HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and Title 21 of the NBMC (PA2019-070)Q SEW Pp�T
CITY OF
z NEWPORT BEACH
c�<,FORN'P City Council Staff Report
November 24, 2020
Agenda Item No. 16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232,
sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner, jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
PHONE: 949-644-3209
TITLE: Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments
to Title 20 and Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
(PA2019-070)
ABSTRACT
For City Council's consideration are proposed 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 one 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. 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
a) Conduct a public hearing;
b) 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;
c) Waive full reading, read by title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2020-28, An Ordinance
of the City Council of Newport Beach, California, Adopting Zoning 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), and
pass to second reading on December 8, 2020; and
d) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-10, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach, California, Authorizing 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).
16-1
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 2
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
DISCUSSION
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 a 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
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 to provide some regulatory changes to address
these concerns (Attachment C - Study Session Minutes).
16-2
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 3
Summary of Proposed Revisions
The proposed amendments would reduce bulk and mass associated with future residential
development and illustrated in more detail further below. A redline/strikeout version of the
proposed code revisions is included as Attachment D.
• 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.
• Third floor step back standards (front and rear) would apply to 25 -foot -wide or less
lots zoned R-2 (currently exempt).
• Third floor step back standards (front, sides, and rear) would apply to single- and
two -unit dwellings in RM zones (currently exempt).
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.
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.
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 C C
30' wide or greater)'
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
'Applicability of side step back standard proposed to change from
greater"
"lots wider than 30 feet'
to "lots 30
feet wide or
16-3
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 4
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 used 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 feet 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
24'
3:12
Midpoint
roof pitch
y
y
-3rd Floorrq
�s,
FloorSloped
29,
_, Sloped
SloZVIped
Floor=1��r
.l '!
Figure 2. Comparison of building height measurements
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.
16-4
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 5
------------
Front
Setback
I
IP
IL
Side View
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 areas. As a result, third floor covered decks, often referred
to as loggia or cabanas, have become popular design amenities, growing larger over the
years and 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 light blue shading) 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 result is a third -floor mass 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.
16-5
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 6
Current ••
O• nly . -• area
it .
subject to step backs
and third floor area
• . _.
�
� Sol ®� � � �� lrC���,
...
decks
.
Proposed Code
• Covered • -
subject to step backs
A A A
• Maximum 0% third
!1111111
floor coverage limit.
ka
0
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
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
from side facades (Figure 6). However, this requirement currently only applies to enclosed
floor 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 -foot -wide
lots-, therefore, this side step back requirement is not typically applied in most new
developments.
16-6
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 7
As a result, new three level residential developments lack upper level side articulation.
When located adjacent to private property, it can reduce 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•
3rd Flvor
r —1
znd Floor
Floor
� r.
'
est
II
��� '�fi p•,• i� .
8,
FrontElevation
•side step back
applied
21 3rd Floor
i
est Floor
i
Front Elevation
rh
ir
2 -foot side step
yi
back applied
Figure 6. Application of side step back comparison
The proposed code change would -
Apply sidestep back to lots 30 feet wide or greater. With the exception of extremely
narrow lots, this would ensure that most new residential developments are subject
to the side step back requirement.
16-7
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 8
• 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.
• 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.
Ito
&
Figure 7. Examples with no third floor side step backs
r■1
INS
�.
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
to the buildable area of the lot (lot area minus setbacks) times a factor of 1.5. In other
areas, the ratio is as high as 2.0. 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.
.:
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 9
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
6 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.
Unfinished Attic +6' Height 31 Floor Area 31d Floor Deck
Al
i �7y 7 L
Figure 9 - Bulk associated with large attics
Reduced Atti
Figure 10 - Desired Outcome of Revised Definition
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 two 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.
16-9
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 10
The lack of regulation of these features has contributed to increased visual bulk
associated with new residential development as follows:
Visually bulky decks and patios
Relocation of patios from front and rear of structure to sides where they are less
visible to public
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 sides, similar to the pre -
2010 Zoning Code requirements. To ensure that the sides are completely open and not
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 42 inch high safety 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.
16-10
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 11
Required open volume
moved to front
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.
The proposed code amendment would revise the applicability of Section 20.48.180
(Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) 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.
16-11
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 12
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 E). 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.
No 3rd floor area
i;—;+,
No 3rd step backs
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 located in the RM zone 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.
Also, 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. Subsequent to the initiation of this amendment,
Senate Bill 330 (see expanded SB 330 section of report) was enacted and became
effective in January 1, 2020, and now precludes the City from changing zoning standards
that would reduce the intensity of residential development. Therefore, the suggestion to
possibly reduce height limits for single- and two-family development in the RM zones or
regulate the allowable third floor area has 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 require single -
and two -unit dwellings constructed in the RM zoning district to comply with the
aforementioned existing and proposed third floor step backs and open volume
requirements in order to enhance third floor building articulation and minimize bulk.
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.
16-12
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 13
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 in 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 F).
As a result of input received from the community outreach meeting and in consultation with
members of the 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.
Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment (Title 21)
Properties located in the Coastal Zone (Attachment G) 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 to multi -unit dwellings consisting of
three -units or more. For single -unit or two -unit dwellings constructed in the RM coastal
zoning district, they will still be subject to the third floor and open volume regulations
contained in the zoning code (Section 20.48.180).
Community Outreach
Staff held two separate community outreach workshops, a City Council Study Session, and
two Planning Commission meetings to share and discuss the proposed changes to
residential design standards. In addition, staff has met and consulted with multiple
community members and design professionals familiar with the City's zoning regulations.
16-13
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 14
The proposed amendments incorporate the culmination of input received at these various
meetings. A summary of the community outreach in included as Attachment H.
Compliance with Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019)
Senate Bill 330 (SB 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 the State Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and prepared additional floor area analysis
as discussed further below.
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 I.
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 J) 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.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments on their May 7, 2020,
and September 17, 2020, meetings. Extensive public comments were received, both in
support of the proposed revisions and against. Meeting minutes are included as
Attachments K and L. At the conclusion of their hearing, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolutions No. PC2020-031 and PC2020-032 (Attachments M and N) with a
majority vote (5 ayes and 2 noes), to recommend approval of the proposed amendments
to the City Council.
16-14
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 15
The Planning Commission also discussed the need to implement a transition period
before these amendments become effective. However, there was no consensus of what
that period should be and ultimately a transition period is not included in the Planning
Commission's recommendation for approval. Staff recognizes the need for a transition
period for projects that are currently under review or pending submittal and staff has
included a transition period described in the next section.
Recommended Effective Date of Ordinance
Typically, an ordinance will become effective 30 days following the second reading. Should
the City Council decide to introduce the ordinance, the City Council can conduct 2nd reading
and adopt the ordinance at the December 8, 2020, City Council meeting, resulting in a
potential effective date of January 7, 2021.
Discretionary projects (e.g. variances, modification permits, coastal development permits)
that were previously approved by the City, projects currently under review in plan check,
and projects already designed and planned to be submitted for review in the near term could
be impacted by the proposed amendments if those projects were required to be redesigned
to comply. In order to avoid costly delays to redesign these projects, staff recommends
including a provision within the adopting ordinance tolling the effective date for the following
types of projects in the pipeline:
• An application for a coastal development permit, variance, modification permit, or
site development permit for a residential project deemed complete prior to the
effective date of this ordinance.
• An application for any building permit or zoning clearance for a residential project
submitted prior to February 1, 2021.
• An application for a building permit or zoning clearance for a residential project that
has been granted a coastal development permit, variance, modification permit, or
site development permit for a residential project that has not expired.
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.
16-15
Ordinance No. 2020-28: Residential Design Standards Amendments to Title 20 and
Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020
Page 16
NOTICING
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.
Lastly, notice of this hearing was emailed to interested parties that have requested notice
and/or attended the community meetings.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
— Ordinance No. 2020-28 (Title 20 Amendments)
Attachment B
—Resolution No. 2020-102 (Title 21 Amendments)
Attachment C
—April 23, 2019 City Council Study Session Minutes
Attachment D
— Redline/Strikeout Version of Proposed Amendments
Attachment E
— Map of RM Lots
Attachment F
— Map of R-2 Lots 25 Feet Wide or Less
Attachment G
— Map of Coastal Zone
Attachment H
—Community Outreach Summary
Attachment I
— HCD Letter and Correspondence
Attachment J
— Floor Area Analysis
Attachment K
— May 7, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Attachment L
—September 17, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Attachment M
—Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Attachment N
—Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-032
16-16
Attachment A
Draft Ordinance
Title 20 Amendments
16-17
ORDINANCE NO. 2020-28
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONING
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)
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach Charter ("Charter") vests
the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations
with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained
in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to
any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any
law of the State of California;
WHEREAS, as a result of growing community concerns related to the loss of
small residential cottages and the bulk and mass associated with new single -unit and
two -unit dwelling developments in the City, the City Council held a study session on
April 23, 2019;
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2019, the City Council initiated portions of the zoning 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 -unit and two -unit
developments;
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2019, the City Council initiated the remaining portion of the
zoning code amendment under Resolution No. 2019-45 authorizing staff to initiate code
revisions to restrict single -unit and two -unit dwellings developed on lots zoned for RM
(Multiple Residential) to the development standards applicable to the standards of the
R-2 (Two -Unit Residential) Zoning District,
WHEREAS, the zoning code revisions attached hereto as Exhibit "A" would
reduce the bulk and mass associated with residential development by clarifying the
definition of gross floor area, regulating covered third floor decks, applying third floor
and open volume standards currently applicable to R-1 (Single -Unit Residential) and R-
2 (Two -Unit Residential) Zoning Districts to R -BI (Two -Unit Residential Balboa Island)
with some exceptions, and applying certain third floor step backs to lots 25 feet wide or
less in the R-2 (Two -Unit Residential) and singe- and two -unit dwellings in the RM
(Multiple Residential) Zoning Districts ("Zoning Code Amendment");
16-18
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2019, the Community Development Department staff
hosted a community meeting attended by 64 interested members of the public, including
design professionals in order to receive community feedback on the draft Zoning Code
Amendment;
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2019, the City Council held a study session to
receive a staff update on the comments received at the August 19, 2019 community
meeting and to provide staff further direction;
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2020, the Community Development Department staff
hosted a second community meeting attended by 25 interested members of the public,
including design professionals, in order to receive additional community feedback on the
refinements to the draft Zoning Code Amendment;
WHEREAS, a telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
May 7, 2020, in the City 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;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended staff seek guidance from the California Department of Housing and
Community Development ("HCD") as to whether the proposed Zoning Code
Amendment complied with Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330), which 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;
WHEREAS, at the request of the City, HCD reviewed the proposed Zoning Code
Amendment, including the May 7, 2020 Planning Commission agenda materials for
compliance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019;
WHEREAS, 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);
16-19
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 3 of 8
WHEREAS, a telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
September 17, 2020, in the City 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 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 adopted Resolution
No. PC2020-031 by a majority vote (5 ayes, 2 nayes) recommending to the City Council
approval of Zoning Code Amendment No. CA 2019-004; and
WHEREAS, a telephonic public hearing was held by the City Council on November
24, 2020, in the City 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 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 City Council at this public hearing.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as
follows:
Section 1: The City Council does hereby approve the Zoning Code
Amendment No. CA2019-004 attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference.
Zoning Code Amendments are legislative acts. Neither Chapter 20.66 (Amendments) of
the NBMC nor California Government Code Section 65850 et seq., require specific
findings for approval of zoning code amendments. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
Zoning Code Amendment No. CA 2019-004 is consistent with the following land use
policies of the General Plan, Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), City Council policy and
state law:
General Plan Consistency
1. City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Policies LU 5.1.5 (Character and
Quality of Single -Family Residential Dwellings) residential units be designed to
sustain the high level of architectural design quality that characterizes Newport
Beach's neighborhoods in consideration of articulation and modulation of building
16-20
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 4 of 8
masses and elevations to avoid appearance of "box -like" buildings; compatibility with
neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations;
architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places; entries and
windows on street facing elevations to visually "open" the house to the
neighborhood; and orientation to desirable sunlight and views.
2. General Plan LU 5.1.9 (Character and Quality of Multi -Family Residential) requires
multi -family dwellings be designed to convey high quality architectural character in
accordance with a number of principles including treatment of the elevations of
buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal facades with
respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and
neighborhood quality; architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation
of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units,
avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume; modulate roof profiles to
reduce the apparent scale of large structures and provide visual interest and variety
and to incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit.
Facts in Support
1. Applying additional step backs to covered third floor decks and additional openings
are necessary in order to articulate the building masses and avoid the appearance of
"box -like" buildings provide functional private open space for units.
2. Additionally, the Zoning Code Amendment will improve the architectural treatment
visible from public places and improve compatibility of new development with the
density, scale, and street elevations of existing communities; and modulate roof
profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest
and variety.
Zoning Code Consistency
1. In 2010, the City adopted revisions to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") ("2010 Zoning Code Update") in order to streamline
the review process and simplify the development standards applicable to residential
development, while maintaining allowable building envelopes and preserving the
character of existing communities. The 2010 Zoning Code Update attempted to
regulate third floor mass and bulk in Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development
Standards and Design Criteria) of the NBMC through third floor area limits, third floor
16-21
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 5 of 8
step backs for enclosed floor area, and open volume area standards to increase
building modulation.
2. While the 2010 Zoning Code Update included these third floor limits on unenclosed
covered deck areas and unfinished attics in the R-1 (Single -Unit Residential) and R-2
(Two -Unit Residential) Zoning Districts, they were inadvertently excluded in the RM
(Multiple Residential) and R -BI (Two -Unit Residential, Balboa Island) Zoning Districts,
resulting in third floor and open volume area standards not being applied in the Balboa
Island residential community or to single- and two -unit dwellings constructed on RM
lots citywide.
Facts in Support
1. The Zoning Code Amendment would apply the third floor limits to R -BI (Two -Unit
Residential, Balboa Island) and RM (Multiple Residential) Zoning Districts with some
exceptions.
2. Clarification of the definition of gross floor area to include unfinished attics and
covered decks is necessary in order to prevent the unpermitted conversions of
unfinished attics and covered patios as living area as well as to reduce
bulk/massing.
3. 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.
4. Application of front and rear third floor step back requirements to lots zoned R-2 (Two
Unit Residential) that are 25 feet wide or less will improve building scale as viewed
from streets and alleys.
5. The Zoning Code Amendment would create new objective standards that regulate bulk
and articulation of new single -unit and two -unit dwellings and would not result in the
reduction of allowable density on a lot.
Consistency with State Law
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330) places certain limitations on local
government's ability to adopt zoning ordinances applicable to housing. Specifically,
Government Code section 66300(b)(1)(A) generally prohibits a locality from enacting a
16-22
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 6 of 8
development policy, standard or condition that reduces intensity, imposes moratoriums,
enforces subjective design standards or implements any provision that limits approvals
or caps population.
Facts in Support
1. The Zoning Code Amendment would not reduce the number of residential units
allowed nor reduce the allowable floor area on any site, therefore, the Zoning Code
Amendment would not result in a less intensive use as proscribed by Section
66300(b)(1)(A). Rather, the Zoning Code Amendment limits the configuration of the
allowed floor area on a site, restricting the bulk and mass on the third floor of a single-
family home or duplex. However, that floor area can be made up on the ground and
second floors.
2. Additionally, as a result of the City's public outreach, the City made a number of
refinements to the Zoning Code Amendment, as proposed, in order to address
community concerns. In only one scenario, the third floor step back requirements
resulted in a de minimus reduction in maximum buildable area to certain RM (Multiple
Residential) lots. In order to address community concerns, the Zoning Code
Amendment as proposed does not apply third floor area limits to those RM (Multiple
Residential) lots.
3. Finally, on July 31, 2020, at the City's request, the California Department of Housing
and Community Development issued a letter to the City finding that upon review of the
Zoning Code Amendment, the revisions do not trigger the Housing Crisis Act "less
intensive use" provisions of Section 66300(b)(1)(A). Under the Zoning Code
Amendment, 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.
Section 2: This ordinance will be effective thirty (30) calendar days after its
adoption. Notwithstanding the foregoing, application of this ordinance will be tolled for
the following residential projects that have applied for and/or been granted a permit,
provided the residential project is consistent with prior discretionary approvals, the City's
General Plan, and the NBMC in effect on the effective date of Ordinance:
16-23
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 7 of 8
1. An application for a coastal development permit, variance, modification permit, or
site development permit for a residential project deemed complete in accordance
with Section 20.50.060 as of the effective date of this ordinance.
2. An application for any building permit or zoning clearance for a residential project
submitted prior to February 1, 2021.
3. An application for a building permit or zoning clearance for a residential project that has
been granted a coastal development permit, variance, modification permit, or site
development permit for a residential project that has not expired.
Section 3: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance.
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 5: The City Council finds the introduction and adoption of this
ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant
to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a
project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in
physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. 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 6: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other sections,
subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code
shall remain unchanged and shall,be in full force and effect.
16-24
Ordinance No. 2020 -
Page 8 of 8
Section 7: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this ordinance, The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be
published pursuant to City Charter Section 414.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach held on the 24th day of November, 2020, and adopted on the 8th day of
December, 2020, by the following vote, to -wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
WILL O'NEILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
q/,(A
AARON HARP, CITY ATTORNEY
Attachment(s): Exhibit A - Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-004
16-25
Exhibit A
Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-004
Section 1. 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 NBMC, revising the "Open
Space" row and adding a "Residential Development Standards" row shall be amended 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
Common: 75 square
Single -unit and two -unit dwellings
feet/unit
feet/unit
developed on a single site shall comply
Minimum dimension
Minimum dimension
with Open Volume Area standards of
shall be 15 feet.
shall be 15 feet.
Section 20.48.180 (Residential
Private: 5% of the
N/A
Private: 5% of the
Development Standards and Design
gross floor area for
gross floor area for
Criteria).
each unit.
each unit.
Minimum dimension
Minimum dimension
The minimum dimension is for length and
shall be 6 feet.
shall be 6 feet.
width.
Residential
See Section 20.48.180.
Development
Standards
Section 2: 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 NBMC, shall be amended as follows:
UAW
16-26
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, R -BI, R-2, and 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 on
a lot 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. For residential developments consisting of one or two units on a
lot 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.
16-27
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(6)(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 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:
A-3
16-28
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: 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 NBMC, shall be amended 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 floor to ceiling; and
iv. Covered parking spaces which are open only on one side.
b. The following areas shall be excluded.-
i.
xcluded:
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:
16-29
The area within surrounding exterior walls; and
Any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that
measures more than four feet from floor to ceiling.
b. The following areas shall be excluded:
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.
/M
16-30
Attachment B
Draft Resolution Title
21 Amendments
16-31
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-102
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
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)
WHEREAS, 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;
WHEREAS, 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;
WHEREAS, 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;
WHEREAS, in 2010, the City adopted revisions to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning)
("2010 Zoning Code Update") in order to streamline the review process and simplify the
development standards applicable to residential development, while maintaining allowable
building envelopes and preserving the character of existing communities which were also
incorporated into Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan);
WHEREAS, the City is revising Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) to minimize the bulk
and mass associated with recent residential developments ("Zoning Code Amendment")
and, as a result, an amendment to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan)
("LCP Amendment") is necessary to ensure consistency;
WHEREAS, the LCP Amendment include revising the definition of gross floor area
to capture unfinished attics and open space standards;
16-32
Resolution No. 2020 -
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the revision to the definition of gross floor area is appropriate in order
to prevent the unpermitted conversion of unfinished attics and decks for use as living
area;
WHEREAS, additionally, a minor clarification is needed to the Open Space row of
Table 21.18-4 (Development Standards for Multi -Unit Residential Coastal Zoning
Districts) of the NBMC, clarifying that common and private open space requirements only
apply to multi -unit residential developments of three (3) units or more;
WHEREAS, 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 -unit and two -unit
developments;
WHEREAS, 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 -unit and two -unit dwellings developed on lots zoned for RM (Multiple
Residential) to the development standards applicable to the standards of the R-2 (Two -
Unit Residential) Zoning District;
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2019, the Community Development Department staff
hosted a community meeting attended by 64 interested members of the public, including
design professionals in order to receive community feedback on the draft Zoning Code
and LCP Amendments,
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2019, the City Council held a study session to receive
a staff update on comments received at the August 19, 2019 community meeting on the
draft Zoning Code and LCP Amendments and to provide staff further direction;
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2020, the Community Development Department staff
hosted a second community meeting attended by 25 interested members of the public,
including design professionals in order to receive additional community feedback on the
refinements to the Zoning Code and LCP Amendments;
WHEREAS, 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,
16-33
Resolution No. 2020 -
Page 3 of 5
WHEREAS, 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 hearing was given in accordance with the California Government Code
Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the
NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
Planning Commission at this public hearing;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended staff seek guidance from the California Department of Housing and
Community Development ("HCD") as to whether the proposed Zoning Code and LCP
Amendments complied with Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330), which 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;
WHEREAS, at the request of the City, HCD reviewed the proposed Zoning Code
and LCP Amendments, including the May 7, 2020 Planning Commission agenda materials
for compliance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019,
WHEREAS, 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);
WHEREAS, 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 Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapter
21.62 (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 adopted Resolution No. PC2020-032 by a majority
vote (5 ayes, 2 nays) recommending to the City Council approval of Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. LC 2019-006; and
16-34
Resolution No. 2020 -
Page 4 of 5
WHEREAS, a telephonic public hearing was held by the City Council on November
24, 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 Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapter
21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to,
and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Section 1: The City Council does hereby authorize 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
21.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) of Title 21 (Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC as set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to the California Coastal Commission.
Section 2: 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.
Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are
incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 4: 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.
Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
16-35
Resolution No. 2020 -
Page 5 of 5
Section 6: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is not 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 7: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 24th day of November, 2020.
Will O'Neill
Mayor
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
f4 Aaron'. Harp
City A rney
Attachment: Exhibit A - Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006
Related to Residential Design Standards (PA2019-070)
16-36
EXHIBIT "A"
Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006
Related to Residential Design Standards (PA2019-070)
Section 1: 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 shall
be amended to read as follows:
Section 2: 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, shall be amended to read 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 floor to ceiling; and
A-1
16-37
Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more unit development).
Common: 75 square feet/unit
Minimum dimension shall be 15
Open Space
feet. Private: 5% of the gross
The minimum dimension is for length
floor area for each unit.
and width.
Minimum dimension shall be 6
feet.
Section 2: 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, shall be amended to read 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 floor to ceiling; and
A-1
16-37
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 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.
A-2
16-38
Attachment C
April 23, 2019
City Council Minutes
16-39
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Study Session and Regular Meeting
April 23, 2019
I. ROLL CALL - 4:00 p.m.
Present: Council Member Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Duffy Duffield,
Council Member Jeff Herdman, Council Member Kevin Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tem Will O'Neill,
Mayor Diane Dixon
II. CURRENT BUSINESS
SS1. Clarification of Items on the Consent Calendar
Mayor Dixon announced she will be requesting that the minutes (Item 1) be continued to the
May 14, 2019 City Council meeting.
In response to Council Member Muldoon's questions, Public Works Director Webb indicated the
contract for Item 7 would need to be modified if organics were to be used and there would be no
pesticide usage related to Item 8.
Prior to responding to Council Member Brenner's question regarding Item 5, Council Member
Muldoon recused himself due to property interest conflicts. City Manager Leung and
Public Works Director Webb noted Item 5 is for playground equipment replacement and only
new equipment requests need to be discussed at a Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
meeting.
SS2. Poppy Month Proclamation
Carolyn Whitlinger and Debbie Schubert, American Legion Auxiliary, provided the background
on Poppy Month and received the proclamation from Mayor Dixon. Council Member Brenner
expressed the importance of Poppy Month.
SS3. CASA of Orange County Day Proclamation
Stefanie Gillett provided Court Appointed Special Advocate's (CASA's) background, gave
pinwheels to each of the Council Members, discussed Foster Care Awareness Month and the
CASA Pinwheel Project (CASAoc.org/events), and received the proclamation from Mayor Dixon.
SS4. Recognition of Ford W. Fairon
Chief Lewis, on behalf of the Police and Fire Departments, commended Ford Fairon for his
bravery and heroic actions on January 21, 2019. Ford Fairon thanked the Police and Fire
Departments for being our everyday heroes, and received the proclamation from Mayor Dixon.
SS5. Potential Changes to Residential Development Standard to Preserve Cottages and
Address 3rd Story Massing
Community Development Director Jurjis and Principal Planner Ramirez utilized a PowerPoint
presentation to display the location map and discuss reasons the City is losing beach cottages,
cottage sizes, the number of cottages in the City, standards for Council to study, and the
amendment process.
Discussion ensued relative to increasing buildable square footage for cottage owners if they
maintain a single story, finding incentives to keep the cottages, conducting extensive outreach
before any code amendment occurs, streamlining the process, considering amending parking
requirements for cottages, and discussed how many cottages have been replaced with larger
homes.
16-40
Volume 64 - Page 84
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
April 23, 2019
Ron Yeo provided a handout, indicated he inventoried the current cottages in Corona del Mar,
believed parking is the biggest issue, and expressed hope the City could assist with keeping the
cottages in the City.
Jerry Jansen, past President of the Balboa Island Improvement Association, expressed support
for retaining cottages and allowing them to rebuild in the same or similar footprint without
requiring parking.
Tanya, cottage owner, indicated she would like to expand a little but cannot due to the parking
restrictions.
Nancy Arrache expressed concern with setbacks and amending parking standards in high
density areas.
Mark Becker expressed support for preserving Balboa Island's uniqueness.
David Tanner believed parking exceptions should be made to preserve the cottages.
Gary Cruz requested and received clarification that redevelopment does not have to be done by
the original cottage owner and there is no restriction to the number of people living in a home.
Andrew Goetz believed an owner should be able to fix other parts of the home without triggering
a complete teardown.
Karen Tringali expressed support for the cottage community.
Denys Oberman believed parking problems are created by the larger buildings and that this
issue should be considered with the City's total housing stock.
Regarding residential height and massing, Senior Planner Ramirez utilized a PowerPoint
presentation to display a map of high density neighborhoods and discuss the goals of the 2010
code amendments, R-1 and R-2 height and bulk standards, third story covered decks, issues in
the RM Zoning District, changes for Council to consider, and the amendment process.
Discussion ensued relative to how staircases and vaulted ceilings are counted toward the total
square footage, setbacks, third story decks, height and floor area standards in RM Zoning
Districts, and design articulation.
Ron Yeo discussed third stories and suggested counting covered deck areas as square footage.
Mark Becker believed the large envelopes are destroying the intimacy in neighborhoods and
provided his recommendations.
Vicky Swanson indicated she cannot enjoy her home because the houses next to her are too large
and she loses light.
Andrew Goetz expressed concern with the wall heights relative to the roof and suggested
minimizing the wall area around cabanas or minimizing the amount of ridge area that sits on
the lot.
Denys Oberman took issue with the 2010 code changes and highlighted confusing terminology.
David Tanner requested that any change to the code not make areas worse, questioned how
height limits will account for sea level rise, and believed single family homes are being rented
as duplexes.
16-41
Volume 64 - Page 85
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
April 23, 2019
Linda Watkins questioned how a large home was built in a gated community and requested the
City tighten the zoning codes.
Jim Mosher noted that the code contains a section about ministerial design criteria that applies
to all areas of the City and asked how they are being applied.
Karen Tringali indicated the City may adjust the code to preserve the nature and qualities of
certain neighborhoods.
Council indicated that potential considerations moving forward include counting two-story
vaulted ceilings, all levels of staircases and anything with a roof as square footage; maintaining
the setback that was allowed between multiple lots; ensuring property rights are maintained;
revisiting how third story decks are handled with preference of having all sides open; and
expediting the simpler issues.
With Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill dissenting, the majority of Council requested the City Attorney
look into implementing a moratorium on RM Zoning District conversions to single-family homes,
believing a standard height limit should be set for all single-family homes.
SS6. On -Street Parking Impacts Due to Construction Activities
Community Development Director Jurjis and Deputy Community Development Director Ghosn
utilized a PowerPoint presentation to provide the background and discuss the public outreach
meetings, feedback received, and staff suggestions.
Discussion ensued relative to implementing rules only in areas that are most impacted by this
issue, not allowing Saturday construction, the importance of code enforcement, determining if
all parts of the City would want to utilize the signage, and looking at short term lodging impacts
separately.
Council Member Herdman expressed his gratitude to staff for the attempt, but felt it best not to
move forward with this effort.
Nancy Orazi expressed concerns with the number of short term lodging on the Peninsula and
Balboa Island, and noted that parking issues are also due to other sources, not just contractors.
Jeff Stolrow discussed parking impacts and safety concerns due to construction on Lido Isle.
Gary Cruz expressed concerns regarding parking impacts and disturbances due to construction
on Newport Island, and requested notification about meetings regarding this issue.
Vicky Swanson believed the City should require construction management plans.
David Tanner believed short term lodging adds to the parking issues and the City should
identify how the code is being gamed.
Mayor Dixon indicated short term lodging issues will be coming before Council at a later date.
Council unanimously concurred to bring back an item to add a parking enforcement person
through AmeriPark for seasonal parking enforcement; Mayor Dixon and Council Members
Duffield, Herdman and Brenner concurred that no construction should occur on Saturdays; and
all Council Members, except for Council Member Avery, concurred that the restrictions should
only apply in high density areas.
SS7. City Emergency Council Update
The item was continued to a future meeting.
16-42
Volume 64 - Page 86
Attachment D
Redline Strikeout Revisions
16-43
Proposed Amendments to Residential Design Standards (PA2019-070)
November 24, 2020 City Council Version
Changes from Planning Commission version highlighted
Code 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
6,000 sq. ft.
sq. ft.
Interior lot
5,000 sq. ft.
5,000
6,000 sq. ft.
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.
Minimum required site area per dwelling unit based on net area of the lot unless the maximum
Site Area per
number of units is shown on the Zoning Map.
Dwelling Unit
1,200 sq. ft. (7)
1,000
1,500 sq. ft.
sq. ft.
16-44
TABLE 2-3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO -UNIT AND MULTI -UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Continued)
Development
Feature
RM
RMD
RM -6,000
Additional Requirements
Maximum percentage of the total lot area that may be covered by structures.
Site Coverage
N/A
N/A
60%
Floor Area Limit
1.75(4)
N/A
N/A
(gross floor
area)
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
3 ft.
N/A
6 ft.
or less
Lots 40'1" wide
4 ft.
5 ft.
6 ft.
to 49'11" wide
Lots 50 ft. wide
8% of the average
N/A
6 ft.
and greater
lot width (5)
Side (street
5 ft.
side):
16-45
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
3 ft.
N/A
or less
Lots 40'1" wide
4 ft.
N/A
to 49'11" wide
Lots 50 ft. wide
8% of the average
6 ft.
and greater
lot width (5)
Rear:
10 ft.
25 ft.
6 ft.
Lots abutting a 10 ft. alley or less that are
Abutting Alley
directly across the alley from the side yard of a
lot abutting the alley shall provide a setback for
10 ft. wide or
N/A
N/A
N/A
the first floor of at least 10 ft. from the alley.
less
15 ft. wide or
5 ft.
N/A
less
15'1" to 19'11"
3'9"
N/A
20 ft. wide or
0
N/A
more
Waterfront
10 ft.
N/A
Bluff edge
As provided in Section 20.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District).
setback
Bulkhead
Structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the bulkhead in each zoning district.
setback
Maximum height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section 20.30.060(C)
Height (6)
(Increase in Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit.
Flat roof
28 ft.
28 ft.
1 28 ft.
16-46
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;
33 ft.
33 ft.
33 ft.
See Section 20.30.060(C) (Increase in Height
minimum 3/12
Limit)
pitch
Open Space
Minimum required open
space
(applicable to 3
or more units).
Common: 75
Common: 75
Single -unit and two -unit dwellings developed
square feet/unit
square feet/unit
on a single site shall comply with Open Volume
Minimum
Minimum
Area standards of Section 20.48.180
dimension shall be
dimension shall be
(Residential Development Standards and
15 feet. Private:
15 feet. Private:
Design Criteria). coo SeGtiG� �Qn
5% of the gross
N/A
5% of the gross
Residential Deyel pment Standards and
floor area for each
floor area for each
Design Criteria) for R 2 epen saGe stand
unit.
unit.
Minimum
Minimum
The minimum dimension is for length and
dimension shall be
dimension shall be
width.
6 feet.
6 feet.
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
See Section 20.48.190 (Satellite Antennas and Amateur Radio Facilities).
Antennas
Signs
See Chapter 20.42 (Sign Standards).
16-47
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
See Section 20.48.180.
Development
Standards
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.
16-48
(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 Zor^'^9 D;stnGt, and to -all R-2 Zoning Districts, and to -all RM Zoning Districts
Citywide, except as provided as provided below: in subsection iov2) of this section.
Za. Exceptions. This subsection shall lees not apply to
ai. R-B� R-1-6,000, R-1-7,200, and R-1-10,000, RMD, and RM -6000 Zoning
Districts;
cii. Planned community zoning districts, or
iii. Residential developments consisting of three or more units on a lot in the RM
Zoning District.
b. Limited Application. This subsection shall be limited in its application below:
16-49
i. For lots twenty-five (25) feet wide or less in the R-2 Zoning District, only
subsection (A)(2)(c) shall apply.
ii. For residential developments consisting of one or two units on a lot 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 spaGe. that may be
located on a third floor or above twenty four (en) foot ;n 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(6)(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 spa that may be located on the third floor, or above twenty four (24) feet
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.
hc. Location of Third Floor Structure. Enclosed sure 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.
16-50
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
16-51
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 Saecialized 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;
ii . 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
16-52
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.
16-53
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.
Minimum required site area per dwelling unit based on net area of the lot unless the
Site Area per
maximum number of units is shown on the Coastal Zoning Map.
Dwelling Unit (7)
1,200 sq. ft. (6)
1,500 sq. ft.
Maximum percentage of the total lot area that may be covered by structures.
Site Coverage
N/A
60%
Floor Area Limit
1.75(3)
N/A
(gross floor area)
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
16-54
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
3 ft.
6 ft.
or less
Lots 40'1" wide
4 ft.
6 ft.
to 49'11" wide
Lots 50 ft. wide
8% of the average lot
6 ft.
and greater
width (4)
Side (street
side):
Lots 40 ft. wide
3 ft.
N/A
or less
Lots 40'1" wide
4 ft.
N/A
to 49'11" wide
Lots 50 ft. wide
8% of the average lot
6 ft.
and greater
width (4)
Rear
10 ft.
6 ft.
Lots abutting a 10 ft. alley or less that
Abutting Alley:
are directly across the alley from the
10 ft. wide or less
N/A
N/A
side yard of a lot abutting the alley
15 ft. wide or less
5 ft.
N/A
16-55
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"
319"
N/A
shall provide a setback for the first
20 ft. wide or
0
N/A
floor of at least 10 ft. from the alley.
more
Waterfront
10 ft.
N/A
Bluff edge
As provided in Section 21.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District).
setback
Canyon face
As provided in Section 21.28.050 (Canyon (C) Overlay District).
setback
Bulkhead
Structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the bulkhead in each zoning district.
setback
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).
Maximum height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section 21.30.060(C)
Height (5)
(Increase in Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit.
Flat roof
28 ft.
28 ft.
Sloped roof;
33 ft.
33 ft.
See Section 21.30.060(C) (Increase
minimum 3/12
in Height Limit).
pitch
Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more unit development).
Common: 75 square feet/unit
Open Space
Minimum dimension shall be 15 feet. Private: 5% of
The minimum dimension is for length
the gross floor area for each unit.
and width.
Minimum dimension shall be 6 feet.
16-56
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.
16-57
(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;
ii . 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
16-58
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 fieished 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.
16-59
Attachment E
Map of RM Lots
16-60
L
I �
T
I W
_ P
/ •��� J \ , NEWPORT O
SHORES � � • S
/s r
r
SANTA ANA l I A S
/ RIVER JETTY
HOSPI AL RD
� / 9
I
~ ♦ oq
WAY
I
TURNING
A V BASIN
� D
O LINDA
ISLE
t
HARBOR /
LIDO - ISLAND
PENINSULA
NFH'r°OR �... COLLINS
LIDO BAY ISLAND
ISLE ISLAND_
NEWPORT
PIER
h
ti
h
wNpAlbrIAMQ 0 0.325 0.65
Miles
PA2019 070 -Residential Desian Standards RM.mxd
UPPER
/ S NEWPORT
2
�P
BALBOA
PIER
PACIFIC OCEAN
_k BAY
NORTH
STAR
TextEAQH
l
NEWPORT
DUNES
A
t
r' FASHION
w ISLAND
N �
Ca
\w SqN
3
o m
m.
BONITA
POR
i
.•�
D
RD
a C,y
`OR
m GO
T
0
A
o
`Q
z J
F
o0
n3
\•
THE
z
n
WEDGE
m
BIG
2
N JOAQUIN
CORONA
��"
RESERVOIR
H,� rRa=rarmae waren
RIDGE
LITTLE
-� -`
CORONA
Ca
\w SqN
3
o m
m.
BONITA
POR
OANYO w /
.•�
D
RD
a C,y
`OR
T
0
A
o
`Q
x
o0
n3
\•
O
�Q
SAN
o
2
N JOAQUIN
NEWPORT
��"
RESERVOIR
H,� rRa=rarmae waren
RIDGE
oa
RLOC
DIG
oe'
EL
rgti
m
EA A �A
W
O R
F
--,)—R
LQUIN
p
RD
ti
H
= O
NEWPORT
�,Rp z Cif�)ffNewport Beach
r GIS Division
August 07, 2019
i o -n i
Attachment F
Map of R-2 Lots
16-62
SEW p��
`r � �.r<✓�
7
/y
THE
•
P
CORONA
•
♦ 1
. -
L— -- .A. —
�•
T
NEWPORT
Q �•
,
I SHORESEL
vO
T
�sT S
�♦
•
15TH ST IN
L
f
,•I
O
JTA ANA
Q
0
,♦
�qS'T
ER JETTY
�Q-
HOSPI AL RD
CO
Ix
I GHWAY
A
h^C
\�
O
o
TURNING
BASIN
.
D
O m
</OO
wFS
T
0
LINDA
ISLE
y _ tiq�� Text
L m HARBOR
LIDO ISLAND
c�C ♦ PENINSULA
O w NFIv
R
,L
NORTH
STAR
BEACH
NEWPORT
DUNES
pOR COLLINS BALBOA
T
ft aft
NEWPORT
PIER
Legend
R-2 Lots 25 ft or Less (584 - 15%)
R-2 Lots greater than 25 feet (3,207 - 85%)
Total Lots: 3,791
NBGWS e0.2 0.4
N E W P O R T B E A C H Miles
IA2019 070 - Lot Width 25 ft or Less.mzd
�`,_n ;i,,//%IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�=_ ,
��� . , � ,,� � ,II�lll,lllllll�lll IIID►
I
PACIFIC
C. 4
� �n
s
BALBOA
PIER
OCEAN
�c
�n
n�
y D
FASHION m
D
cn CD
Lu IS
� o
J
r =� Q
`
`r � �.r<✓�
��
7
THE
WEDGE
BIGZvi
CORONA
. -
JJ
pas4h
O
1
16-63
Attachment G
Map of Coastal Zone
16-64
100
Legend
..........:
-----------------
-- Local Coastal Plan Boundary
---- City Boundary
Coastal Zone Area
Coastal Zone
City of Newport Beach, California
Coastal_Zone_Featured_Areas.mA November/2008
Newport Coast Se
_ mot A Part)
�MC
0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Miles
1 1 1
16-65
Attachment H
Community Outreach
Summary
16-66
Attachment H
Community Outreach and Participation Summary
9/10/19 Outreach w/
4/23/19 City Individual
Council CC Study Community
Initiation Session Members
Outreach w/
Individual 9/17/20
Community Planning
Members Commission
0 ]b 0 0 0 0 0 0
8/24/19 1st 3/9/20 2nd
Community Community
Meeting Meeting
5/7/20 Summer
Planning 2020 HCD
Commission 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:
• 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.
16-67
• 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.
• Third floor limitations should apply to Balboa Island.
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:
Reducing heights limits for single -unit and two -unit developments in the RM zone
would result in unequal application of standards on same blocks.
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.
• 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. 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 building 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
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.
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.
Table 1 - Summary of Public Testimony
Support
Opposed
• 3rd floors too large and should be
• Negatively affects property rights and
further regulated to control mass and
values
scale
• Current designs negatively impacting
• Violates SB330 by reducing intensity
charm and character of neighborhoods
• Large homes devalue and negatively
• Opposed to a one -size -fits -all
impact adjoining homes due to
approach
incompatible scale and shadows
created
. Not a citywide problem; different
neighborhoods should be exempt
• Needed to eliminate loopholes
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.
On May 8, 2020, staff reached out to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (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."
At the May 7, 2020, Planning Commission meeting, public comments were provided by
Mr. Christopher Budnik, board member of the Newport Heights Improvements
16-69
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 (attached) 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. 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.
On September 17, 2020, the proposed amendments were considered again by the
Planning Commission. At the hearing, approximately 8 members of the public spoke in
support of the proposed amendments and 2 spoke in opposition. At the conclusion of the
hearing, with a majority vote (5 ayes and 2 noes) the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council.
Attachment: Budnik analysis
16-70
Proposed C
Residential Des
Potential Impacts tc
ranges to
gn Standard
Newport Height
Prepared for the Newport Heights Improvement Association
Jaime Murillo — Principal Planner
Jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov; (949) 644-3209
July 31, 2020 Park
Project Webpage:
www.newportbeachca.gov/residentialdesignstandards
16-71
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.
16-72
Proposed Code Revisions That May Impact
Newport Heights Development
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. 16-73
Typical Newport
Heights Lot
401 Fullerton Ave
50' x 127.5'
6375sf
20'
No Change
20'
4'
No Change
4'
5'
No Change
5'
4305 sf
No Change
8,610 sf
No Change
7260 sf
(1350 sf below maximum)
24' flat/29' sloped
No Change
24' flat/29' sloped
Enclosed Area only
Enclosed and
Not affected, 3rd floor deck is
Unenclosed
uncovered and is not subject
Front/Rear/Side
to current or proposed
Front/Rear/Side
changes.
646 sf
No change
Not affected, no 3rd floor
enclosed area
N/A
2152.5 sf
Not affected, no 3rd floor
covered area
646 sf min.
No Change
818 sf
Less than 1 side Less than 2 sides House design not affected
completely open completely open
Finished space with 6' Finished or unfinished House design not affected
+ ceiling height space with 6' + ceiling
height
16-74
Typical Newport
Heights Lot
328 Fullerton Ave
50' x 127.5'
6375sf
20'
No
Change 20'
4'
No
Change 4'
5'
No
Change 5'
4305 sf
No
Change
8,610 sf No Change 4718 sf
(3892 sf below maximum)
24' flat/29' sloped No Change 23'9" flat/25' 10" sloped
Enclosed Area only Enclosed and Not affected, no 3rd floor
Unenclosed
Front/Rear/Side
Front/Rear/Side
646 sf No change Not affected, no 3rd floor
N/A
646 sf min.
2152.5 sf
No Change
Not affected, no 3rd floor
3665 sf
Less than 1 side Less than 2 sides House design not affected
completely open completely open
Finished space with 6' Finished or unfinished House design not affected
+ ceiling height space with 6' + ceiling
height
16-75
Larger Newport
Heights Lot
630 Tustin Ave
66'x 142'
9372sf
20'
No
Change 20'
4'
No
Change 4'
10'
No
Change 10'
6496 sf
No
Change
12,992 sf No Change 4738 sf
(8254 sf below maximum)
24' flat/29' sloped No Change 24' flat
Enclosed Area only Enclosed and Not affected, no 3rd floor
Unenclosed
Front/Rear/Side
Front/Rear/Side
974 sf No change Not affected, no 3rd floor
N/A
974 sf min.
3248 sf
No Change
Not affected, no 3rd floor
2960 sf
Less than 1 side Less than 2 sides House design not affected
completely open completely open
Finished space with 6' Finished or unfinished House design not affected
+ ceiling height space with 6' + ceiling 16-76
height
Larger Newport
Heights Lot
320 Fullerton Ave
60' x 127.5'
7,650 sf
20'
No
Change 20'
4'
No
Change 4'
5'
No
Change 5'
5340 sf
No
Change
10,678 sf No Change 5602 sf
(5077 sf below maximum)
24' flat/29' sloped No Change 24' flat/27' sloped
Enclosed Area only Enclosed and Not affected, no 3rd floor or
Unenclosed covered deck
Front/Rear/Side
Front/Rear/Side
801 sf No change Not affected, no enclosed 3rd
floor area
N/A 2,670 sf Not affected, 3rd floor deck is
uncovered
801 sf min. No Change 1585 sf
Less than 1 side Less than 2 sides House design not affected
completely open completely open
Finished space with 6' Finished or unfinished House design not affected
+ ceiling height space with 6' + ceiling
height
16-77
Larger Newport
Heights Lot
510 Kings Rd
Approx. 60'x 151.6'
9,100 sf
20'
4'
10'
6,333 sf
12,666sf
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
24' flat/29' sloped No Change
Enclosed Area only Enclosed and
Unenclosed
Front/Rear/Side
Front/Rear/Side
950 sf No change
N/A
950 sf min.
3166 sf
No Change
20'
4'
25'
6844 sf
(5822 sf below maximum)
24' flat/29' sloped
Affected, covered 3rd floor
deck would encroach 6 feet
into 15 -foot front step back
deck
Not affected, 266 sf enclosed
third floor
Not affected, 339 sf total
covered proposed
2291 sf
Less than 1 side Less than 2 sides House design not affected
completely open completely open
Finished space with 6' Finished or unfinished House design not affected
+ ceiling height space with 6' + ceiling
height
16-78
Attachment
HCD and Staff
Correspondence
16-79
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. EI Camino Avenue, Suite 500 13 B
Sacramento CA 95833 ,111 In
(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.
16-80
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. Dan inoCc--)hcd.ca.gov
for any additional information and assistance.
Sincerely,
�-)CiXIJLU�
Shannan West
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief
16-81
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
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
Single -Unit and Two -Unit Dwellings in the R -BI and RM Zones
• 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.
16-82
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) :
(b) (1) Notwithstanding any other law except as provided in subdivision (i), with respect to land
where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a
development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects:
(A) Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use
designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing
the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan
land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed under the land use
designation and zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in
effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B). For
purposes of this subparagraph, "less intensive use" includes, but is not limited to, reductions
to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements,
or new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot
coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing.
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.MCDougaII@hcd.ca.gov>
Subject: Question on SB330 Compliance
16-83
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
Ik
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 S13330. 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
imurilloCa )newDortbeachca. aov
949-644-3209
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor BaV C, Newport Beach, California 92660 fBooBle.coml I newportbeachca.Qov
f newportbeachca.Bovl
16-84
Attachment J
Floor Area Analysis
16-85
Typical Balboa Island Lot (Single -Unit Example): 30'x 85' = 2,550 sf
Buildable Area: 24' x 70' = 1680sf
Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf
Maximum Floor Area Allowed: 2520 + 200 = 2720 sf
Proposed New Standards:
Minimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 252 sf
Maximum 3rd Floor: 20% x Buildable Area= 336 sf
Maximum 3rd Floor Area and Covered Deck Area: 50% x Buildable Area= 840 sf
Thirdfloor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 Leet sides _ _ _ _ _ _
5 r ' r.
�ff 0;
2 -Car
' ! Garage '
400 sf
Buildable Area
1680 sf ! !
! (24' x 70') !
P 111 Floor
' ! 1280 sf '
10' ; !
Garage Area 111 — 1680 sf possible
Minimum Open Vol(400+1280)
ume
Possible Living Area
3rd Floor Step Backs
r- - - - - --•-•-•-•-•-•-;
! ;
! ;
;
;
;
;
2nd Floor
! 1428 sf
;
! ;
! ;
! ;
! Min. Open Volume
! 252 sf
! ..........
2nd — 1428 sf possible
Max 3rd Floor & Covered Deck Area
111 Floor
1680 sf
2nd Floor
1680 sf
3rd Floor
336 sf
Total Possible
3696 sf
Total Allowed 2720 sf
Result- No loss of intensity
3rd Floor Step Back
rea 800 sf
! ;
;
;
;
3rd Floor
336 sf '
! ;
------------------
! ;
! ;
3rd — 336 sf possible
Figure 1
16-86
Typical Balboa Island Lot (Duplex Example): 30'x 85' = 2,550 sf
Buildable Area: 24' x 70' = 1680sf
Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf
Maximum Floor Area Allowed: 2520 + 200= 2720 sf
Proposed New Standards:
Minimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 252 sf
Maximum 3rd Floor: 20% x Buildable Area= 336 sf
Maximum 3rd Floor Area and Covered Deck Area: 50% x Buildable Area= 840 sf
Thirdfloor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 Leet sides _ _ _ _ _ _
5 r ' r.
� ! 2 -Car
Carport
' ! 384 sf '
(meets min. open volume)
Buildable Area 2 -Car
1680 sf r� Garage
! (24' x 70') ; 400 sf ;
3' 3'' ;
! ! 11t Floor
896 sf
! 10' ; !
Garage Area 1st — 1296 sf possible
Minimum Open Volume (400+896)
Possible Living Area
3rd Floor Step Backs
r- - - - - --•-•-•-•-•-•-�
2nd Floor
1680 sf
2nd — 1680 sf possible
Max 3rd Floor & Covered Deck Area
111 Floor
1296 sf
2nd Floor
1680 sf
3rd Floor
336 sf
Total Possible
3312 sf
Total Allowed 2720 sf
Result- No loss of intensity
3rd Floor Step Back
rea 800 sf
3rd Floor
336 sf
!_...................
3rd — 336 sf possible
Figure 2
16-87
Balboa Peninsula RM Lot (Duplex 2- Car Example): 30'x 102.5' = 3,075 sf
Buildable Area: 24' x 95.5= 2292 sf
Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.75 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garage
Maximum Floor Area Allowed: 4,011 + 400 = 4,411sf
Minimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 344 sf
Proposed New Standards:
Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)
o'
r -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•r
Buildable Area
2292 sf ;
! (24' x 95.5') !
13' 3''.
Garage Area
Minimum Open Volume
Possible Living Area
3rd Floor Step Backs
r- - - -•-•-•-•-•-•-•i
2 -Car
Carport
384 sf '
i
(meets min. open volume)
i
i
2 -Car '
Garage
400 sf i
i
i
i
1St Floor '
i
1492 sf
i
-------------------
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1St — 1908 sf possible
(400+1508)
r -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•i
' 2nd Floor '
2292 sf
2nd — 2292 sf possible
11t Floor
1908 sf
2nd Floor
2292 sf
3rd Floor
1310 sf
Total Possible
5510 sf
Total Allowed 4,411 sf
Result- No loss of intensity
r -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•i
3rd Floor Step Back
Area 982 sf
3rd Floor '
1310 sf
3rd — 1310 sf possible
Figure 3
16-88
Balboa Peninsula RM Lot (Duplex 4- Car Example): 30'x 102.5' = 3,075 sf
Buildable Area: 24' x 95.5= 2292 sf
Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.75 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garage
Maximum Floor Area Allowed: 4,011 + 800 = 4,811sf
Minimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 344 sf
Proposed New Standards:
Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)
o'
r -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•r
Buildable Area !
2292 sf ;
! (24' x 95.5') !
13' 3''.
Garage Area
Minimum Open Volume
Possible Living Area
3rd Floor Step Backs
r -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•i
i W i
! 4 -Car '
Garage
i 800 sf i
1St Floor '
i
1492 sf
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
151 — 2292 sf possible
(800+1492)
r -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•i
2nd Floor
1948 sf
Min. Open Volume
344 sf
2nd — 1948 sf possible
1St Floor
2292 sf
2nd Floor
1948 sf
3rd Floor
1310 sf
Total Possible
5550 sf
Total Allowed 4811 sf
Result- No loss of intensity
r -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•i
3rd Floor Step Back
Area 982 sf
3rd Floor
1310 sf
3rd — 1310 sf possible
Figure 4
16-89
Balboa Peninsula RM Lot (Single -Unit 2 -Car Example): 30'x 102.5' = 3,075 sf
Buildable Area: 24' x 95.5= 2292 sf
Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.75 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garage
Maximum Floor Area Allowed: 4,011 + 400 sf = 4411sf
Minimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 344 sf
Proposed New Standards:
Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)
o'
-----------------------
Buildable Area
2292 sf ;
(24' x 95.5')
13' 3''.
...... _ _ _
Garage Area
Minimum Open Volume
Possible Living Area
3rd Floor Step Backs
-----------------------
2-Car
Garage '
400 sf ;
1St Floor ;
1892sf
1St— 2292 sf possible
(400+1892)
-----------------------
2nd Floor
1948 sf
Min. Open Volume
344 sf '
2nd —1948 sf possible
1st Floor
2292 sf
2nd Floor
1948 sf
3rd Floor
1310 sf
Total Possible 5550 sf
Total Allowed 4411 sf
Result- No loss of intensity
-----------------------
3rd Floor Step Back
Area 982 sf
3rd Floor
1310 sf
3rd — 1310 sf possible
Figure 5
16-90
Balboa Peninsula RM Lot (Single -Unit 3 -Car Example): 30'x 102.5' = 3,075 sf
Buildable Area: 24' x 95.5= 2292 sf
Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.75 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garage
Maximum Floor Area Allowed: 4,011 + 600 sf = 4611sf
Minimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 344 sf
Proposed New Standards:
Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear; 2 feet sides)
o'
r -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•i
Buildable Area
2292 sf ;
(24' x 95.5')
13' 3''.
i 7' i
Garage Area
Minimum Open Volume
Possible Living Area
0 3rd Floor Step Backs
r -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•i
3 -Car
Garage '
600 sf ;
1St Floor '
1692sf
1St— 2292 sf possible
(600+1692)
r -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•i
' 2n6 Floor '
1948 sf
i Min. Open Volume i
344 sf '
2nd —1948 sf possible
1st Floor
2292 sf
2nd Floor
1948 sf
3rd Floor
1310 sf
Total Possible 5550 sf
Total Allowed 4611 sf
Result- No loss of intensity
r -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•i
3rd Floor Step Back
Area 982 sf
3rd Floor '
1310 sf
3rd — 458 sf possible
Figure 6
16-91
CDM RM Lot (Duplex 2- Car Example): 30'x 118'= 3,540 sf
Buildable Area: 24' x 108'= 2,592 sf
Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garage
Maximum Floor Area Allowed: 3,888 + 400 = 4,288 sf
Minimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 389 sf
Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear)
Proposed New Standards:
Third floor step backs (2 feet sides)
r- --------5------------•-i
i ;
5'
..........................
Garage Area
Minimum Open Volume
Possible Living Area
3rd Floor Step Backs
r- - -.-•-•-•-•-
i ;
i 2 -Car ;
' Carport
389 sf
i (meets min. open volume)
i
i
2 -Car '
i •
i
Garage •
400 sf
1St Floor
i 1803 sf
..........................
1St — 2203 sf possible
(400+1803)
i •
i •
i •
i
i
i
i •
i •
i •
2nd Floor !
! 2592 sf i
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
..........................
2nd — 2592 sf possible
1St Floor
2203 sf
2nd Floor
2292 sf
3rd Floor
1560 sf
Total Possible
6055 sf
Total Allowed 4,288 sf
Result- No loss of intensity
�---- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -• -• - -
i i
' 3rd Floor Step Back
rea 1032 sf
3rd Floor
i 1560 sf i
3rd — 1560 sf possible
Figure 7
16-92
CDM RM Lot (Duplex 4- Car Example): 30'x 118'= 3,540 sf
Buildable Area: 24' x 108'= 2,592 sf
Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garage
Maximum Floor Area Allowed: 3,888 + 800 = 4,688 sf
Minimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 389 sf
Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear)
Proposed New Standards:
Third floor step backs (2 feet sides)
5' ;
Buildable Area
2592 sf i
' (24' x 108')
3' 3,'
i
'._._._._._._5. . ........
f Garage Area
Minimum Open Volume
Possible Living Area
3rd Floor Step Backs
! 4 -Car '
Garage ;
800 sf i
! 11t Floor '
i 1792 sf ;
'._._._ _._._._._._._.i
1St — 2592 sf possible
(800+1792)
2nd Floor i
2203 sf i
Min. Open Volume ;
! 389 sf i
2nd — 2203 sf possible
1St Floor
2592 sf
2nd Floor
2203 sf
3rd Floor
1560 sf
Total Possible
6355 sf
Total Allowed 4688 sf
Result- No loss of intensity
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i i
3rd Floor Step Back '
Area 1032 sf
3rd Floor
i 1560 sf i
i i
3rd — 1560 sf possible
Figure 8
16-93
CDM RM Lot (Single -Unit 2- Car Example): 30'x 118'= 3,540 sf
Buildable Area: 24' x 108'= 2,592 sf
Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area plus 200 sf/garage
Maximum Floor Area Allowed: 3,888 + 400 = 4,288 sf
Minimum Open Volume: 15% x Buildable Area= 389 sf
Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear)
Proposed New Standards:
Third floor step backs (2 feet sides)
,.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.'
5' ;
Buildable Area ;
i 2592 sf i
' (24' x 108')
3' 3''.
I
'.-.-.-.-.-.-5-.-.-.-.-.-.-.i
Garage Area
Minimum Open Volume
Possible Living Area
3rd Floor Step Backs
' 2 -Car i
Garage
I
i 400 sf ;
I ;
! 1st Floor '
2192
'.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.i
15t — 2592 sf possible
(400+2192)
,._._._._._._._._._._._._._.I
I ;
I ;
I I
I I
2nd Floor i
2203 sf i
! Min. Open Volume i
389 sf !
I
'.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.i
2nd —2203 sf possible
1st Floor
2592 sf
2nd Floor
2203 sf
3rd Floor
1560 sf
Total Possible 6355 sf
Total Allowed 4288 sf
Result- No loss of intensity
I_.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. .-._._._.,
3rd Floor Step Bac
Area 1032 sf ;
3rd Floor
i 1560 sf i
;._._._._._._._._._._._•-,-•i
3rd — 1560 sf possible
Figure 9
16-94
Balboa Peninsula R-2 25' wide lot (Duplex Example): 25' x 95' = 2,375 sf
Buildable Area: 19' x 80'= 1,520 sf
Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL formula): 1.5 x Buildable Area
Maximum Floor Area Allowed: 3,040 sf
Proposed New Standards:
Third floor step backs (15 feet front and rear)
r•-•-•-•-,-,-,---•-•-•-•-•-;
5' ;
;
;
;
;
;
Buildable Area
1520 sf ;
;
(19' x 80')
3' 3'!
;
;
;
;
;
;
! 10' ;
..............i
Garage Area
Possible Living Area
Required Step Backs
;
2 -Car !
' Carport
296 sf !
2 -Car
;
Garage
370 sf ;
1St Floor '
854 sf !
..........................
1St — 1224 sf possible
(370+854)
r- - - - - --•-•-•-•-•-•-;
;
2nd Floor
! 1520 sf
2nd — 1520 sf possible
1St Floor
1224 sf
2nd Floor
1520 sf
3rd Floor
950 sf
Total Possible
3694 sf
Total Allowed 3040 sf
Result- No loss of intensity
r -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- ---
- - -;
' Rear Step Back
19 x 15=285 sf !
3rd Floor
! 950 sf
Front Step Back
19 x 15=285 sf
3rd — 950 sf possible
Figure 10
16-95
Attachment K
May 7, 2020 Planning
Commission Minutes
16-96
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2020
REGULAR MEETING — 6:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., with most members attending by video
conference.
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
16-97
• 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).
• Application of existing third floor side step -back requirements to lots 30 feet wide or greater.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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).
16-98
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
16-99
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 staffs 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.
16-100
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.
16-101
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.
16-102
Attachment L
September 17, 2020 Planning
Commission Minutes
16-103
1"T
V.
VI
VII
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2020
REGULAR MEETING — 6:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Ellmore
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Erik Weigand, Vice Chair Lee Lowrey, Secretary Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Curtis
Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Mark
Rosene
ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim
Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Principal
Planner Jaime Murillo, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative
Technician Amanda Lee
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Mosher expressed concern about staffs letter to the Coastal Commission in the appeal of the application for
a parking structure at 215 Riverside. He felt the letter could give the impression that staff is a partisan advocate
rather than a neutral evaluator of applications.
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell noted Item 2 has been removed from the calendar;
however, it appears on the agenda because staff partially noticed it. Staff will issue a new notice when the item
returns to the agenda.
CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2020
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Chair Weigand noted Mr. Mosher's written comments and suggested revisions.
Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to approve the minutes of
the July 23, 2020, meeting with Mr. Mosher's suggested revisions.
AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, and Rosene
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO.2 BROCKHAUS RESIDENCE ADDITION (PA2020-116)
Site Location: 1521 Sylvia Lane
Summary:
A request for a variance to allow portions of a 1,538 -square -foot addition to an existing single -story 1,742 -
square -foot residence and two -car garage to encroach up to 1.2 feet into the required 6 -foot side setbacks
on each side of the property. The residence is nonconforming as it is built with 4.8 -and 4.9 -foot side
setbacks and the proposed addition will remain inline with the existing structure.
16-104
Recommended Action:
No action as this item has been removed from calendar. Future consideration of this project will require
new notice.
Chair Weigand announced the item removed from the calendar due to a noticing issue.
ITEM NO. 3 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. This item was continued from the May 7, 2020, Planning Commission
hearing. Specifically, the proposed amendments would reduce bulk and mass associated with future
residential development as follows:
Revisions to Third Floor Standards
• Third -floor stepbacks would apply to covered deck areas (currently applies only to enclosed floor
area).
• Third -floor side stepbacks 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.
• Third -floor stepback standards (front and rear) would apply to 25 -foot wide or less lots zoned R-2
(currently exempt).
• Third -floor stepback standards (front, rear, and sides) would apply to single- and two -unit dwellings
in Multiple Residential (RM) zone (currently exempt).
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.
Single -Unit and Two -Unit Dwellings in the R -BI 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 Two -Unit Residential, Balboa Island (R -BI) zone.
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. PC2020-031 recommending the City Council approve Amendment No.
CA2019-004 and the proposed amendments to the City Council; and
4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-032 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 Planning Commission considered this item on May 7, 2020, and
continued it to allow staff time to determine if the amendments comply with Senate Bill SB 330, the Housing Crisis
Act. Staff has received a determination from the State and modified the proposed amendments. The Council
initiated these amendments in May 2019 in response to community concerns. In addition, the Council initiated an
amendment related to the preservation of beach cottages, which the Commission reviewed, and the Council
approved. Currently, the Coastal Commission is reviewing the amendment.
16-105
Principal Planner Murillo indicated that prior to the 2010 Zoning Code update, the height limit for R-1 and R-2
properties was 24 feet for flat roofs and 29 feet for sloping roofs. A Code provision for sloping roofs stated the
midpoint of a sloping roof plane could not exceed 24 feet. The standard of review for sloping roofs was complex
and time consuming. The provision resulted in a third floor being squeezed into the center of a property and
difficulty in designing a compliant third -floor covered deck. One of the major goals of the Zoning Code update was
to streamline the development review process and remove complexities from the Code. The update maintained
the 24- and 29 -foot height limits and required a sloped roof to have a minimum 3:12 pitch. The Code update also
required the enclosed area of a third floor to be stepped back an additional 15 feet from the front and rear setbacks
to try to control the bulk of the third -floor area. Additionally, the update imposed a maximum third -floor area limit,
which ranges from 15 to 20 percent depending on the lot width. The standards apply to enclosed spaces only, not
covered decks. Many projects are now proposing large covered third -floor decks that are not pulled back from the
building edges. The revised definition of floor area excludes unfinished attics from third -floor area stepbacks and
floor area calculations. The definition is silent regarding the extent to which a covered deck should be open. The
standards do not apply to Balboa Island as a whole, development in Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning Districts, or
lots zoned R-2 and measuring 25 feet wide or less.
Principal Planner Murillo summarized outreach efforts starting with a community meeting held in August 2019. In
September 2019, the Council held a study session and provided further direction to staff. A second community
meeting was held in March 2020. Following the May Planning Commission meeting, staff consulted with the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and received a letter of determination of
compliance with SB330. The City Attorney's Office has also reviewed the proposed amendments for compliance
with SB330. Outreach to community members and designers has resulted in further refinements of the proposed
amendments. The proposed amendments are not a comprehensive revision of design standards but are focused
on correcting the unintended consequences of the 2010 Zoning Code update. The proposed amendments do not
change any previously allowed heights; do not prohibit covered decks; and do not change the allowed floor area
that a property owner could have achieved prior to the amendment. The proposed amendments will apply
stepbacks and an additional 50 -percent coverage limit to enclosed floor area and to covered third -floor deck area;
apply the 2 -foot stepback to lots 30 feet wide or greater and to covered third -floor decks; revise the definition of
gross floor area to require covered decks to be open on two sides except for minimal structural supports, require
open or glass guardrails, and delete the word "finished;" apply standards to Balboa Island; apply the front and rear
stepbacks to R-2 lots measuring 25 feet wide and less; and apply front, side, and rear stepbacks to RM lots. Staff
recommends any discretionary application that has been submitted and deemed complete or submitted for plan
check prior to the effective date of the ordinance be allowed to continue under the existing rules.
In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Principal Planner Murillo advised that the new design standards
will apply to Newport Heights. Previous public comment suggested Newport Heights should be exempt from the
new design standards.
Commissioners Rosene, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Koetting, and Ellmore disclosed no ex parte communications.
Vice Chair Lowrey and Chair Weigand disclosed communications with community members and receipt of emails.
Chair Weigand opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher supported staffs solution to third -floor massing issues and expressed concern regarding the
consistency of the proposed stepback and floor area amendments with SB 330 and the inconsistency of "wider
than 30 feet" and "30 feet wide or greater."
Bob McCaffrey indicated that he did not believe community outreach has been sufficient. He indicated his belief
the proposed amendments infringe on his property rights.
Nancy Scarbrough supported the recommendation.
Charles Klobe supported the amendments.
Mark Becker believed the amendments are a positive step toward reducing mass, but the ultimate solution would
be a uniform building envelope.
16-106
Catherine Martin Wolcott, representing the Martin Family Trust, could accept the proposed amendments if there
are no further reductions to third -floor enclosed areas, permitted maximum floor area ratio, or the size of covered,
unenclosed decks located in the RM Zoning Districts.
Randy Black strongly supported the proposed amendments. These amendments are necessary to maintain
property values.
Jodi Bole, Balboa Island Preservation Association Chair, hoped the Planning Commission supports the staff
recommendation.
Charles Caldwell supported the amendments and suggested the City focus on "mansionization."
Brion Jeannette expressed concern regarding the amendments complying with SB 330 and believed the
amendments should only apply to the parcels on Balboa Island and Peninsula Point.
Chair Weigand closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Lowrey expressed concern with the changes applying uniformly across the City. The amendments
should be specific to certain areas. Applying the amendments uniformly takes away from the unique character
of each area. The amendments would limit certain property rights.
Motion made by Vice Chair Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to table the item.
Commissioner Ellmore agreed somewhat with Vice Chair Lowrey's comments regarding the blanket nature of
the amendments. The amendments are appropriate for the coastal zone but reduce the advantages of property
owners in other locations. The Planning Commission should consider bifurcating the amendments into
different zones.
In response to Commissioner Klaustermeier's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell
advised that parsing the amendments by geography would be cumbersome and would not be staff's
recommendation. Staff would have to create different standards for separate geographic areas, which would
make the Code more complicated and increase the likelihood of errors. Staff can do it if the Planning
Commission and Council desire it. Staff is looking for a more uniform approach because the issue appears to
be applicable throughout the R-1 and R-2 districts.
Commissioner Klaustermeier believed the proposed amendments address much of the massing that is starting
to degrade the character of some of the neighborhoods. The amendments may not need to apply to all
geographical areas, but generally she supported staffs recommendation.
Commissioner Rosene understood Vice Chair Lowrey's and Commissioner Ellmore's concerns but felt the
proposed amendments are the right thing for the community.
Substitute Motion made by Commissioner Rosene to approve the staff recommendation.
In reply to Vice Chair Lowrey's query, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill advised that there has not
been a motion to cut off debate. If Commissioner Rosene's motion receives a second, the Planning
Commission can consider it.
Secretary Kleiman seconded the substitute motion
In answer to Commissioner Koetting's query, Vice Chair Lowrey indicated he would apply the amendments to
Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, and the Peninsula, basically the coastal zone. In West Newport and along
Superior and Coast Highway, there are a lot of differences in architectural type and lot sizes. Commissioner
Koetting noted the coastal zone is a massive area and includes almost all of the R-2 and R-1 districts. If the
motion passes, the amendments would have to be restructured for every one of the defined neighborhood
communities. Vice Chair Lowrey related that the areas would have to be determined. The proposed
amendments would affect a property owner's rights to build and potentially to sell his home in the future. These
changes are not minor.
16-107
In response to Commissioner Koetting's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell
indicated staff can insert an effective date into the ordinance. Portions of the proposed amendments affect the
coastal zone, and the Coastal Commission will have to review them, which could require a year or more. Staff
can tailor an effective date but is recommending applications in the pipeline continue under the current
standards.
Chair Weigand stated that staff has toned down the proposed amendment such that they are more palatable
and he called for the vote on the substitute motion.
Vote on the Substitute Motion
AYES: Weigand, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene
NOES: Lowrey, Ellmore
ABSTAI N:
ABSENT:
Vice Chair Lowrey remarked that a motion to table is not debatable or subject to a substitute motion according to
Robert's Rules of Order.
In reply to Chair Weigand's inquiries, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill clarified that the Planning Commission is
recommending an action to the Council; therefore, the Planning Commission's decision is not a final decision. A
motion to reconsider must be made in the same meeting as the decision and made by a Commissioner who voted
with the majority.
Commissioner Koetting wished to recommend to the Council the inclusion of a sunset provision similar to that
pertaining to signage because Vice Chair Lowrey and Commissioner Ellmore made good points.
In reply to Chair Weigand's question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill advised that a motion to reconsider would
be needed to include a sunset provision in the recommendation to Council. Alternatively, the staff report for the
Council could highlight the Planning Commission's comments.
Chair Weigand reported the Planning Commission discussed a sunset clause but leaves the inclusion of a sunset
clause to the discretion of the City Council.
Secretary Kleiman clarified that the Planning Commission as a whole did not support including a sunset clause.
An effective date has to be set, and it will not please everyone.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 4. CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE
Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
The City is presently evaluating and updating its General Plan with a focus on the Housing, Land Use,
and Circulation Elements in addition to environmental justice policies. The agenda item is a discussion of
the Planning Commission's role with the Circulation Element update.
Recommended Action:
1. Review and provide input to staff;
2. Determine this activity is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3
because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
3. Consider the appointment, at this meeting or a future meeting, of a Planning Commissioner to
work with Outreach Subcommittee of the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the City Council initiated a comprehensive update
of the General Plan in early 2019 and established a General Plan Update Steering Committee. Subsequently, the
16-108
Attachment M
Planning Commission
Resolution PC2020-031
16-109
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.
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
16-110
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Paae 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
16-111
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Paae 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 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
16-112
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 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. 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: Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Rosene, and Weigand
NOES: Ellmore and Lowrey
ABSENT:
BY:
Erik Weigan , Chairman
BY:
Lauren Kleiman, Secretary
16-113
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Paae 5 of 8
I*:/CII 3III iii_VA
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
Common: 75 square
Single -unit and two -unit dwellings
feet/unit
feet/unit
developed on a single site shall comply
Minimum dimension
Minimum dimension
with Open Volume Area standards of
shall be 15 feet.
shall be 15 feet.
Section 20.48.180 (Residential
Private: 5% of the
N/A
Private: 5% of the
Development Standards and Design
gross floor area for
gross floor area for
Criteria).
each unit.
each unit.
Minimum dimension
Minimum dimension
The minimum dimension is for length and
shall be 6 feet.
shall be 6 feet.
width.
Residential
See Section 20.48.180.
Development
Standards
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:
16-114
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Paae 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(6)(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
16-115
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2O20-031
Paae 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:
16-116
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-031
Paae 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.
16-117
Attachment N
Planning Commission
Resolution PC2020-032
16-118
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.
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
16-119
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-032
Paae 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
16-120
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-032
Paae 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
16-121
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-032
Paae 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: Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Rosene, and Weigand
NOES: Ellmore and Lowrey
00111101",k
ABSENT:
BY -
Erik Weigand, Ch' irman
BY -
Lauren Kleiman, Secretary
16-122
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-032
Paae 5 of 6
WA offII*IdV_11%
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:
Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more unit development).
Common: 75 square feet/unit
Open Minimum dimension shall be 15
Space feet. Private: 5% of the gross
floor area for each unit. The minimum dimension is for length
Minimum dimension shall be 6 land width.
feet.
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
16-123
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-032
Paae 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.
16-124