DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PHASE II UPDATE
DECEMBER 12, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COMMENT AND DIRECTION SUMMARY
City Council Direction:
I. Orgill
A. Ground-floor residential: Consider allowing ground-floor residential on lots that are of sufficient size to provide commercial space at the sidewalk with residential behind.
B. Floodplain considerations: To compensate for floodplain constraints that require buildings to be raised above the base flood elevation (BFE), revise the building height measurement to be taken from the BFE.
1. Staff note: page 155 of the DSP currently states the following: “Compensatory height exceptions may be granted for those properties where the first habitable level must be raised above the floodplain elevation.”
a) Consider replacing “may be granted” with “shall be granted,” or simply state that building height is measured from the BFE.
C. Maximum building height: Consider maximizing future flexibility by allowing multi-story throughout the Downtown, and potentially up to three stories everywhere.
D. DSP boundary: Task 1.4 of the Phase I update generated an analysis of the DSP boundaries with recommendations regarding a potential northward expansion on Laguna Canyon Road to incorporate the Laguna College of Art and Design (LCAD) Main Campus at 2222 Laguna Canyon Road. Orgill requested that staff revisit the idea.
II. Whalen
A. Lot mergers: Broaden eligibility beyond 100% affordable housing projects. Allow for some market-rate, perhaps with an inclusionary component.
B. DSP boundary: Evaluate whether the DSP should extend out to the LCAD Main Campus.
C. Parking: Addressing parking requirements will be critical.
III. Rounaghi
A. DSP boundary: Evaluate whether the DSP should extend out to the LCAD Main Campus.
Attachment 2
18 B. Parking requirements: The DSP currently requires one space for every studio/onebedroom unit and two spaces for every unit with two or more bedrooms. Rounaghi recommends reducing the requirement to 0.5 spaces per market-rate or affordable unit, regardless of bedroom count.
C. Parking decoupling: Allow parking spaces to be rented and/or sold separately from the land use by decoupling parking costs from residential and commercial lease costs.
D. 3D model: Prepare a 3D model of the Downtown Specific Plan area depicting taller infill development.
E. Maximum building height: Ensure that the Downtown isn’t completely cast in shade.
F. Residential unit size: Establish incentives for creating smaller residential units.
Consider waiving permit fees if units are below a certain size.
G. Phase I DSP update: The Planning Commission should revisit the Phase I deliverables that were studied during the prior update process but not implemented. The Commission should make recommendations to the City Council as to which should be folded into the Phase II update, if any.
H. Density bonus: Staff should confirm that the proposed changes do not have any unanticipated consequences as they relate to density bonus projects.
I. Residential density: Consider maintaining a minimum density, albeit one that increases flexibility relative to the existing standard, such as 1 unit/500 SF.
IV. Weiss
A. 3D model: Prepare a 3D model of the Downtown Specific Plan area depicting taller infill development.
B. Residential density: Unclear what unlimited density would look like. Staff should also study what the potential unit yield would be at The Hive and Art-A-Fair, which probably have the greatest potential for creating new housing units.
V. Kempf
A. Conversions: Develop standards for converting upper-level commercial space to housing.
B. Parking requirements: Reduce the residential parking requirement.
C. Maximum building height: Buildings along the north side of Lower Forest should remain at their existing heights.
D. 3D model: Prepare a 3D model of the Downtown Specific Plan area depicting taller infill development.
19 Public Comments:
I. Cody Engle
A. Parking requirements: Reduce the requirement to 0.5 spaces per unit.
II. Cathy Jurca
A. Density bonus law: The City has to grant a density bonus, and staff cannot ask for a pro forma demonstrating that the requested incentives and concessions are necessary to make the housing development financially feasible. There may be unintended consequences with staff’s recommendations, particularly as it relates to developer requests for additional building height.
B. Density requirements: Expressed concern with allowing unlimited residential density.
III. Michelle McCormick
A. Supports affordable housing.
IV. Horst Noppenberger
A. Consider allowing third stories that step back such that they cannot be seen from the street.
V. Ketta Brown
A. Supports staff recommendations.
VI. Anne Caen
A. Expressed concern with the number of changes proposed.
VII. Rona Henry with Welcoming Neighbors Home, a ministry of Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation
A. Generally supportive given the need to facilitate the development of infill housing. Rona recommends that the plan prioritize upper-story and infill development of affordable housing for households with very-low, extremely-low, and acutely-low incomes.
Moderate income rental rates, and to some extent low-income rental rates, are too close to market rate, and thus are unaffordable to many downtown workers, seniors, and students.
VIII. Barbara McMurray
A. Supports building height increases to facilitate second-story housing. However, to reach our housing goals per the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Barbara recommends that the City prioritize affordable housing for housing with very-low, extremely-low, and acutely-low incomes.
20