
Lot Depth N/A 80 ft.
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit (7)
Minimum required site area per dwelling unit based on net area of the lot unless the
maximum number of units is shown on the Coastal Zoning Map.
1,200 sq. ft. (6) 1,500 sq. ft.
Site Coverage
Maximum percentage of the total lot area that may be covered by structures.
N/A 60%
Floor Area Limit
(gross floor area)
1.75 (3) N/A
Setbacks The distances below are minimum setbacks required for primary structures. See Section
21.30.110 (Setback Regulations and Exceptions) for setback measurement, allowed
projections into setbacks, and exceptions. The following setbacks shall apply, unless
different requirements are identified on the setback maps in which case the setback maps
shall control. (See Part 8 of this Implementation Plan.) Side and rear setback areas shown
129
TABLE 21.18-4
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Development
Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
on the setback maps shall be considered front setback areas for the purpose of regulating
accessory structures.
Front 20 ft. 20 ft.
Side (interior,
each):
Lots 40 ft. wide
or less
3 ft. 6 ft.
Lots 40'1" wide
to 49'11" wide
4 ft. 6 ft.
Lots 50 ft. wide
and greater
8% of the average lot
width (4)
6 ft.
Side (street
side):
Lots 40 ft. wide
or less
3 ft. N/A
Lots 40'1" wide
to 49'11" wide
4 ft. N/A
Lots 50 ft. wide
and greater
8% of the average lot
width (4)
6 ft.
Rear 10 ft. 6 ft.
Lots abutting a 10 ft. alley or less that
are directly across the alley from the
side yard of a lot abutting the alley
Abutting Alley:
10 ft. wide or less N/A N/A
15 ft. wide or less 5 ft. N/A
130
TABLE 21.18-4
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Development
Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
15'1" to 19'11" 3'9" N/A shall provide a setback for the first
floor of at least 10 ft. from the alley. 20 ft. wide or
more
0 N/A
Waterfront 10 ft. N/A
Bluff edge
setback
As provided in Section 21.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District).
Canyon face
setback
As provided in Section 21.28.050 (Canyon (C) Overlay District).
Bulkhead
setback
Structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the bulkhead in each zoning district.
Waterfront lots Setbacks on waterfront lots may be increased to avoid coastal hazards through the
approval of a coastal development permit. See Sections 21.30.015(D) (Waterfront
Development) and 21.30.015(E) (Development in Shoreline Hazardous Areas).
Height (5)
Maximum height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section 21.30.060(C)
(Increase in Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit.
Flat roof 28 ft. 28 ft.
See Section 21.30.060(C) (Increase
in Height Limit).
Sloped roof;
minimum 3/12
pitch
33 ft. 33 ft.
Open Space
Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more unit development).
Common: 75 square feet/unit
Minimum dimension shall be 15 feet. Private: 5% of
the gross floor area for each unit.
Minimum dimension shall be 6 feet.
The minimum dimension is for length
and width.
131131
TABLE 21.18-4
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Development
Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements
Bluffs See Section 21.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District).
Canyons See Section 21.28.050 (Canyon (C) Overlay District).
Fencing See Section 21.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls).
Landscaping See Sections 21.30.075 (Landscaping) and 21.30.085 (Water Efficient Landscaping).
Lighting See Section 21.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting).
Parking See Chapter 21.40 (Off-Street Parking).
Signs See Section 21.30.065 (Signs).
Notes:
(1) All development and the subdivision of land shall comply with the requirements of Section 21.30.025
(Coastal Zone Subdivisions).
(2) On a site of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet that existed prior to March 10, 1976, a two-
family dwelling may be constructed; provided, that there shall be not less than one thousand (1,000)
square feet of land area for each dwelling unit.
(3) The total gross floor area contained in all buildings and structures on a development site shall not
exceed 1.75 times the buildable area of the site or 1.5 times the buildable area of the site in Corona del
Mar; provided, that up to two hundred (200) square feet of floor area per required parking space devoted
to enclosed parking shall not be included in calculations of total gross floor area.
(4) Interior and street side setback areas are not required to be wider than fifteen (15) feet; however, the
side setback area on the street side of a corner lot, where the abutting lot has a reversed frontage, shall
not be less than the front setback area required on the abutting reversed frontage.
132
(5) On the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, the maximum height shall not exceed the elevation of the top of
the curb abutting the lot.
(6) Portions of legal lots that have a slope greater than two-to-one (2:1) or that are submerged lands or
tidelands shall be excluded from the land area of the lot for the purpose of determining the allowable
number of units.
(7) Density bonuses may be granted for the development of housing that is affordable to lower-, low-, and
moderate-income households and senior citizens in compliance with Government Code Sections 65915
through 65917. Any housing development approved pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 shall
be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, and in a manner most protective of coastal resources, with
all otherwise applicable Local Coastal Program policies and development standards.
(Ord. 2019-1 § 2, 2019; Ord. 2016-19 § 9 (Exh. A)(part), 2016)
21.70.020 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases.
Floor Area, Gross.
1. Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings.
a. For single-unit and two-unit dwellings, the following areas shall be included in
calculations of gross floor area:
i. The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls; and
ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios above the first floor;
iii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures
more than six feet from finished floor to ceiling; and
iv. Covered parking spaces which are open only on one side.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; and
133
ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, with the
exception of required safety railings and minimal structural supports. Railings
shall be constructed of either transparent material (except for supports) or
opaque material (e.g., decorative grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, or similar
open materials) so that at least forty (40) percent of the railing is open.
2. Multi-Unit Residential (3+ dwellings), Mixed-Use, and Nonresidential Structures.
a. For multi-unit residential, mixed-use, and nonresidential structures, the following areas shall be
included in calculations of gross floor area:
i. The surrounding exterior walls; and
ii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than
four feet from finished floor to ceiling.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level;
ii. Outdoor dining areas associated with an eating and drinking establishment; and
iii. Parking structures associated with an allowed use within the same development.
134
Attachment No. PC 6
RM Intensity Analysis with 3rd Floor Area
Limits Applied
135
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE136
1stFloor 1908 sf2ndFloor 2292 sf3rdFloor 458 sfTotal Possible 4658 sfTotal Allowed 4,411 sfResult-No loss of intensity7’0’3’3’2-CarGarage400 sf1stFloor1492 sf2ndFloor 2292 sf1st– 1908 sf possible(400 + 1508)2nd – 2292 sf possibleBalboa Peninsula RM Lot (Duplex 2-Car Example): 30’ x 102.5’ = 3,075 sfBuildable Area: 24’ x 95.5= 2292 sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.75 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garageMaximum Floor Area Allowed: 4,011 + 400 = 4,411sfMinimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 344 sfProposed New Standards: Maximum 3rdFloor: 20% x Buildable Area= 458 sfMaximum 3rdFloor Area and Covered Deck Area: 50% x Buildable Area= 1146 sfThird floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)Buildable Area2292 sf (24’ x 95.5’)2-CarCarport384 sf(meets min. open volume)3rd Floor 458 sf3rd – 458 sf possible3rd Floor Step Back Area 982 sfGarage AreaMinimum Open VolumePossible Living Area 3rdFloor Step BacksMax 3rdFloor & Covered Deck AreaFigure 1137
1stFloor 2292 sf2ndFloor 1948 sf3rdFloor 458 sfTotal Possible 4698 sfTotal Allowed 4811 sfResult-Loss of intensity7’0’3’3’4-Car Garage 800 sf1stFloor1492 sf2ndFloor 1948 sf1st– 2292 sf possible(800 + 1492)2nd – 1948 sf possibleBalboa Peninsula RM Lot (Duplex 4-Car Example): 30’ x 102.5’ = 3,075 sfBuildable Area: 24’ x 95.5= 2292 sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.75 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garageMaximum Floor Area Allowed: 4,011 + 800 = 4,811sfMinimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 344 sfProposed New Standards: Maximum 3rdFloor: 20% x Buildable Area= 458 sfMaximum 3rdFloor Area and Covered Deck Area: 50% x Buildable Area= 1146 sfThird floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)Buildable Area2292 sf (24’ x 95.5’)Min. Open Volume 344 sf3rd Floor 458 sf3rd – 458 sf possible3rd Floor Step Back Area 982 sfGarage AreaMinimum Open VolumePossible Living Area 3rdFloor Step BacksMax 3rdFloor & Covered Deck AreaFigure 2138
Attachment No. PC 7
Newport Heights Analysis
139
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE140
PProposed Changes to RResidential Design StandardsPotential Impacts to Newport Heights(PA2019-070)Prepared for the Newport Heights Improvement Association Jaime Murillo – Principal PlannerJmurillo@newportbeachca.gov; (949) 644-3209July 31, 2020Project Webpage: www.newportbeachca.gov/residentialdesignstandards141
Background•A comprehensive Zoning Code update in 2010 included changes to building height measurement standardsand definition of gross floor area that have inadvertently resulted in proliferation of covered third leveldecks and bulkier residential building designs. Despite measuring the same in terms of enclosed gross floorarea, newer development appears larger and at times out of scale with the pre-2010 development.•As a result of community concerns related to the bulk and mass associated with new single- and two-unitdwelling developments in the City, the City Council held a study session on April 23, 2019, and directed staffto prepare amendments regulating these concerns.•Third story designs are commonly utilized in older communities with smaller lots, such as Corona del Mar,Balboa Island, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula, to maximize the development potential of thesesmall lots.•Given the larger lot sizes in Newport Heights, third level designs are less common and the proposed changesare not expected to have a significant impact on the design of typical new development in the area.•This analysis is not comprehensive, but intended to provide an illustrative example of how recentdevelopment in Newport Heights would have been affected by these proposed amendments. The analysisincludes 5 properties in the area suggested by Chris Budnik, a NHIA Board Member.142
Revisionsto Third Floor StandardsxThird floor step backs* would apply to covered deck areas (currently applies only to enclosed floor area).xThird floor side step backs would apply to lots 30feet wide or greater (currently applies to lots widerthan30feet).xMaximum covered third floor area (enclosed or unenclosed) limited to 50 percent of buildablearea.Uncovered deck area would remain unrestricted.Clarificationof Gross Floor AreaxUnfinishedattics with a ceiling height of 6 feet or higher would count as floor area (currently onlyfinishedattics count).xCovered patios, decks, and balconies above the first floor would count as floor area unless completely openonat least two sides, rather than one side.xCarports only open on one side would count as floor area.*A step back is an additional offset of a wall of building feature beyond the minimum setback line.Proposed Code Revisions That May Impact Newport Heights Development 143
Typical Newporrt TyTyypicalNewpHeights Lot401 Fullerton Ave50’ x 127.5’50x1276375sf4StandardCurrent CodeProposed Code(new req’s in red) 401 Fullerton Ave(Actual Construction)SetbacksFront20’No Change20’Sides4’No Change4’Rear5’No Change5’Buildable Area (B)4305 sfNo ChangeMax Floor Area(2XB)8,610 sfNo Change7260 sf (1350 sf below maximum)Height 24’ flat/29’ slopedNo Change24’ flat/29’ sloped3rdFloor Step Backs(measured from PL)•Front-35’•Sides-6’•Rear-20’Enclosed Area onlyFront/Rear/SideEnclosed and UnenclosedFront/Rear/Side Not affected, 3rdfloor deck is uncovered and is not subject to current or proposed changes. 3rdFloor Enclosed Area (15% of B)646 sfNo changeNot affected, no 3rdfloor enclosed area3rdFloor Covered Area (50% of B)N/A2152.5 sfNot affected, no 3rdfloor covered areaOpen Volume (15% of B)646 sf min.No Change818 sfCovered Patios on 2ndand 3rdfloor count as floor areaLess than 1 side completely openLess than 2 sides completely openHouse design not affectedAttics count as floor areaFinished space with 6’ + ceiling heightFinished or unfinishedspace with 6’ + ceiling heightHouse design not affected144
Typical Newporrt TyTyypicalNewpHeights Lot328 Fullerton Ave50’ x 127.5’50x1276375sf5StandardCurrent CodeProposed Code(new req’s in red) 328 Fullerton Ave(Actual Construction)SetbacksFront20’No Change20’Sides4’No Change4’Rear5’No Change5’Buildable Area (B)4305 sfNo ChangeMax Floor Area(2XB)8,610 sfNo Change4718 sf (3892 sf below maximum)Height 24’ flat/29’ slopedNo Change23’9” flat/25’ 10” sloped3rdFloor Step Backs(measured from PL)•Front-35’•Sides-6’•Rear-20’Enclosed Area onlyFront/Rear/SideEnclosed and UnenclosedFront/Rear/Side Not affected, no 3rd floor3rdFloor Enclosed Area (15% of B)646 sfNo changeNot affected, no 3rdfloor3rdFloor Covered Area (50% of B)N/A2152.5 sfNot affected, no 3rdfloorOpen Volume (15% of B)646 sf min.No Change3665 sfCovered Patios on 2ndand 3rdfloor count as floor areaLess than 1 side completely openLess than 2 sidescompletely openHouse design not affectedAttics count as floor areaFinished space with 6’ + ceiling heightFinished or unfinishedspace with 6’ + ceiling heightHouse design not affected145
Larger Newporrt LargerNewpoHeights Lot630 Tustin Ave66’x 142’66x1429372sf6StandardCurrent CodeProposed Code(new req’s in red) 630 Tustin Ave(Actual Construction)SetbacksFront20’No Change20’Sides4’No Change4’Rear10’No Change10’Buildable Area (B)6496 sfNo ChangeMax Floor Area(2XB)12,992 sfNo Change4738 sf (8254 sf below maximum)Height 24’ flat/29’ slopedNo Change24’ flat3rdFloor Step Backs(measured from PL)•Front-35’•Sides-6’•Rear-25’Enclosed Area onlyFront/Rear/SideEnclosed and UnenclosedFront/Rear/Side Not affected, no 3rd floor3rdFloor Enclosed Area (15% of B)974 sfNo changeNot affected, no 3rdfloor3rdFloor Covered Area (50% of B)N/A3248 sfNot affected, no 3rdfloorOpen Volume (15% of B)974 sf min.No Change2960 sfCovered Patios on 2ndand 3rdfloor count as floor areaLess than 1 side completely openLess than 2 sides completely openHouse design not affectedAttics count as floor areaFinished space with 6’ + ceiling heightFinished or unfinishedspace with 6’ + ceiling heightHouse design not affected146
Larger Newporrt LargerNewpoHeights Lot320 Fullerton Ave60’ x 127.5’60x127.7,650 sf7StandardCurrent CodeProposed Code(new req’s in red) 320 Fullerton Ave(Actual Construction)SetbacksFront20’No Change20’Sides4’No Change4’Rear5’No Change5’Buildable Area (B)5340 sfNo ChangeMax Floor Area(2XB)10,678 sfNo Change5602 sf (5077 sf below maximum)Height 24’ flat/29’ slopedNo Change24’ flat/27’ sloped3rdFloor Step Backs(measured from PL)•Front-35’•Sides-6’•Rear-20’Enclosed Area onlyFront/Rear/SideEnclosed and UnenclosedFront/Rear/Side Not affected, no 3rd floor or covered deck3rdFloor Enclosed Area (15% of B)801 sfNo changeNot affected, no enclosed 3rdfloor area3rdFloor Covered Area (50% of B)N/A2,670 sfNot affected, 3rdfloor deck is uncoveredOpen Volume (15% of B)801 sf min.No Change1585 sfCovered Patios on 2ndand 3rdfloor count as floor areaLess than 1 side completely openLess than 2 sides completely openHouse design not affectedAttics count as floor areaFinished space with 6’ + ceiling heightFinished or unfinishedspace with 6’ + ceiling heightHouse design not affected147
Larger Newporrt LargerNewpoHeights Lot510 Kings RdApprox. 60’ x 151.6’Approx.609,100 sf8StandardCurrent CodeProposed Code(new req’s in red) 510 Kings Rd(Actual Construction)SetbacksFront20’No Change20’Sides4’No Change4’Rear10’No Change25’Buildable Area (B)6,333 sfNo ChangeMax Floor Area(2XB)12,666sfNo Change6844 sf (5822 sf below maximum)Height 24’ flat/29’ slopedNo Change24’ flat/29’ sloped3rdFloor Step Backs(measured from PL)•Front-35’•Sides-6’•Rear-25’Enclosed Area onlyFront/Rear/SideEnclosed and UnenclosedFront/Rear/Side Affected, covered 3rd floor deck would encroach 6 feet into 15-foot front step back deck3rdFloor Enclosed Area (15% of B)950 sfNo changeNot affected, 266 sf enclosed third floor3rdFloor Covered Area (50% of B)N/A3166 sfNot affected, 339 sf total covered proposedOpen Volume (15% of B)950 sf min.No Change2291 sfCovered Patios on 2ndand 3rdfloor count as floor areaLess than 1 side completely openLess than 2 sides completely openHouse design not affectedAttics count as floor areaFinished space with 6’ + ceiling heightFinished or unfinishedspace with 6’ + ceiling heightHouse design not affected148
Attachment No. PC 8
HCD Letter and Staff Correspondence
149
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE150
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
July 31, 2020
Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Bay C
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Jaime Murillo:
RE: Pending Zoning Amendments and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019
Letter of Technical Assistance
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information to assist the City of Newport Beach
(City) in its decision-making regarding the application of the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330,
2019) to the City’s pending residential design standards code amendments (PA2019-
070) that include amendments to the zoning code and local coastal program.
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 was signed by Governor Newsom on October 9, 2019
and became effective on January 1, 2020. The Housing Crisis Act (Gov. Code, § 66300
et seq.) generally prohibits a locality from enacting a development policy, standard or
condition that reduces intensity, imposes moratoriums, enforces subjective design
standards, or implements any provision that limits approvals or caps population. These
provisions remain in effect until January 1, 2025. Specifically, Government Code section
66300, subdivision (b)(1)(A), does not allow a locality to enact requirements that result in
a less intensive use.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviewed the
May 7, 2020 Planning Commission agenda materials revising residential development
standards that apply to single and two-unit residential developments. The pending
revisions generally reduce bulk and mass to step back covered third floor decks. HCD
understands the revisions do not impact the ability to achieve maximum densities
independently or cumulatively in combination with all other development standards. For
this reason, the pending revisions do not trigger the Housing Crisis Act “less intensive
use” provisions under Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(A).
The City has also sought confirmation that development or redevelopment of a parcel
with a single-family home does not trigger the definition of a “housing development
project” pursuant to Government Code section 66300, subdivision (a)(6). HCD confirms
this understanding.
151
Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner
Page 2
HCD appreciates the opportunity to provide information to assist the City in its decision-
making. HCD welcomes the opportunity to assist the City in meeting statutory
requirements. Please feel free to contact Shawn Danino at Shawn.Danino@hcd.ca.gov
for any additional information and assistance.
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief
152
From: Murillo, Jaime
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:30 AM
To: 'McDougall, Paul@HCD'
Subject: RE: Question on SB330 Compliance
Thank you. Mostly regulating covered deck area. But also includes regulating 3rd floor area (but not total
allowed floor area) to zones that were previously exempt from standard, and revising the definition of
gross floor area to better regulate attics and deck openings. Here is a list of each change.
The proposed amendments would reduce bulk and mass associated with future residential
development as follows:
Revisions to Third Floor Standards
x Third floor step backs would apply to covered deck areas (currently applies only to
enclosed floor area).
x Third floor side step backs would apply to lots 30 feet wide or greater (currently applies
to lots wider than 30 feet).
x Maximum covered third floor area (enclosed or unenclosed) limited to 50 percent of
buildable area. Uncovered deck area would remain unrestricted.
x Third floor step back standards (front and rear) would apply to 25-foot wide or less lots
zoned R-2 (currently exempt).
Clarification of Gross Floor Area
x Unfinished attics with a ceiling height of 6 feet or higher would count as floor area
(currently only finished attics count).
x Covered patios, decks, and balconies above the first floor would count as floor area
unless completely open on at least two sides, rather than one side.
x Carports only open on one side would count as floor area.
Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings in the R-BI and RM Zones
x Third floor and open volume standards applicable to R-1 and R-2 zones would now
apply to single- and two-unit dwellings in Two-Unit Residential, Balboa Island (R-BI) and
Multiple Residential (RM) zones.
From: McDougall, Paul@HCD <Paul.McDougall@hcd.ca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:25 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: RE: Question on SB330 Compliance
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
153
Thank you Sir. We got a couple folks looking at it and we should be able to get something to you within a
week or two. It just applies to the deck area, right?
From: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:17 AM
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD <Paul.McDougall@hcd.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Question on SB330 Compliance
Thanks Paul, I appreciate it the review. Here is a link to the staff report, which details each change and
the effect it will have (its long but lots of exhibits and pictures):
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=66751 [newportbeachca.gov]
[newportbeachca.gov]
Page 16 of staff report includes my SB330 analysis. The change swill have absolutely no impact on
density; however, we are being challenged with respect to intensity of land use as defined in Section
66300(b)(1)(A) :
ȋȌȋͳȌ ȋȌǡ
ǡ
ǡǡ ǣ
ȋȌ ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ ǡ
ͳǡʹͲͳͺǡ ȋȌȋȌǤ
ǡDzdz ǡǡ
ǡǡǡ ǡ
ǡǡ
ǡǤ
From: McDougall, Paul@HCD <Paul.McDougall@hcd.ca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 8:19 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: RE: Question on SB330 Compliance
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
You can send that to me – Just curious for now, how does less deck area result in less units?
From: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 4:49 PM
To: McDougall, Paul@HCD <Paul.McDougall@hcd.ca.gov>
Subject: Question on SB330 Compliance
154
Hey Paul,
I was hoping you could point me in the right direction with a question or a request
we have. Our Planning Commission directed staff to reach out to State for an
interpretation or determination of compliance with SB330, who could I reach out to
or do you have a process for that?
Background
I’ve been working on some changes to Residential Design Standards to control 3rd floor bulk
and massing. As a result of a major Zoning Code update in 2010, we have seen a dramatic rise
in new 3-story homes and covered 3rd level roof decks. The current code attempts to regulate
the mass of 3rd floors through additional step backs on the 3rd level, but unfortunately only
applies to enclosed floor area and not covered deck area. The City Council directed staff to
revise the code to apply step-backs to covered deck area and eliminate the unintended
consequence of the 2010 Code change. There are a number of other minor design changes, but
nothing that would impact allowed density or allowed floor area. I presented the item to our
Planning Commission last night and we received a lot of comments opposing the change from
relators and property owners stating these amendments would violate SB330. Specifically, they
believe our 3rd floor step-backs are new setbacks precluded under the law.
As you know, SB330 restricts the adoption of zoning amendments that would result in the
reduction of allowed density or intensity of land uses than what is allowed under the regulations
in effect on January 1, 2018. The law defines “less intensive use” to include, but is not limited to,
reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size
requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or
maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing.
Our City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the draft code revisions and determined that they do not
violate SB 330 in that they would not result in the reduction of allowable density (number of units)
on a lot, nor result in any changes in overall height limits, allowable floor area, lot coverage, or
setbacks that would lessen the allowable intensity of housing site. Each lot will maintain the same
allowed height limits, building setbacks, and floor area limits as previously entitled, and the
application of third floor and open volume regulations wouldn’t preclude the ability for a homeowner
to achieve the same development intensity.
Here is a link to the staff report in case you would like to know more about each proposed code
change: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=66751 [newportbeachca.gov]
Thanks so much, please let me know.
Jaime
JAIME MURILLO, AICP
Community Development Department
Principal Planner
jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3209
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Bay C, Newport Beach, California 92660 [google.com] | newportbeachca.gov
[newportbeachca.gov]
155
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE156
Attachment No. PC 9
Floor Area Intensity Analysis
157
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE158
Typical Balboa Island Lot (Single-Unit Example): 30’ x 85’ = 2,550 sfBuildable Area: 24’ x 70’ = 1680sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area plus 200 sfMaximum Floor Area Allowed: 2520 + 200 = 2720 sf Proposed New Standards: Minimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 252 sfMaximum 3rdFloor: 20% x Buildable Area= 336 sfMaximum 3rdFloor Area and Covered Deck Area: 50% x Buildable Area= 840 sfThird floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)1stFloor 1680 sf2ndFloor 1680 sf3rdFloor 336 sfTotal Possible 3696 sfTotal Allowed 2720 sfResult-No loss of intensity3’1st– 1680 sf possible(400+1280)10’5’3’Buildable Area1680 sf (24’ x 70’)Min. Open Volume 252 sf2-Car Garage 400 sf1stFloor1280 sf2ndFloor 1428 sf3rd Floor 336 sf2nd – 1428 sf possible3rd – 336 sf possible3rd Floor Step Back Area 800 sfGarage AreaMinimum Open VolumePossible Living Area 3rdFloor Step BacksMax 3rdFloor & Covered Deck AreaFigure 1159
Typical Balboa Island Lot (Duplex Example): 30’ x 85’ = 2,550 sfBuildable Area: 24’ x 70’ = 1680sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area plus 200 sfMaximum Floor Area Allowed: 2520 + 200= 2720 sf Proposed New Standards: Minimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 252 sfMaximum 3rdFloor: 20% x Buildable Area= 336 sfMaximum 3rdFloor Area and Covered Deck Area: 50% x Buildable Area= 840 sfThird floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)1stFloor 1296 sf2ndFloor 1680 sf3rdFloor 336 sfTotal Possible 3312 sfTotal Allowed 2720 sfResult-No loss of intensity10’5’3’3’Buildable Area1680 sf (24’ x 70’)2-Car Carport 384 sf(meets min. open volume)2-Car Garage 400 sf1stFloor896 sf2ndFloor 1680 sf1st– 1296 sf possible(400+896)2nd – 1680 sf possible3rd Floor 336 sf3rd – 336 sf possible3rd Floor Step Back Area 800 sfGarage AreaMinimum Open VolumePossible Living Area 3rdFloor Step BacksMax 3rdFloor & Covered Deck AreaFigure 2160
1stFloor 1908 sf2ndFloor 2292 sf3rdFloor 1310 sfTotal Possible 5510 sfTotal Allowed 4,411 sfResult-No loss of intensity7’0’3’3’2-Car Garage 400 sf1stFloor1492 sf2ndFloor 2292 sf1st– 1908 sf possible(400 + 1508)2nd – 2292 sf possibleBalboa Peninsula RM Lot (Duplex 2-Car Example): 30’ x 102.5’ = 3,075 sfBuildable Area: 24’ x 95.5= 2292 sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.75 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garageMaximum Floor Area Allowed: 4,011 + 400 = 4,411sfMinimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 344 sfProposed New Standards: Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)Buildable Area2292 sf (24’ x 95.5’)2-Car Carport 384 sf(meets min. open volume)3rd Floor 1310 sf3rd – 1310 sf possible3rd Floor Step Back Area 982 sfGarage AreaMinimum Open VolumePossible Living Area 3rdFloor Step BacksFigure 3161
1stFloor 2292 sf2ndFloor 1948 sf3rdFloor 1310 sfTotal Possible 5550 sfTotal Allowed 4811 sfResult-No loss of intensity7’0’3’3’4-Car Garage 800 sf1stFloor1492 sf2ndFloor 1948 sf1st– 2292 sf possible(800 + 1492)2nd – 1948 sf possibleBalboa Peninsula RM Lot (Duplex 4-Car Example): 30’ x 102.5’ = 3,075 sfBuildable Area: 24’ x 95.5= 2292 sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.75 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garageMaximum Floor Area Allowed: 4,011 + 800 = 4,811sfMinimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 344 sfProposed New Standards: Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)Buildable Area2292 sf (24’ x 95.5’)Min. Open Volume 344 sf3rd Floor 1310 sf3rd – 1310 sf possible3rd Floor Step Back Area 982 sfGarage AreaMinimum Open VolumePossible Living Area 3rdFloor Step BacksFigure 4162
Balboa Peninsula RM Lot (Single-Unit 2-Car Example): 30’ x 102.5’ = 3,075 sfBuildable Area: 24’ x 95.5= 2292 sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.75 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garageMaximum Floor Area Allowed: 4,011 + 400 sf = 4411sfMinimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 344 sfProposed New Standards: Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)7’0’3’3’Buildable Area2292 sf (24’ x 95.5’)Min. Open Volume 344 sf2-Car Garage 400 sf1stFloor1892sf2ndFloor 1948 sf1st– 2292 sf possible(400 + 1892)2nd –1948 sf possible1stFloor 2292 sf2ndFloor 1948 sf3rdFloor 1310 sfTotal Possible 5550 sfTotal Allowed 4411 sfResult-No loss of intensity3rd Floor 1310 sf3rd – 1310 sf possible3rd Floor Step Back Area 982 sfGarage AreaMinimum Open VolumePossible Living Area 3rdFloor Step BacksFigure 5163
Balboa Peninsula RM Lot (Single-Unit 3-Car Example): 30’ x 102.5’ = 3,075 sfBuildable Area: 24’ x 95.5= 2292 sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.75 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garageMaximum Floor Area Allowed: 4,011 + 600 sf = 4611sfMinimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 344 sfProposed New Standards: Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)7’0’3’3’Buildable Area2292 sf (24’ x 95.5’)Min. Open Volume 344 sf3-Car Garage 600 sf1stFloor1692sf2ndFloor 1948 sf1st– 2292 sf possible(600 + 1692)2nd –1948 sf possible1stFloor 2292 sf2ndFloor 1948 sf3rdFloor 1310 sfTotal Possible 5550 sfTotal Allowed 4611 sfResult-No loss of intensity3rd Floor 1310 sf3rd – 458 sf possible3rd Floor Step Back Area 982 sfGarage AreaMinimum Open VolumePossible Living Area 3rdFloor Step BacksFigure 6164
1stFloor 2203 sf2ndFloor 2292 sf3rdFloor 1560 sfTotal Possible 6055 sfTotal Allowed 4,288 sfResult-No loss of intensity5’5’3’3’2-Car Garage 400 sf1stFloor1803 sf2ndFloor 2592 sf1st– 2203 sf possible(400 + 1803)2nd – 2592 sf possibleCDM RM Lot (Duplex 2-Car Example): 30’ x 118’ = 3,540 sfBuildable Area: 24’ x 108’= 2,592 sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garageMaximum Floor Area Allowed: 3,888 + 400 = 4,288 sfMinimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 389 sfThird floor step backs (15 feet front and rear)Proposed New Standards: Third floor step backs (2 feet sides)Buildable Area2592 sf (24’ x 108’)2-Car Carport 389 sf(meets min. open volume)3rd Floor 1560 sf3rd – 1560 sf possible3rd Floor Step Back Area 1032 sfGarage AreaMinimum Open VolumePossible Living Area 3rdFloor Step BacksFigure 7165
1stFloor 2592 sf2ndFloor 2203 sf3rdFloor 1560 sfTotal Possible 6355 sfTotal Allowed 4688 sfResult-No loss of intensity5’5’3’3’4-Car Garage 800 sf1stFloor1792 sf2ndFloor 2203 sf1st– 2592 sf possible(800 + 1792)2nd – 2203 sf possibleMin. Open Volume 389 sfCDM RM Lot (Duplex 4-Car Example): 30’ x 118’ = 3,540 sfBuildable Area: 24’ x 108’= 2,592 sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garageMaximum Floor Area Allowed: 3,888 + 800 = 4,688 sfMinimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 389 sfThird floor step backs (15 feet front and rear)Proposed New Standards: Third floor step backs (2 feet sides)Buildable Area2592 sf (24’ x 108’)3rd Floor 1560 sf3rd – 1560 sf possible3rd Floor Step Back Area 1032 sfGarage AreaMinimum Open VolumePossible Living Area 3rdFloor Step BacksFigure 8166
5’5’3’3’Min. Open Volume 389 sf2-Car Garage 400 sf1stFloor21922ndFloor 2203 sf1st– 2592 sf possible(400 + 2192)2nd –2203 sf possible1stFloor 2592 sf2ndFloor 2203 sf3rdFloor 1560 sfTotal Possible 6355 sfTotal Allowed 4288 sfResult-No loss of intensityCDM RM Lot (Single-Unit 2- Car Example): 30’ x 118’ = 3,540 sfBuildable Area: 24’ x 108’= 2,592 sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garageMaximum Floor Area Allowed: 3,888 + 400 = 4,288 sfMinimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 389 sfThird floor step backs (15 feet front and rear)Proposed New Standards: Third floor step backs (2 feet sides)Buildable Area2592 sf (24’ x 108’)3rd Floor 1560 sf3rd – 1560 sf possible3rd Floor Step Back Area 1032 sfGarage AreaMinimum Open VolumePossible Living Area 3rdFloor Step BacksFigure 9167
1stFloor 1224 sf2ndFloor 1520 sf3rdFloor 950 sfTotal Possible 3694 sfTotal Allowed 3040 sfResult-No loss of intensity10’5’3’3’2-Car Garage 370 sf1stFloor854 sf2ndFloor 1520 sf3rd Floor 950 sf1st– 1224 sf possible(370 + 854)2nd – 1520 sf possible3rd – 950 sf possibleGarage AreaPossible Living AreaRequired Step Backs Balboa Peninsula R-2 25’ wide lot (Duplex Example): 25’ x 95’ = 2,375 sfBuildable Area: 19’ x 80’= 1,520 sf Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area Maximum Floor Area Allowed: 3,040 sfProposed New Standards: Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear)Buildable Area1520 sf (19’ x 80’)2-Car Carport 296 sfFront Step Back19 x 15=285 sfRear Step Back19 x 15=285 sfFigure 10168
From:Ted
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Fwd: Residential design standards amendments
Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 6:33:56 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear planning commission,
Please adopt changes to third story massing on Balboa Island.
Thank-you
Ed Black
Balboa Island
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Randy Black
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS - September 17 Meeting
Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:24:12 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Chairman Weigand, Vice Chair Lowrey, Secretary Kleiman and Commissioners
Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Koetting and Rosene:
My family has owned property in Newport Beach since 1926. As a Newport Beach native and
homeowner, and as a real estate broker and investor for over thirty years, I strongly support
the proposed amendments to the Residential Design Standards regarding third story massing
and the definition of gross floor area.
These amendments have been extensively vetted and are overwhelmingly popular with
property owners. They are endorsed by all three community organizations on Balboa Island -
the Balboa Island Improvement Association, the Little Balboa Island Property Owners
Association and the Balboa Island Preservation Association. Multiple City Council meetings
and public hearings have been held since the City Council initiated these amendments almost a
year and a half ago and the great majority of residents (other than a handful of developers and
real estate brokers) have shown their strong support.
The amendments have been approved by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development and by the Newport Beach City Attorney, thereby removing any
legal concerns.
Property Values
The proposed amendments are necessary to maintain property values in the City. The existing
charm and character of Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, the Peninsula and the other affected
neighborhoods support their very high property values. Unfortunately, too many of the newest
properties detract from this charm and character by building to the uttermost limits of the
design standards adopted in 2010, thereby creating unsightly three story boxes that overwhelm
their neighborhoods. In my experience, deterioration of property values inevitably follows
unregulated, out of control construction and property use. We need to preserve the unique
qualities of our neighborhoods that make them desirable places to live. The proposed
amendments preserve and enhance property values in our community without reducing the
building footprint, height or buildable area.
Property Rights
All City planning, zoning and development regulations could be said to restrict the right of a
property owner to do exactly as he or she pleases, regardless of the effect on the
neighborhood. However, the purpose of such regulations is to, among other things, protect the
property rights of adjoining landowners to enjoy their properties by preserving the existing
character of an area, and to provide for further development to take place in a manner
consistent with existing neighborhood uses. This is why you are not allowed to build a ten
story commercial facility in a single family residential neighborhood. Unfortunately, since the
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Residential Code Update in 2010, clever architects have taken advantage of unintended
loopholes to build three story boxes (similar to the unfortunate “tall skinnies” of Huntington
Beach) which overwhelm the adjoining properties and trample upon their neighbors’ rights.
These amendments are necessary to protect the property rights of these neighbors.
The proposed amendments are essentially technical corrections to conform the 2010
residential design standards to their original intent. They do not reduce any homeowner’s
available building footprint, height or buildable area. These amendments will help maintain
property values and property rights in the affected areas. They are overwhelmingly popular
with property owners. I urge you to adopt them.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Respectfully,
Randy Black
Newport Beach
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Yonkers, Ken J - NEWPORT BE CA
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Residential Design Standards Code Amendments (PA2019-070)
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 8:09:50 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Planning Commission:
We have emailed you previously but as this is on your agenda for tomorrow, we wanted to revisit
this important issue.
The Little Balboa Island Property Owners’ Association recently solicited opinions and took a poll of
our constituents through Constant Contact on the proposed setback requirements. We did not
attempt to steer their vote or decision and provided the City’s link for further information.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of the respondents were in favor of the proposed setback requirements.
Of the various associations on Balboa island, please note that we are also the only association that is
a Property Owners Association.
We also wanted to make you aware that the Little Balboa Island Property Owners’ Association Board
unanimously voted in favor of the proposed setback requirements and that is our official position.
If this does not work for all of Newport, the residents of Balboa Island seem overwhelmingly in favor
and request this be put in place at least for Balboa Island properties.
If you would like any additional information or feedback, please let us know.
Thank you for your work on this.
Best regards,
Ken
Ken Yonkers, President
Little Balboa Island Property Owners’ Association
P.O. Box 74
Balboa Island, CA 92662
949-683-7805
The Little Balboa Island Property Owners’ Association is dedicated to maintaining a safe,
enjoyable, and harmonious neighborhood while increasing the value of its members’
properties.
Please visit our website: littlebalboaisland.org
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms
and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete this message.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Sanjeet Nijjar
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Third Story Massing Amendment Support
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:39:02 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Newport Beach Planning commissioners,
As a Peninsula Point Neighbor, we urge you to approve the amendments to the third story guidelines. This will help
to mitigate the effects felt in our neighborhood due to third story massing.
Thank you for your help with this.
-Sanjeet S. Nijjar
2046 Seville Ave
Newport Beach CA 92661.
I Also am the owner of these Peninsula Point Properties.
1717 Miramar Dr
2150 Miramar Dr
417 Seville
1515 E Balboa
1418/1416 E Balboa
1714 Plaza Del Norte
1747 Plaza Del Sur
Sent from my iPhone 11 Pro Max
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:John Bibb
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Third story residential structures
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:51:32 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
As a Peninsula Point Neighbor, we urge you to approve the amendments to the third story guidelines. This will help
to mitigate the effects felt in our neighborhood due to third story massing.
Thank you
John Bibb
421 M Street
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Sept 16,, 2020
City of Newport Planning Commission
Re:PA 2019-070- 3rd story amendments
Planning Commissioners,
I am relieved to see the City take the first step in attempting to mitigate the negative effects of
the current third story guidelines. I have worked as a design professional on many projects over
the last 40 years in Newport Beach. I also have owned a home in town for the last 30 years. At
the urging of many of my neighbors and clients that reside on Peninsula Point, I have been
actively attending the community workshops that the Planning department was sponsoring to
evaluate the current massing problems we are experiencing.
The proliferation of the third story mass has adversely affected the character and value of many
properties including my own. It has taken away natural wind patterns thus necessitating the
need for more Air conditioning in the Summer. It has blocked much needed sunlight which has
increased the need for more heat in the Winter. And, most importantly, it has virtually eliminated
the character that brought most residents to our neighborhoods in the first place. Furthermore, I
have personally been hired to design mitigation additions to bring back privacy lost from
neighbors’ third story structures looming over a given property. This domino effect is clearly
counter productive towards maintaining an overall scale in our neighborhoods.
As a designer, I am all too familiar with the nuanced wording of the third story guidelines.
The third story rule was intended to reduce some of the mass by requiring it to be 15’ from the
front and rear setbacks. However, the error was that it did not specify covered patios. Clearly,
this was an oversight because the advent of these roofs over patios did nothing to reduce mass
and help to maintain neighbors' natural light and wind patterns. Moreover, many of these
approved covered roofs were then closed in and illegally converted into living space. This is
why I have argued about the absurdity of the third story guidelines for years.
The real issue isn’t actually square footage, it is massing. My argument from day one was to
create a massing envelope for each property thus ensuring that each neighbor can retain some
meaningful amount of sunlight and air circulation. During the workshops and behind closed
doors I argued and lobbied for this effectively hoping for a maximum perimeter height of 22’ with
all four sides increasing at a 45 degree angle until the maximum height of 29’ was reached. No
square footage limitation within that envelope. Simple! Easy to administer and a huge boost to
preserving light, wind, and character. Sadly that is not what is being proposed. Regardless,
what the Planning Staff is proposing is a compromise solution based on many public meetings
based on lots of input.
The proposal to eliminate covered patios within the first 15’ of the rear and front setbacks along
with counting all covered areas as square footage will provide meaningful relief to our
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
neighborhoods. We are not proposing a reduction in allowable square footage on a lot. That
hasn’t changed. Therefore we haven’t reduced the value of such properties. Rather, we are
inching towards preserving the value of the existing properties.
Myself along with many of my neighbors strongly urge you to approve this amendment as an
initial step towards preserving our neighborhoods..
Sincerely
Mark Becker
Mark Becker Incorporated
410 Belvue Lane,
Newport Beach, CA
92661
mbecker@markbecker.com
510-589-5547
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Kathie Malcomb
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Third story amendment
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:18:46 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
As peninsula point neighbors, we urge you to approve the amendment to the 3rd story
guidelines. This will help to mitigate the effects felt in our neighborhood due to 3rd story
massing.
Kathie and Bill Malcomb
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Mark Zablan
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Approve Amendment to 3rd Story Massing
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:25:09 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Planning Commission,
As a Peninsula Point Neighbor, we urge you to approve the amendments to the third story
guidelines. This will help to mitigate the effects felt in our neighborhood due to third story
massing.
I have lived on the peninsula for a while, in 3 different homes and most recently I built my
current residence near The Wedge. Extending roof structures over roof decks up to the front
and rear setbacks will be quite imposing and an unintended consequence of the original code,
not to mention a blemish in our beautiful and unique community.
Thank you,
Mark Zablan
Channel Rd
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Rick Taylor
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Third Story Amendments
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:30:15 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
To whom it may concern:
As a 20 year resident of Peninsula Point I urge you to approve the amendments to the third story
guidelines. It is a small but important measure to help limit third story massing that is changing the
landscape of the Peninsula.
Thank you,
Rick Taylor
2130 E. Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, Ca. 92661
949.402.3577
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Roberta Schmidt
To:Planning Commissioners
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:35:08 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
As a long time resident of the Balboa Peninsula Point I am urging the
Planning Commission to approve the limitation of building/massing
upon the 3rd stories of homes. To keep the historical integrity of the
Peninsula the amendment limiting the expansion/massing of the third
story would really be to the benefit of all residents in the area.
Your truly,
Roberta Schmidt
1805 E. Balboa Blvd.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:A. A.
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Third Story Massing
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:49:00 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
hello,
I wanted to send a quick note, As a Peninsula Point Neighbor, we urge you to approve
the amendments to the third story guidelines. This will help to mitigate the effects felt
in our neighborhood due to third story massing. Thank you for your time..
best,
Adrienne Armstrong
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Sarah Donovan
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Limit building please
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:08:59 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello!
"As a Peninsula Point Neighbor, we urge you to approve the amendments to the third story
guidelines. This will help to mitigate the effects felt in our neighborhood due to third story
massing."
And if you could limit the McMansions that would be great too. Lots and lots of large empty
homes.
Sincerely,
Sarah Donovan
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Cathy Kinney
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Approve the amendment to 3rd story guidelines
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:21:47 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Good afternoon,
As a longtime resident of Peninsula Point I urge you to approve the amendments tothe third story guidelines. As each cute little beach house is torn down another hugelot line to lot line home is built, creating more and more mass in our smallneighborhood. Amending the policy to keep the third story structures in the middleof the home would help to mitigate this massing and maintain the charm of our
neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration,
Cathy Kinney Belvue Lane
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:adrienne matros
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Third Story Guidelines Peninsula Point
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:25:40 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Planning Commission,
As long time residents of the Peninsula Point, we and our neighbors urge you to approve the amendments to the
third story guidelines. This will help to mitigate the effects felt in our neighborhood due to third story massing.
Sincerely,
Rick and Adrienne Matros
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Tim Collins
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Planning amendment- 3rd story roof decks
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:45:35 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Commissioners, I support your proposed action tonight.
Such an ordinance will reduce the adverse impacts on our Peninsula Point neighborhood due due excessive massing.
Thank you for your commitment to this needed change.
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Chris Budnik
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Fw: New Residential Design Standards proposed for your property (PA2019-070)
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:39:40 PM
Attachments:Newport Heights Analysis_RDS changes.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Planning Commission,
As you can see below, I worked with Jaime Murillo to assess the impact of the proposed
changes on several sample properties in the Newport Heights/Cliff Haven area.
City staff has previously indicated that no significant impact is expected for larger lots yet the
attached analysis shows a definite impact. While I can understand the need for the proposed
changes in dense areas with small lots, I do not see benefit for larger lots. To the contrary, the
analysis shows these changes negatively affect existing designs in Newport Heights/Cliff
Haven yet fail to address the use of industrial/commercial designs for residential structures.
Very few property owners are aware of these proposed changes and city staff admittedly has
not done a comprehensive analysis of the impacts to larger lots. Unfortunately Covid 19
makes it impossible to educate folks in person or circulate a petition requesting changes to this
proposal.
For these reasons, I request these proposed changes be applicable only to lots less than 45 feet
wide. Given the large number of R1 standards the city already has in place for different
Associations, it should not be difficult to manage one more standard in order to avoid
imposing these changes on large lots.
Sincerely,
Christopher Budnik
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Chris Budnik <clbudnik2003@yahoo.com>
To: carol@thedrufamily.com <carol@thedrufamily.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 11:53:22 AM PDT
Subject: Fw: New Residential Design Standards proposed for your property
Hello Carol,
Below is the email I sent to Newport Heights Association members with the
powerpoint presentation I helped create with city staff. I am sorry to hear the folks in
Cliff Haven may be completely unaware of the proposal. All of this is being done
without formal notification to property owners. Please forward this information to your
members. The proposal is supposed to be on the agenda for the Planning
Commission meeting tomorrow, 9/17.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
If it were not for Covid19, I would circulate a petition to make sure the proposed
changes do not apply to our properties. We may have design problems to solve in
our area but the proposed changes do not address them. For lack of a petition, the
only tools we have are emails to city council.
Thanks for your help with this!
Best Regards,
Chris
Vice President
Newport Heights Association Board
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Chris Budnik <clbudnik2003@yahoo.com>
To: chris budnik <clbudnik2003@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020, 12:13:05 PM PDT
Subject: Fw: New Residential Design Standards proposed for your property
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Chris Budnik <clbudnik2003@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020, 09:23:10 PM PDT
Subject: New Residential Design Standards proposed for your property
Fellow Members,
Your ownership rights to develop your property may be changing.
Attached is an analysis of proposed changes to R1 and R2 Residential Design
Standards. The purpose was to estimate how proposed changes would affect our
neighborhood. I suggested five sample properties and Jaime Murillo (City Planner)
did a fantastic job in reviewing each change against all five designs.
My thoughts:
The house at 510 Kings Road would be impacted and could no longer be built under
the proposed changes. I personally like the design. I find it attractive and artistic. I
would prefer to encourage more houses like it versus prohibit them.
We don’t have a problem in our area with 3 story designs on skinny lots so I
recommend we change the Proposal and have the changes only apply to lots which
are less than 45 feet wide. This exempts our area yet allows the proposal to be
enacted for the benefit of other neighborhoods.
I know other Board members have different thoughts on this subject but the opinions
of all homeowners should be taken into account. Please take a few minutes to review
the attachment and share your thoughts and ideas.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
The state of CA has confirmed the Proposal is compliant with recent legislation
(SB330) so it should show up on city meeting agendas within the next two months.
Sincerely,
Chris
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Proposed Changes to
Residential Design Standards
Potential Impacts to Newport Heights
(PA2019-070)
Prepared for the Newport Heights Improvement Association
Jaime Murillo –Principal Planner
Jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov; (949) 644-3209
July 31, 2020
Project Webpage:
www.newportbeachca.gov/residentialdesignstandards
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Background
•A comprehensive Zoning Code update in 2010 included changes to building height measurement standards
and definition of gross floor area that have inadvertently resulted in proliferation of covered third level
decks and bulkier residential building designs. Despite measuring the same in terms of enclosed gross floor
area, newer development appears larger and at times out of scale with the pre -2010 development.
•As a result of community concerns related to the bulk and mass associated with new single-and two-unit
dwelling developments in the City, the City Council held a study session on April 23, 2019, and directed staff
to prepare amendments regulating these concerns.
•Third story designs are commonly utilized in older communities with smaller lots, such as Corona del Mar,
Balboa Island, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula, to maximize the development potential of these
small lots.
•Given the larger lot sizes in Newport Heights, third level designs are less common and the proposed changes
are not expected to have a significant impact on the design of typical new development in the area.
•This analysis is not comprehensive, but intended to provide an illustrative example of how recent
development in Newport Heights would have been affected by these proposed amendments. The analysis
includes 5 properties in the area suggested by Chris Budnik, a NHIA Board Member.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Revisions to Third Floor Standards
•Third floor step backs*would apply to covered deck areas (currently applies only to enclosed floor area).
•Third floor side step backs would apply to lots 30 feet wide or greater (currently applies to lots wider than 30
feet).
•Maximum covered third floor area (enclosed or unenclosed)limited to 50 percent of buildable area.
Uncovered deck area would remain unrestricted.
Clarification of Gross Floor Area
•Unfinished attics with a ceiling height of 6 feet or higher would count as floor area (currently only finished
attics count).
•Covered patios,decks,and balconies above the first floor would count as floor area unless completely open on
at least two sides,rather than one side.
•Carports only open on one side would count as floor area.
*A step back is an additional offset of a wall of building feature beyond the minimum setback line.
Proposed Code Revisions That May Impact
Newport Heights Development
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Typical Newport
Heights Lot
401 Fullerton Ave
50’ x 127.5’
6375sf
4
Standard Current Code Proposed Code
(new req’s in red)
401 Fullerton Ave
(Actual Construction)
Setbacks
Front 20’No Change 20’
Sides 4’No Change 4’
Rear 5’No Change 5’
Buildable Area (B)4305 sf No Change
Max Floor Area
(2XB)
8,610 sf No Change 7260 sf
(1350 sf below maximum)
Height 24’ flat/29’ sloped No Change 24’ flat/29’ sloped
3rd Floor Step Backs
(measured from PL)
•Front-35’
•Sides-6’
•Rear-20’
Enclosed Area only
Front/Rear/Side
Enclosed and
Unenclosed
Front/Rear/Side
Not affected, 3rd floor deck is
uncovered and is not subject
to current or proposed
changes.
3rd Floor Enclosed
Area (15% of B)
646 sf No change Not affected, no 3rd floor
enclosed area
3rd Floor Covered
Area (50% of B)
N/A 2152.5 sf Not affected, no 3rd floor
covered area
Open Volume (15%
of B)
646 sf min.No Change 818 sf
Covered Patios on
2nd and 3rd floor
count as floor area
Less than 1 side
completely open
Less than 2 sides
completely open
House design not affected
Attics count as
floor area
Finished space with 6’
+ ceiling height
Finished or unfinished
space with 6’ + ceiling
height
House design not affected
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Typical Newport
Heights Lot
328 Fullerton Ave
50’ x 127.5’
6375sf
5
Standard Current Code Proposed Code
(new req’s in red)
328 Fullerton Ave
(Actual Construction)
Setbacks
Front 20’No Change 20’
Sides 4’No Change 4’
Rear 5’No Change 5’
Buildable Area (B)4305 sf No Change
Max Floor Area
(2XB)
8,610 sf No Change 4718 sf
(3892 sf below maximum)
Height 24’ flat/29’ sloped No Change 23’9” flat/25’ 10” sloped
3rd Floor Step Backs
(measured from PL)
•Front-35’
•Sides-6’
•Rear-20’
Enclosed Area only
Front/Rear/Side
Enclosed and
Unenclosed
Front/Rear/Side
Not affected, no 3rd floor
3rd Floor Enclosed
Area (15% of B)
646 sf No change Not affected, no 3rd floor
3rd Floor Covered
Area (50% of B)
N/A 2152.5 sf Not affected, no 3rd floor
Open Volume (15%
of B)
646 sf min.No Change 3665 sf
Covered Patios on
2nd and 3rd floor
count as floor area
Less than 1 side
completely open
Less than 2 sides
completely open
House design not affected
Attics count as
floor area
Finished space with 6’
+ ceiling height
Finished or unfinished
space with 6’ + ceiling
height
House design not affected
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Larger Newport
Heights Lot
630 Tustin Ave
66’x 142’
9372sf
6
Standard Current Code Proposed Code
(new req’s in red)
630 Tustin Ave
(Actual Construction)
Setbacks
Front 20’No Change 20’
Sides 4’No Change 4’
Rear 10’No Change 10’
Buildable Area (B)6496 sf No Change
Max Floor Area
(2XB)
12,992 sf No Change 4738 sf
(8254 sf below maximum)
Height 24’ flat/29’ sloped No Change 24’ flat
3rd Floor Step Backs
(measured from PL)
•Front-35’
•Sides-6’
•Rear-25’
Enclosed Area only
Front/Rear/Side
Enclosed and
Unenclosed
Front/Rear/Side
Not affected, no 3rd floor
3rd Floor Enclosed
Area (15% of B)
974 sf No change Not affected, no 3rd floor
3rd Floor Covered
Area (50% of B)
N/A 3248 sf Not affected, no 3rd floor
Open Volume (15%
of B)
974 sf min.No Change 2960 sf
Covered Patios on
2nd and 3rd floor
count as floor area
Less than 1 side
completely open
Less than 2 sides
completely open
House design not affected
Attics count as
floor area
Finished space with 6’
+ ceiling height
Finished or unfinished
space with 6’ + ceiling
height
House design not affected
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Larger Newport
Heights Lot
320 Fullerton Ave
60’ x 127.5’
7,650 sf
7
Standard Current Code Proposed Code
(new req’s in red)
320 Fullerton Ave
(Actual Construction)
Setbacks
Front 20’No Change 20’
Sides 4’No Change 4’
Rear 5’No Change 5’
Buildable Area (B)5340 sf No Change
Max Floor Area
(2XB)
10,678 sf No Change 5602 sf
(5077 sf below maximum)
Height 24’ flat/29’ sloped No Change 24’ flat/27’ sloped
3rd Floor Step Backs
(measured from PL)
•Front-35’
•Sides-6’
•Rear-20’
Enclosed Area only
Front/Rear/Side
Enclosed and
Unenclosed
Front/Rear/Side
Not affected, no 3rd floor or
covered deck
3rd Floor Enclosed
Area (15% of B)
801 sf No change Not affected, no enclosed 3rd
floor area
3rd Floor Covered
Area (50% of B)
N/A 2,670 sf Not affected, 3rd floor deck is
uncovered
Open Volume (15%
of B)
801 sf min.No Change 1585 sf
Covered Patios on
2nd and 3rd floor
count as floor area
Less than 1 side
completely open
Less than 2 sides
completely open
House design not affected
Attics count as
floor area
Finished space with 6’
+ ceiling height
Finished or unfinished
space with 6’ + ceiling
height
House design not affected
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Larger Newport
Heights Lot
510 Kings Rd
Approx. 60’ x 151.6’
9,100 sf
8
Standard Current Code Proposed Code
(new req’s in red)
510 Kings Rd
(Actual Construction)
Setbacks
Front 20’No Change 20’
Sides 4’No Change 4’
Rear 10’No Change 25’
Buildable Area (B)6,333 sf No Change
Max Floor Area
(2XB)
12,666sf No Change 6844 sf
(5822 sf below maximum)
Height 24’ flat/29’ sloped No Change 24’ flat/29’ sloped
3rd Floor Step Backs
(measured from PL)
•Front-35’
•Sides-6’
•Rear-25’
Enclosed Area only
Front/Rear/Side
Enclosed and
Unenclosed
Front/Rear/Side
Affected, covered 3rd floor
deck would encroach 6 feet
into 15-foot front step back
deck
3rd Floor Enclosed
Area (15% of B)
950 sf No change Not affected, 266 sf enclosed
third floor
3rd Floor Covered
Area (50% of B)
N/A 3166 sf Not affected, 339 sf total
covered proposed
Open Volume (15%
of B)
950 sf min.No Change 2291 sf
Covered Patios on
2nd and 3rd floor
count as floor area
Less than 1 side
completely open
Less than 2 sides
completely open
House design not affected
Attics count as
floor area
Finished space with 6’
+ ceiling height
Finished or unfinished
space with 6’ + ceiling
height
House design not affected
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:John Rogers
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Amendment
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:44:11 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
As a 20 year Peninsula Point Neighbor, we urge you to approve the amendments to
the third story guidelines. This will help to mitigate the effects felt in our neighborhood
due to third story massing.
Thank you. John Rogers
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Murillo, Jaime
To:Lee, Amanda; Rodriguez, Clarivel; Palencia, Ketshy
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 3 - Residential Development Standard Changes
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 4:05:05 PM
From: Catherine Wolcott <catherinewolcott@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 4:00 PM
To: Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik
<eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis
<CEllmore@newportbeachca.gov>; Klaustermeier, Sarah <sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov>;
Kleiman, Lauren <lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Rosene, Mark <mrosene@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Jacobs, Carol <cjacobs@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>;
Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>;
Waite, David P. <DWaite@coxcastle.com>; Carol Martin <candwmartin@sbcglobal.net>; Bill Martin
<bmartinworks@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 3 - Residential Development Standard Changes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
To the Chairman and members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission;
I am writing as one of the legal representatives and successor beneficiaries of the Martin
Family Trust, owner of the property located at 1824 West Ocean Front. The Martin Family
Trust hereby submits its comments regarding Agenda Item No. 3 on the Planning
Commission’s September 17, 2020 agenda.
In recognition of some of the changes staff has made to their recommendations since the May
7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, I am communicating directly on behalf of the Martin
Family Trust rather than through our outside counsel at Cox, Castle & Nicholson. If the
portions of the amendments affecting the RM zoning districts are adopted as currently written
and recommended by staff, it is my hope (and our outside counsel’s) that Cox, Castle’s future
involvement may be unnecessary.
We appreciate that staff recognizes that the development standards amendments proposed
at the May 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting would result in a reduction of the maximum
allowed floor area ratio on our property. Reducing the currently allowed floor area ratio
would be a clear violation of the State of California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330).
We also support the changes staff made to allow covered but unenclosed third-floor decks to
not be counted against the buildable area limit of the third floor in the RM zoning districts.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
We agree that the existing covered deck provisions have been abused in some other areas of
town, and some third floor covered decks have been illegally enclosed, but a covered deck
that must remain open on at least two sides should not create a situation in which the City’s
zoning laws can be similarly abused.
We still don’t think the “wedding cake” appearance that the proposed new third floor
setbacks could create in the RM zones is the best solution to the problem of perceived
massing. We still believe that, rather than adopting the proposed changes to third-floor
setbacks, imposing some of the design standards currently suggested in NBMC Section
20.48.180(B)(2) could break up portions of long, unarticulated exterior walls where they can
be seen by the public in a more visually attractive manner than straight two-foot side
setbacks. However, in the spirit of compromise and cooperation, we are willing to accept this
change so long as the other staff recommendations pertaining to third floors in RM zoning
districts are adopted as written.
Regarding the request from some Newport Heights residents that their area be exempted
entirely from the changes, I would suggest that if exemptions are to be considered, our
particular already-nearly-built-out RM-zoned block should be exempted as well, for reasons I
have been arguing on the record since May 2019.
Thank you for your consideration,
Catherine Martin Wolcott
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
September 17, 2020, Planning Commission Item 3 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. 3. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP
AMENDMENTS (PA2019-070)
Staff Report
The presentation of this item is confusing.
Page 10 announces an attachment “PC 5 Current Redline/Strikeout Version of Amendments”
referring, it turns out, to attachments to the current staff report. But after encountering the also-
announced “Attachment No. PC 4 (May 7, 2020, Planning Commission Staff Report)” on page
37, one finds a long series of numbered attachments starting on page 61 that include (starting
on page 79) and “Attachment No. PC 6 Redline Strikeout Version of Amendments” which turns
out to be the redline from May 7, not the currently proposed one, which is found in a similar-
looking attachment starting on page 117.
Possibly the Planning Commissioners have hardcopy binders with tabs distinguishing the
sections, but for the public it is frustrating trying to navigate this mass of documents in which no
distinction is made between ones that are current and ones that have been superseded.
Compliance with SB 330
As to its substance, much is made of having fulfilled the promise to seek an assurance from
HCD that the proposal is consistent with the “no reduction of potential intensity” requirement of
2019’s SB 330. The answer received from HCD, however, is only as good as the question
asked (as well as the thoroughness of the person supplying the answer). For reference, the
passage asked about was the new Government Code Subsection 66300(b)(1)(A), reproduced
on page 154 of the staff report, which prohibits the enactment (before January 1, 2025) of
zoning regulations restricting properties to a “less intensive use” from what was allowed on
January 1, 2018, where “less intensive use” is defined to include “new or increased setback
requirements.”1
The HCD respondent writes (page 151) “The pending revisions generally reduce bulk and
mass to step back covered third floor decks. HCD understands the revisions do not impact
the ability to achieve maximum densities independently or cumulatively in combination with
all other development standards” (emphasis added).
1 It seems worth noting that Subsection 66300(b)(1)(A) separately prohibits new laws restricting
properties “to a less intensive use” or “reducing the intensity of land use.” Our staff seems to have
focused on the latter, implying, for example, a new height restriction would be acceptable if it didn ’t
decrease the potential floor area, and therefore the overall intensity that could be developed. Subsection
66300(b)(1)(A) explicitly says that under the first criterion, any new height reduction is a prohibited
enactment of “a less intensive use,” as is any new or increased setback requirement, independent of
whether they are mitigated by the relaxation of some other development standard or standards. Indeed,
among the explicitly prohibited actions, what HCD staff seems to have focused on -- new reductions in
allowed density -- is just one of many prohibited enactments. The net effect on density is by no means
the final or exclusive arbiter of compliance.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
September 17, 2020, PC agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4
With all due respect, the respondent, who identifies himself as HCD’s “Land Use & Planning
Unit Chief,” seems concerned solely with residential density (dwelling units per acre – which
the current proposal does not affect) while this subparagraph within SB 330 seeks to protect
intensity of use (structure size – which the respondent seems to think it’s OK to reduce).
Moreover, the correspondence is careful, on both sides, to describe the changes as involving
new “step back” requirements – a term that does not appear in the current or proposed Zoning
Code (starting on page 17), but which a reasonable person is likely to assume means an
architectural concept in which one walls on one floor are required to be stepped back from those
on the floor below. Yet, despite this description of the requirement, both the existing and
proposed code clearly impose a setback requirement on the third floor structures. In particular,
it requires them to be set back, effectively, a stated distance from the property line,2 not from the
walls of the floors below. And per the table on page 5, these third floor setback requirements are
being newly applied to construction in the RM, R-BI and R-2 (25’ wide lots or less) districts.
Despite the HCD letter assuring us this doesn’t reduce housing densities, such a change
appears to violate SB 330’s prohibition against imposing, before 2025, new or increased
setback requirements.
Possibly HCD knows something about the intent of SB 330 that is not evident from its text, and
possibly SB 330 was intended to prohibit new setback requirements only when they reduce the
square footage that can be built, which our own staff is careful to confirm they do not. But
neither of those is what SB 330 says, and my understanding is what matters is what the text
says, not what we or an administrative agency would like it to say. In this case the text (no “new
or increased setback requirements”) is unambiguous, as is the violation of it.
Comments on Proposed Resolutions
(handwritten) Page 15, item 5: “… As a result, third floor and open volume area standards are
not being applied in the Balboa Island residential community nor to single- and two-unit
dwellings constructed on RM lots Citywide citywide. ... Application of the front and rear third
floor step back requirements to these narrow lots will provide improve building scale as viewed
from streets and alleys.” [If “provide” is retained, the following word should be “improved”.]
Page 16, top paragraph: “Furthermore, no changes in overall height limits, allowable floor area,
lot coverage, or setbacks are proposed that would lessen the allowable intensity of housing
site sites. Each lot will maintain the same allowed height limits, building setbacks, and floor
area limits as previously entitled, and the application of third floor and open volume regulations
would not preclude the ability for a homeowner to achieve the same development intensity.”
[For the reasons stated above, I disagree with the claim that no changes to building setbacks
are being proposed. Clearly, new setback requirements are being imposed on third-floor
construction in certain districts.]
2 From page 19, the proposed code (Sec. 20.48.180.A.2.c) reads “Enclosed floor area and covered deck
area located on the third floor shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front and rear
setback lines and for lots thirty (30) feet in width or greater a minimum of two feet from each side setback
line, including bay windows.” In other words, the required third floor setback from the property line is the
ground floor setback plus 15 or 2 feet as applicable.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
September 17, 2020, PC agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4
Page 17: The intended interplay between the “Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or
more units)” note and the “Single-unit and two-unit dwellings developed on a single site”
statement under “Additional Requirements” is not clear. W hat if there are three units on an RM
property but they are individually single or two-unit? Or a single-unit structure on a site with a
separate 3-unit structure?
Page 18:
“1. Applicability. The development standards in this subsection shall apply to all R-1
Zoning Districts, R-BI Zoning District, all R-2 Zoning Districts, and to all RM Zoning
Districts Citywide, except as provided below:” [The word “shall” adds absolutely nothing.
Nor do the other words crossed out.]
In “a.i”, the reason for including RM but exempting RMD is not clear. Both allow
detached multi-family structures.
“iii. Residential developments consisting of three or more units in the on a parcel in a
RM Zoning District.”
“b. Limited Application. This subsection shall be limited in its application as provided
below:”
“ii. Residential For residential developments consisting of one or two units in the RM
Zoning District, only subsections (A)(2)(c) and (A)(3) shall apply.”
Pages 18 and 19: It is very strange, and I see no explanation, at least in the resolution, for why
the transition to a smaller amount of development allowed on a third floor (from 20% to 15% of
buildable area in subparagraph 2.a) happens when the lot is “wider than thirty (30) feet,” but
the requirement (in subparagraph 2.c) to provide a 2-foot additional side setback is purposely
being changed to start when the lot is “thirty (30) feet in width or greater.” That seems
designed to create disputes about whether a lot is 29.99’ wide (20% limit with 0 additional side
setback), 30.00’ wide (20% limit with 2’ additional side setback) or 30.01’ wide (15% limit with 2’
additional side setback). That infinitesimal change in the latter threshold could also be argued to
rather arbitrarily make nonconforming a lot of construction that was legal when it was built. I
think it would be wise to adopt a uniform dividing point.
Page 20:
1.a.“iii. Any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than
six feet from finished floor to ceiling; and” [? The intent, according to the staff report is to
include unfinished areas, but it’s unclear to me how the floor (or ceiling, for that matter)
can be used as reference if it isn’t finished. But couldn’t all these new additions to
gross floor area be viewed as reducing the allowed intensity of development?]
1.b.“ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios open, with the exception of required safety
railings and minimal structural supports, on at least two sides, with the exception of
required safety railings and minimal structural supports.”
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
September 17, 2020, PC agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4
2.a.”ii. Any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than
four feet from finished floor to ceiling.”
The same suggested changes would apply to the parallel provisions in Title 21.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Mary Boyle
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Planning Commission resident feedback
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 4:52:45 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Planning Commission,
In consideration of your meeting tomorrow and to ensure that you hear from impacted residents of the Peninsula
Point, I urge you to approve the amendments to the third story guidelines. This will help to mitigate the effects felt
in our neighborhood due to third story massing. The neighborhood is starting to look and feel much like a similar
peninsula/island, that being Manhattan: taller buildings, street tunnels, limiting light and airflow, projecting noise.
Those building, often new to the neighborhood and/or spec builders, don’t realize that they won’t use the third floor
space often.
Community is built in this neighborhood, and I would argue all Newport neighborhoods, along the sidewalks and
front porches and decks. That’s where the joy is.
Sincerely,
Mary Boyle
Peninsula Point Miramar Dr. Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Heather Christiano
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Peninsula Point 3rd story amendment
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 5:57:00 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
To whom it may concern,
As a Peninsula Point neighbor, we urge you to approve the amendments to the third story guidelines. This will help
to mitigate the effects felt in our neighborhood due to third story massing. We don’t believe that the intended result
of the initial guidelines is being met.
Thank you,
Heather and Steve Christiano
Please excuse any typos... Sent from my iPhone.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Lee Pearl
To:Planning Commissioners
Cc:Terry Janssen; Ken Yonkers; jodipatrich@gmail.com; Jack Callahan; Tom Houston
Subject:Comments Massing Agenda Item 9/17/20
Date:Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:13:04 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Planning Commission: I have included my May 6th comments to the Commission. This itemhas received considerable staff work, public meeting and public comments at City meetings. Since the May 6th meeting the Little Balboa Island Property Owners Association LBIPOAalso endorsed the staff recommendations. All three resident groups BIIA, BIPA and LBIPOAnow have endorsed the staff recommendations. This is a City Council initiated item and it isthe responsibility of the Commission to return this item to the City Council for public inputand deliberation. I will not be able to testify today due to travel obligations so this is mytestimony for the hearing. Lee Pearl
May 6, 2020
Planning Commission:
I am writing this email wearing two hats. As a resident of Balboa Island with no plans to eversell or rebuild my home and as the Balboa Island Improvement Association (BIIA) LocalGovernment Liaison.
Thank you for your review of the changes and for including the Balboa Island ConstantContact in your agenda packet. I have done my job to insure as many residents of BalboaIsland as possible are aware of this initiative. The Constant Contact was distributed to 1,200emails/ Island residents. I promoted City workshops with residents and personally attendedmost of the meetings. The General Meetings last year held at the Balboa Island fire stationincluded updates too.
Four past President’s of the BIIA (included in the cc to this email) support these changes alongwith the Board of Directors of the BIIA. The President of the Little Balboa Island PropertyOwners Association was also included as a courtesy. I have corresponded with the twoindividuals on Balboa Island voicing opposition to the changes with writtencorrespondence and in the recent Constant Contact to residents encouraged those that supportand oppose the changes.
I hope the Planning Commission recognizes the importance of fixing the 2010 code revisionsthat are having a negative impacts on our communities and moving this initiative to the CityCouncil to allow our elected officials to deliberate on this issue with their constituents. I notsure how many of you were on the Commission in 2010 but the attached home on Pearl is anexample of the homes currently under constriction on the Island next to a single story withsecond story on the rear original cottage, an interesting constrast. The third photo is the homeon the other side, a modern two story home built pre 2010 code change.
I plan to testify at the Public Hearing but voice my support of the staff recommendations. The
staff has done a great job of community outreach and integrating feedback into the final staff
report.
Lee Pearl the
316 Onyx
Avenue
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Nancy Byrnes
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Amendments to third stories in Peninsula Point
Date:Thursday, September 17, 2020 9:06:30 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Commissioners,
I have just heard that you are taking up this topic tomorrow at your meeting. We are residents of Peninsula Point and
have loved the quaint feel of our neighborhood. Recently, there have been houses built that cover the entire 3rd story
with rooms. Please, approve the amendments to the 3rd story guidelines, to prevent further enlargement of the 3rd
story.
Thank you,
Nancy Byrnes and Bert Paul
2112 Seville Ave
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Balboa Island Preservation Association
The gem of Newport Beach
September 17, 2020
Dear Planning Commission:
I cannot stress enough the importance of fixing the 2010 code revisions as this is a reasonable
request that deserves your upmost attention.
Our community has the right for responsible development and by allowing third story
massing, when it was never the intent in the first place, it is “a wrong” that needs to be made
“a right.” All organizations on Balboa Island, as well as the majority of the residents support
fixing the 2010 code. Our community, which has been paying taxes and supporting our City
for many generations, should not be discounted for the desires of a few interested parties that
make money off the massing of our homes on the island.
Please acknowledge that property rights must also be extended to the property owners that
live next door to such projects. Not acknowledging this is irresponsible and turning a blind
eye to the wishes of all other property owners. To continue to allow the massing projects to
disfigure and disrupt our community will be an abomination for years to come and is being
placed on the Commission’s shoulders to decide what legacy matters in Newport Beach and
on our iconic island.
Our community REJECTS the notion that the desires of a few should dictate the desires of
the majority. The impacts of this massing incentive have been so negative that I urge you to
fix the code and support this fair and reasonable request.
Regards,
Jodi P. Bole
Chair, Balboa Island Preservation Association
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Mark becker
To:Murillo, Jaime; Planning Commissioners
Subject:Peninsula Point needs the third story amendment even more than Balboa Island
Date:Thursday, September 17, 2020 11:19:11 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear planning commissioners. I was in attendance at the previous hearing on this subject back
in Late April. It was brought up by a commissioner to isolate the third story amendment to
Balboa Island and not include the peninsula. As a resident of Peninsula Point, myself and the
majority of my neighbors reject this notion. Peninsula Point is literally the last area remaining
with some sense of scale. The third story amendment must include our neighborhood. We
view this as an important step to help alleviate the massing problems we're experiencing. We
are hoping for even more rigorous adjustment to scale and massing in the future. We want a
universal building envelope to help preserve light and air flow from one property to the other.
Thank you,
Mark Becker
410 Belvue Lane
Newport Beach, Ca
92661
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Dennis Bress
To:Planning Commissioners; Dept - City Council
Subject:Balboa Island : Dennis Bress asking for Planning Commission to FIX the 2010 code revisions as it pertains to
Third Story Massing
Date:Thursday, September 17, 2020 2:00:14 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello and hope you are well and safe,
September 17, 2020
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
I am emailing you to ask that you fix the 2010 code revisions as it pertains to Third Story
Massing.
Our community has the right for responsible development and by allowing third story
massing, when it was never the intent in the first place, it is “a wrong” that needs to be
made “a right.” All organizations on Balboa Island, as well as the majority of the residents
support fixing the 2010 code.
As a home owner on Balboa Island I am asking for this change / fix in the code that will
NOT allow for Third Story Massing.
Thank you.
Keep up the good work and be safe.
All the best.
Dennis Bress
110 Agate Avenue
Newport Beach, Ca. 92662 USA
Cell 714-878-1276
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
From:Jim Moloney
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Planning Commission Meeting (Sept. 17, 2020) -- Third-Story Deck (Massing) regulations / public comment
Date:Thursday, September 17, 2020 2:59:48 PM
Attachments:House Comparisons - 2.pptx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Commissioners:
I write to you today as a long-time (21+ year) resident of Newport Beach. My wife
and I own several properties throughout Newport Beach. All would be characterized
as modest or quaint beach cottages (ranging in size between 1,000 -- 2,000 sq. ft.)
built between 1912 and 1942. The cottages we own and have preserved over the
past two decades represent the very best history and charm that Newport Beach has
to offer, and help draw visitors and future homebuyers to Balboa Island and the
Balboa Peninsula.
As you are no doubt aware, many residents, and I dare say the vast majority of
residents, are simply outraged at the heights to which some of these massive three-
story homes have grown over the last few years. I believe the "build-to-the-sky" and
"get-as-many-square-foot-as-you-can" attitude exhibited by certain property owners,
architects and builders is the result of the recent relaxation of the City Building Codes
regulating third-story structures and roof-top decks first adopted in 2010.
While it started innocently enough a few years ago when the City relaxed the building
codes to allow taller buildings in order to accommodate FEMA's increased building
foundation height rules and permit roof top decks, some aggressive property owners,
architects and developers are now taking unfair advantage of the relaxed rules,
resulting in a number of new home construction projects being built on small / narrow
lots of spanning 25' to 30' wide x 75' to 80' deep and reaching absurd heights
compared to their neighbors, all in some effort to catch a glimpse of the surf, the
sand, the sea and the sun.
The problem with this self-destructive trend is that within a few months the builder /
home-buyer soon discovers the neighbor next door is building a similarly tall and
massive home. As a result, the neighbor's sky-scraper only serves to block the
hoped-for view anticipated by the first builder / property owner. This race to the sky
approach to building in Newport has only served to cast deep dark shadows onto
neighboring homes. Moreover, the earlier homebuyers end up losing any sunset
views they had when they first came to Newport and bought their homes.
For the same reason the City (and Planning Commission) is closely studying /
monitoring the growth of "short-term lodging" in Newport and considering adopting
restrictions to protect the property rights of homeowners, it is now equally important
that the City and the Planning Commission carefully consider modifications to the
amended 2010 rules regarding roof-top decks and third-story structures. The existing
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
rules should be tailored to protect existing homeowners rights and place some
reasonable restrictions on new construction projects going forward. New homes
should be limited in scope with third stories set back appropriately as City Staff has
proposed in order to maintain in the quaint style and charming character of our home
town -- that's right, we all live here and deserve protection from over-sized homes.
Some have argued that property owners (acting through their architects and
developers) have an affirmative property right to build as large and as high as
they would like to under current building codes. And to impose and
restrictions on such buildings would impair their property rights. However,
there is an inherent flaw in that argument, namely it fails to take into the
account that such right(s) simply did not exist before 2010 when many, if not
most, homeowners bought the properties they now own in Newport Beach.
We encourage you to take into consideration the property rights that we have as
existing homeowners to daylight, air and occasionally thepossibility of seeing a sunset
without being overshadowed by these massive new construction projects that are
currently being built by a handful of over-zealous property owners, architects and
builders. The best way to maintain and protect property values in Newport Beach is
to NOT allow our neighborhoods to look like the developed areas of Santa Monica,
Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Huntington Beach. Those areas have all
been overbuilt and exploited by builders seeking the maximum square footage and
tallest structures possible. Simply put -- that is not what we want OUR Newport
Beach to become!
To allow this trend to continue will only destroy the property values of the surrounding
homes and eventually the entire neighborhood. Just imagine Corona del Mar, Balboa
Island, and the Peninsula all completely covered with three-story homes that are
nothing more than plain-vanilla, large boxes (essentially tall rectangles comprised of
glass and cement). Such an image would destroy the attractiveness and beauty of
our neighborhoods and villages. What we have today, the image of a charming
Newport is what most attracts visitors from around the globe, no different than areas
such as: Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket on the East Coast and Carmel-by-
the-Sea, Coronado Island, Catalina Island, Santa Barbara, Monterey and Mendocino
here on the West Coast. Please don't put what we have now in peril by delaying
implementation of the much needed amendments for common-sense provisions that
will dial back the building code -- back to the provisions that applied before 2010,
when most all of us bought our homes here in Newport Beach.
To illustrate the point (a picture is worth a thousand words) I've attached a
powerpoint with photos illustrating the evolution of home construction in the
area. As you will see some of the initial pictures show moderation in the scale
and shape of new construction, but as you go through the deck, later images
evidence the more egregious examples of new homes that have been built
under the building code (as recently amended in 2010). The larger, clearly over-
sized, and some might say "massive" homes can be seen in the deck attached.
These structures are completely out of character with the area and actually
dissuade visitors and new home buyers from coming to this area.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
My wife (Erin) and I ask that you not allow the recently amended building codes to
erode our neighborhoods, but rather proceed ahead with implementing the
reasonable guidelines proposed by City Staff (who have done excellent work on this
topic) and brought you amendments that represent common-sense modifications to
manage the overall size and proportions of these new massive towers that are
springing up like weeds in our neighborhoods and over-shadowing everyone else in
the surrounding area.
Allow us to maintain what limited sunlight (and sunsets) we currently have out our
windows. Don't allow the massive construction boom to continue at the current pace
simply because certain ill-advised amendments were passed a short 10 years ago.
Give consideration to the property rights of the many thousands of residents
and taxpayers who came to Newport Beach and purchased their homes before
2010. We need reasonable and well-thought-out building code amendments
adopted by the Planning Commission before it is too late!
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully
Jim & Erin Moloney
314 Diamond Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92662
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
House 1 –Good
205 Opal Avenue
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
House 2 -Good
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
House 3 -Good
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
House 4 –Good But Approaching Massive
(108 Pearl)
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
House 5 –Good But Approaching Massive
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
House 6 –Still Good But Starting Toward Massive
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
House 7 –Not So Good / Bordering on Massive
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
House 7 –Not So Good / Bordering on
Massive (continued)
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
House 8 –Bad –Completely Oversized
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
House 9 -Bad
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
House 10 –Bad –Way Too Massive
206 Onyx Ave.
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Residential Design Standards
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning
Commission
September 17, 2020
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Where We
Started
In May 2019, City Council initiated
Code amendments and directed staff
to:
1.Reduce third floor massing, bulk and
scale of single-unit dwellings and
duplexes (eliminate unintended
consequences from 2010 ZC Update);
and
2.Incentivize the preservation of beach
cottages (under review by Coastal
Commission)
2 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
2010
Code
Changes
PRE-2010 ZONING CODE CURRENT ZONING CODE PROBLEM
24’ flat roof or rails
29’ sloped (midpoint @ 24’)
24’ flat roof or rails
29’ sloped (min 3:12 pitch)
Only applicable to
enclosed floor area
Covered decks and
attics excluded
Floor Area
Definition:
•Unfinished attics
excluded
•Silent on required
openings
Certain Areas
Exempt:
•Balboa Island
•RM Zones
•25’ wide R-2 lots
29’
Sloped
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
29’
Sloped
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
24’
Midpoint
x
3:12 roof pitch
15’15’
Bulk controls :
•3rd floor step backs
•Maximum 3rd floor area
3 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Problems Easy to
enclose
Bulky 3rd
Floor Decks
No 3rd Floor
Relief
Not Always
Applicable
4 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
What Has
Happened
5 of 20
08/19/19
•1st Community Meeting
09/10/19
•City Council Study Session
various
•Consultation with community members and
designers
03/09/20
•2nd Community Meeting
03/09/20
various
•Planning Commission Meeting –continued
•Consultation with HCD, additional legal,
community members and designers
05/07/20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Not Intent of
Code
Amendment
Comprehensive overhaul of
design standards
Not changing allowed heights
Not prohibiting covered roof
decks
Not changing allowed floor area
potential
6 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Proposed
Code
Amendments
A.Revisions to 3rd Floor Standards
B.Clarification of Gross Floor Area
C.Applicability to Balboa Island,
RM, and R-2 (25’ wide) Zones
7 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
CURRENT CODE
•15’ Front & Rear Stepbacks
•Floor area limited to 15-20%
•Only applies to enclosed floor area
PROPOSED CODE
•Stepbacks apply to both floor area and
covered deck area
•Addition of a 50% maximum coverage
allowance
Side Elevation Side Elevation
3rd Floor
Stepbacks
& Area
Limits
8 of 20
*Coverage standard revised for clarity
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
3rd Floor
Side
Stepbacks
Additional 2’
from side
setbacks
CURRENT CODE
-Only applies to enclosed floor area
-Only applies to lots wider than 30’
PROPOSED CODE
-Will apply to enclosed floor area and covered
decks
-Will apply to lots 30’ wide or greater
•Majority of lots 30’
•Results in 3 levels of non-articulated walls
•Results in more designs with 3rd floor
articulation
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
Front Elevation
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
Front Elevation
Side Elevation Side Elevation
2’ Stepback
9 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Proposed Code
Amendments
A.Revisions to 3rd Floor Standards
B.Clarification of Gross Floor Area
C.Applicability to Balboa Island,
RM, and R-2 (25’ wide) Zones
10 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Comparison
Openings
Required for
Covered
Decks
PRE-2010 CODE CURRENT CODE PROBLEM
Two Sides Open Silent, but implemented:
•One side completely open
•Two sides substantially open
Bulky Designs
Easy to Enclose
Moves required
openings from front
and rear of structure
to sides where less
visible
11 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Openings
Required
for Covered
Decks
Desired Outcome-Reduced bulk; increased transparency
Two sides open, except:
•Minimal structural supports
•Open guardrails (40%) or glass
•Ground level
Glass
Guardrails
Required open
space moved to
front
Open
Guardrails
Open above
Proposed
Change
12 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Current
Code
Attics
Side
View
Overhead View
3rd Floor Deck3rdFloor
Area
Unfinished Attic
15’
Gross Floor
Area
•Attics over 6
feet in height
do not count
as floor area
is unfinished.
•Only floor
area is
subject to 3rd
floor step
backs
13 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Proposed
Change
Attics
3rd Floor Deck
3rd Floor
AreaUnfinished Attic +6’
Height
Reduced Attic Heights and
Bulk
Gross Floor
Area
Any interior
finished portion
of a structure that
is accessible and
that measures
more than six feet
from finished
floor to ceiling.
14 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Proposed
Code
Amendments
A.Revisions to 3rd Floor Standards
B.Clarification of Gross Floor Area
C.Applicability to Balboa Island,
RM, and R-2 (25’ wide) Zones
15 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
3rd Floor
and Open
Space
Limits
CURRENT CODE –Not applicable to:
•Balboa Island (R-BI) Zone
•Multiple Residential (RM) Zone
•Two -Unit Residential (R-2) Zone lots that are 25 feet wide or less
16 of 20
RM Lot -CDM
Balboa Island
R-2 Lot
Peninsula
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Additional
Applicability
17 of 20
Zone Applicable Standards
Balboa Island
(R-BI)
•3rd Floor Step Backs (front, sides,
rear)
•3rd Floor Area and Covered Deck
Area Limits
•Open Volume Limits
R-2
25’ wide or less
•3rd Floor Step Backs (front and rear)
Multiple-Unit
Residential (RM)
•3rd Floor Step Backs (front, sides,
rear)
•Open Volume already applies
*no changes in height, no 3rd floor area
limits, and not applicable to 3+ units
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
SB330
Housing Crisis
Act
Development standard can’t:
Reduce density –number of potential units
Reduce intensity of development -height, floor area,
setbacks, lot coverage, or anything that lessens the
dwelling unit potential of development.
Housing & Community Development (HCD)
Reviewed and issued letter of determination of compliance
Amendment Compliance:
No changes in achievable height, setbacks, floor area,
density
3rd floor step-backs are not setbacks (design standard)
Incentivizes more density in RM zone by exempting 3+
units
Open Volume encourages modulation, does not impact
floor area potential
18 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Recommendations
•Public hearings
•Planning Commission –recommendations to City Council
•City Council
•Recommendations for projects
under review:
•Discretionary applications deemed complete (e.g., CDPs)
and projects submitted for plan check prior to effective
date of ordinance allowed to be reviewed under existing
regulations.
19 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)
Jaime Murillo,
AICP
Principal Planner
949-644-3209
jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov Questions?
20 of 20
Planning Commission - September 17, 2020
Item No. 3e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)