Attachment D
July 3, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
35-108
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
July 3, 2025
Agenda Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
▪ Major Site Development Review
▪ Vesting Tentative Tract Map
SITE LOCATION: Unaddressed property abutting 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361) and 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02)
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
Ford Road Ventures LLC
Pacific Bell Telephone Company
PLANNER: Jerry Arregui, Assistant Planner
949-644-3249, [email protected]
PROJECT SUMMARY
A request to authorize the development of a 27-unit, for-sale, residential townhome community on an undeveloped and unaddressed property. The project also include s improvements to the adjacent AT&T Facility property, including the installation of a gate to restrict vehicular access, repainting of the AT&T Facility building, and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications monopole within the AT&T Facility property. Lastly, the project includes subdividing the unaddressed property and reconfiguring the lot line between the project site and the AT&T Facility property. The following approvals are required:
• A Major Site Development Review authorizing construction of residential development, increase in maximum structure height, and deviations from specific multi-unit objective design standards.
• A Vesting Tentative Tract Map authorizing the adjustment of property lines between the project site and the AT&T Facility property to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units for individual sale (i.e., for condominium purposes).
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Find that this project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of the 35-109
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
CEQA Guidelines because the Project is consistent with the previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023060699); and
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2025-012, approving the Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map filed as PA2025-0049 (Attachment No. PC 1).
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
35-110
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
VICINITY MAP
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
ON-SITE Public Facilities (PF)
Public Facilities (PF) and
Housing Opportunity (HO)
Overlay, Newport Center
Subarea (HO-4)
Undeveloped, AT&T
Facility
NORTH Multiple Residential (RM) Planned Community -
Bonita Canyon (PC50)
Newport Bluffs
Apartments
EAST Open Space (OS) PC50 Bonita Canyon Sports
Park (Undeveloped)
SOUTH Parks and Recreation (PR), OS, and
Single Unit Residential Detached
Planned Community –
Harbor View Hills (PC3)
and Open Space (OS)
Bonita Canyon Sports
Park, Trail, and Harbor
View Community
WEST OS Open Space (OS) Bonita Canyon Sports
Park Trail
Project Site AT&T Facility Property
35-111
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
INTRODUCTION
Background
Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District and Amendment
On September 13, 2022, the City Council adopted the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period (Housing Element). The Housing Element was later certified as statutorily compliant with state law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 5, 2022.
On September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2024-16 and 2024-17, approving amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to establish the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts in Section
20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) of the NBMC and to create multi-unit objective design standards in Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC, respectively. The new sections serve to implement Policy Actions 1A through 1G and 3A in the 6th Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan.
The adoption of these ordinances provided new housing opportunities within five subareas to ensure the City can meet its 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation: Airport Area Environs Area (HO-1), West Newport Mesa Area (HO-2), Dover-Westcliff Area (HO -3), Newport Center Area (HO -4), and Coyote Canyon Area (HO-5). These subareas correspond directly to the Focus Areas identified in Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis) of the Housing Element.
Properties identified as a Housing Opportunity Site have specified development standards conducive to residential development at the prescribed average density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. The standards include but are not limited to minimum lot area, setbacks, height, open space, landscaping, and parking. The Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards are applicable to any residential project with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre to ensure the highest possible design quality and to provide a baseline standard for new multi-unit developments throughout the City.
As shown in Figure 1 below, the project site was identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 with an assumed net yield of 64 dwelling units and included within the HO-4 (Newport Center Area) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District.
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
35-112
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
Figure 1, HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District On November 19, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-85, initiating an amendment to Section 20.28.050 in Title 20 and the pending complementary section in Title 21 of the NBMC, to review and make possible adjustments to certain development standards, including but not limited to building height limits as specified in Table 2 -16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 [Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts] and pending Table 21.28 -1 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) in Title 21 of the NBMC.
Project Site
35-113
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
As originally adopted , Table 2 -16 (Development Standards For Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 in Title 20 identified heights within the HO-4 Subarea as being limited to those in the underlying base zoning district. Given the variety of zoning districts, maximum height limits range from as high as 300 feet and as low as 32 feet. Due to the lower base height limits, an adjustment to allowable building heights is appropriate and necessary to accommodate residential developments within the intended prescribed density range of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre.
On June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, which adjusted the height limitations for housing projects on several properties within the HO-4 Subarea, including an increased height limit of 48 feet for the subject property. However, it is important to note that this amendment is not yet effective until 30 days after adoption.
Project Setting
As depicted in Figure 2 below, the townhome community is proposed for the undeveloped and unaddressed property, near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection. The townhome site is northeast of a City-owned trail and the parking lot for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and is approximately 230 feet northwest of the Harbor View community consisting of single-family residences. While the townhome development will occur within the undeveloped property, the project also involves improvements to the AT&T Facility addressed as 165 0 Ford Road . The AT&T facility property is developed with a n approximately 35 -foot-tall utility building that houses telephone and communication equipment, a surface parking lot accessed from Ford Road, and a 50-foot-tall wireless telecommunications monopole. Both of these properties are currently owned by the Pacific Bell Telephone Company and will comprise the project site. The future ownership of the townhome site by the Applicant is contingent on securing entitlements for residential development.
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
35-114
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
Figure 2, Oblique image of the project site and the surrounding neighborhood
Project Description
The applicant proposes to develop a 27 -unit residential townhome com munity. The proposed development includes two-, three-, and four-bedroom units ranging from 1,916 to 2,989 square feet, each with an attached two-car garage. The units are to be distributed within four detached four-story buildings with a maximum structure height of 47 feet and 11 inches, above the established grade. Dwelling unit types are summarized in Table 1. The project’s design and architecture, access and parking, amenities, AT&T Facility improvements, and subdivision are each described under separate headers below. The applicant’s full project description is provided as Attachment No. PC 2.
Table 1, Dwelling Unit Summary
Floor Plan Gross Floor
Area (Sq. Ft)
Bedrooms Garage Spaces No. Units
Plan 1 1,916 2 2 8
Plan 2 2,325 3 2 8
Plan 3 2,916 4 2 5
Plan 4 2,989 4 2 6
Bonita Canyon
Sports Park
Harbor View
Community
Newport Bluffs Apartments
Project Site
AT&T Facility
35-115
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
Design and Architecture
As depicted in Figure 3, the project was designed with contemporary coastal architecture with an articulated façade, which includes varied rooflines, balconies, facade projections and recessions, large windows, and material variation. Additionally, the project includes two color schemes: a coastal palette with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral earthy palette with beige, brown, light green and light white.
Figure 3, Project Rendering, as seen from Ford Road
Access and Parking
Two of the four buildings will face the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and are adjacent to the park trail. The project is integrated with the Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail using landscaping and pedestrian walkways which allow for three points of access to the trail .
This connectivity is intended to allow for pedestrian access to the park and nearby destinations. Additionally, this connectivity allows for use of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes provided along Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Drive.
The project is designed with vehicular access from Ford Road, through a shared driveway with the AT&T Facility. No additional curb -cut openings are proposed. The project will include an easement with the AT&T Facility property to ensure access for the project is maintained and future curb openings are not required. This layout is depicted in Figure 4.
35-116
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
Figure 4, Site Plan
The project proposes two drive aisles within the interior of the community, leading to each unit’s individual garages and guest parking spaces. The drive aisles will also accommodate emergency, delivery and refuse vehicle access. Trash pick -up will be staged along th e drive aisles, as each unit will have residential trash bins. There is a designed turn around area which allows for larger delivery, service and emergency vehicles to safely exit the property.
The project will provide 54 parking spaces (i.e., two per unit) within garages, 10 uncovered guest parking spaces, and two uncovered delivery spaces for a total of 66 parking spaces.
Shared Driveway
Delivery/Turn
Around Space
Trail
Access
AT&T
Facility
Bonita Canyon
Sports Park
Trail
Firepit
Area Picnic
Area
Point Parking
Parking
Trail
Access
35-117
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
Residential Amenities
The development provides resident-serving amenities including an approximately 2,300- square-foot outdoor picnic area and an approximately 550-square-foot outdoor firepit area located on the northern portion of the site as depicted in Figure 4 above. The picnic area includes an outdoor kitchen with barbeque grills, outdoor seating, a detached trellis structure, and landscaping throughout. The firepit area is smaller in scale and provides an additional lounging area for residents and guests. Renderings depicting the firepit and picnic areas are included with the project plans (Attachment No PC 3).
The project provides each unit with 139 to 156 square feet of private balconies and covered patios.
AT&T Facility Improvements
The project also includes improvements to the AT&T Facility property. As shown below in Figure 5, a gate will be installed to restrict access from the shared driveway and the building will be painted grey with blue accents.
Figure 5, Rendering of AT&T Property Improvements
Additional improvements include repaving the parking lot, installation of new landscaping, and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications facility monopole. While the final design and location of the telecom facility is not yet complete, the future facility will need to conform to the development standards provided in Chapter 20.49 (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities) of the NBMC and will require subsequent review and permitting.
35-118
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
Subdivision and Establishment of Grade
The project will subdivide the undeveloped property to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes and allow for the airspace subdivision of the units for individual sale (i.e., for condominiums purposes).
As shown below in Figure 6, the project will also adjust the easterly property line between the undeveloped property and the AT&T Facility property, increasing the size of the townhome site from 1.06 to 1.16 acres and decreasing the size of the AT&T Facility property from 1.74 to 1.64 acres.
Figure 6, Vesting Tentative Tract Map showing the adjusted lot lines Lastly, the project proposes the establishment of grade for height measurement purposes for each building. The grade establishment is pursuant to Section 20.30.050 (B)(1) (Grade Project Site
AT&T Property
Bonita Canyon
Sports Park
Adjusted
Property
Line
0.1 Acre
Increase
35-119
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
Establishment – Subdivisions) of the NBMC and grades range from 196.35 to 198.83 feet based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).
Required City Approvals
The following approvals are required to implement the proposed project:
1. Major Site Development Review (SDR): Required for any project proposing five or more residential units with a tract map. The SDR additionally allows for an increase in maximum structure height pursuant to Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) of the NBMC and allows for deviations of four multi-unit objective design standards pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC.
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM): Requested to adjust the easterly property line between the project site and the AT&T Facility property, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes, and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the units for individual sale (i.e., for condominium purposes).
DISCUSSION
Analysis
General Plan Consistency
Though the subject property is categorized as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element, it was included as Site ID No. 141 within Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis) of the adopted and certified 6 th Cycle Housing Element deeming it potentially appropriate for multi-unit residential development in furtherance of the City’s housing goals. Its rezoning with the HO-4 Subarea designation is supported by Land Use Element Policy LU4.4 (Rezoning to Accommodate Housing Opportunities) , which states that the City would provide housing opportunities through the use of a housing overlay zoning district as a regulatory mechanism. In addition to the above, the project is consistent with several other General Plan Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Circulation Element policies that establish fundamental criteria for the formation and implementation of new residential development. A consistency analysis was completed and is detailed in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1) , as well as the attached General Plan Consistency Table (Attachment No. PC 4).
Zoning Code Consistency
Both the undeveloped property and the AT&T Facility property are zoned Public Facilities (PF). The undeveloped property is also located within the HO-4 Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District . As previously discussed in the Background section, Section 20.28.050 (B) (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts – Uses 35-120
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
Allowed) of the NBMC allows for multi-unit residential development on housing overlay sites if the project meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement. Based on the proposed 1.16-acre lot, the project results in a density of 23.27 units per acre and meets the density requirement of the HO-4 Subarea.
In addition to minimum density, t he project conforms to all applicable development standards of the HO -4 Subarea specified in Table 2 -16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, as evidenced by the project plans (Attachment No. PC 3) and as illustrated in Table 2 below.
Table 2: HO-4 Subarea Development Standards
1 Footnote No. 3 of Table 2 -16 requires that any portion of a building that is over 20 feet in height, which includ e the Project’s third and fourth floors, shall provide a 20-foot setback from the street right-of-way.
2 City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the project site.
The project is also subject to the Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards provided in Section 20.48.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. As indicated in the Objective Design Standards Checklist (Attachment No. PC 5), the project conforms to 48 of the 52 applicable standards. Subsection 20.48.185 (C) allows for deviations from any objective design standards through the approval of a SDR, by the Planning Commission, with additional findings. The applicant requests minor deviations of four standards as described in the Major Site Development Review - Multi-Unit Objective Design Standard Deviation section below.
Development Standard Standard Proposed
Setbacks (min.)
Front (Ford Road) 0 feet 6 feet
Side (northeast) 0 feet 6 to 56 feet
Side (west) 0 feet 4 to 6 feet
Rear (southeast) 0 feet 11 to 24 feet
Streetside (Bonita Canyon)1 20 feet 20 to 45 feet
Parking (min.) 61 spaces 66 spaces
Building Separation 10 feet 22 to 33 feet
Common Open Space (75 sq. ft./unit
min.)
2,025 sq. ft. 2,857 sq. ft (Fire Pit/Picnic Area)
Private Open Space (5% gross floor
area/unit min.)
96 to 150 sq. ft. per
unit
139 to 156 sq. ft. per unit
Height (max.)2 48 feet 47 feet, 11 inches
Lot Coverage No Limitation 45%
35-121
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
Major Site Development Review
Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Review, Findings and Decision ) of the NBMC requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings before approving SDR:
A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district;
B. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the following applicable criteria:
i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure;
ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design;
iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection); and
C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development.
Major Site Development Review – Height Increase
As previously discussed in the Background section, t he City Council recently adopted Ordinance No. 2025 -10, increasing the base height limit of the site from 32 feet for structures with a flat roof and 37 feet for structures with a sloped roof, to a maximum height limit of 48 feet for the subject property . However, since this ordinance doesn’t become effective until July 26, 2025, the project application includes a request for additional height through the SDR process in accordance with Section 20.30.060(C)(3) (Height Limits and Exceptions - Required Findings) of the NBMC.
The Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height only after making all the following findings in addition to the findings required pursuant to Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews – Findings and Decision):
35-122
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
a. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Examples of project amenities include, but are not limited to:
i. Additional landscaped open space;
ii. Increased setback and open areas; and
iii. Enhancement and protection of public views; and
b. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes;
c. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties; and
d. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase.
Staff believe facts to support the findings exist to approve the SDR, including a request for the increased height allowance . These facts are discussed in detail in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The key facts in support of findings are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Setbacks and Open Space
Although the project site has an irregular shape and the HO-4 Subarea requires limite d setbacks, the project design compactly arranges the four separate buildings to maximize site efficiency to provide larger than required setback s. The project provides varying setbacks including a 20 to 45 -foot streetside setback on the north, a 6 to 56-foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west, and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the project site. These setbacks allow for additional open area and for more light and air through the project. A preliminary landscape plan was provided which includes varying drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species throughout the projects sites larger than required setback areas and within the picnic area, and firepit area.
The HO-4 Subarea is not subject to any maximum lot coverage requirement. However, the compact site design of the project is accommodated through the taller buildings design which results in a lot coverage of approximately 45%. In comparison, properties located within the Multiple Residential (RM-6000) Zoning District are allowed a maximum lot coverage of 60%. The project provides additional open area through its compact design and less horizontal massing to reduce the site coverage compared to what is 35-123
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
allowed a RM -6000 District, accomplished with the allowed 48 -foot height of each building.
These compact design features allow the project to better reflect the character of a single- family neighborhood, in contrast to an apartment building project with a zero -setback design. The provided setbacks, open areas, and lower lot coverage offer amenities beyond those otherwise required by the HO-4 subarea and contributes to a more visually appealing project for the neighborhood.
Scale and Compatibility
The project is appropriately buffered from surrounding residential and recreational uses by existing roads, landscaping, and substantial setbacks and shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8, Oblique Image of Project Site with Building Heights and Distances to Surrounding Uses
The project is separated from the Harbor View community to the south by Ford Road, a two-lane connector with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 45 to 60 feet in height. The nearest single -unit dwelling is a pproximately 230 feet from the project’s southmost structures. Homes within the Harbor View community consist of single-story to two-story structures, and maximum allowed heights of up to 32 feet. The adjacent AT&T building is approximately 35 feet in height. The changing scale of structur es, intervening road with large street trees and distance provides a harmonious transition from the two - story Harbor View community to the project.
Bonita Canyon Dr.
Ford Rd.
32’
35’
’
48’
’
230’
230’
185’
230’
185’
230’
35’
’
35-124
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
As previously mentioned, the project includes several improvements to the adjacent AT&T Facility property including new landscaping and repainting the building. While these improvements are not required, the applicant has committed to improving the adjacen t property to ensure combability between the project and the AT&T Facility as well as for the benefit of both existing and future residents of this community and surrounding area.
The p roject is separated from the Newport Bluffs apartments to the north by Bonita Canyon Drive, a four-lane primary arterial road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height, and approximately 185 feet from the project’s northmost structures.
Figure 9, Rendering of Project from Bonita Canyon Drive
While access to the project is not taken from Bonita Canyon Drive, the project has been designed to include enhanced architectural and landscape treatments to improve the view for motorists and residents to the north as shown in Figure 9. The project has been conditioned to install perimeter landscaping along Bonita Canyon Drive, including trees , to ensure that the landscaping will be installed which serves to buffer and soften the project and ensures scale compatibility is maintained.
35-125
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
Major Site Development Review – Multi-Unit Objective Design Standard Deviation
Pursuant to Section 20.48.185(A) (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards – Purpose) of the NBMC, the project is seeking deviation from four of the 52 applicable Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards as shown in the Objective Design Standards Checklist (Attachment PC 5). The Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow deviation of multi-unit objective design standards only after making all the following findings:
A. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section.
B. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards
Staff believe facts to support the findings exist to approve the deviation of the four objecting design standards. These facts are discussed in detail in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The key facts in support of findings needed for the deviations are summarized as follows:
1. Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zon e (LPZ): A 4-foot minimum width zone abutting a building is required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping with a combination of vines, ornamental, grasses, shrubs, ground cover, and ornamental trees. The project provides a 3-foot, 6-inch wide LPZ at most driveway areas which result from building offsets. The building offset s contribute to enhanced building articulation, resulting in a more visually appealing façade. Increasing the LPZ zone to meet the 4-foot width requirement would reduce the size of the building offsets and the open setback area in front of each building. The narrower LPZ design maximizes the amount of landscaped open space in front of each building and maintains the 20% landscape standard, which provides more benefit to future residents than the negligible 6 inches of LPZ adjacent to garages.
2. Horizontal Modulation – Maximum Building Length: Building length shall be limited to 150 feet. The project proposes two eight-unit buildings with a length of 155 feet.
The project prevents lengthy unarticulated building masses by incorporating varied rooflines, balconies, façade projections and recessions, and material variation which creates the appearance of distinct units and breaks up the building’s overall length and massing. The building provides more than the required articulation and includes upper floor setbacks which ensure the building length is less visually obtrusive.
3. Horizontal Modulation – Minimum Depth: All building recesses or projections shall be a minimum of 2 feet in depth. The project proposes a variety of different recesses and projections including upper floor setbacks, balconies and covered patios. The project proposes a variety of different recesses and projections 35-126
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
including upper floor setbacks, balconies and covered patios which range from 6 inches to 12 feet. The intent of this requirement is to allow for sufficient depth of recesses and projections so that building lengths are sufficiently modulated. While some of the project’s recesses and projections are less than 2 feet in depth, the project provides large upper floor setbacks, balconies, and patios between 5 and 12 feet as shown in Figure 10 . The project provides additional depth for other recesses and projections features which ensures building length is less visually obtrusive.
4. Horizontal Modulation – Maximum Number: There shall be a maximum limit of two recesses or projections per façade. The project includes more than two recesses and projections in both of the largest buildings within the development as depicted in Figure 10. Due to their length, the additional recesses and projections allow for sufficient modulation to each unit. The intent of this requirement is to avoid lengthy and plain building facades. Limiting the design to only two recesses or projections would result in less modulation, less visual interest, and a building less reminiscent of townhomes. The project is furthering the intent of this requirement by sufficiently modulating the 8 -plex building, which results in a less visually obtrusive building length.
Figure 10, Façade of Eight-Unit Building
The proposed design also includes more than the required façade glazing and includes two color pallets where only one is required for this project. The project as proposed goes beyond the intent of the Objective Design Standards, which ensures the highest possible design quality for residential projects with a density of at least 20 units per acre.
Though the project requests minor deviation of four objective design standards, the project still more than complies with the intent the objective design standards therefore the deviations are appropriate.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
35-127
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps) of the NBMC , requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings before approving a Vesting Tentative Tract Map:
A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code;
B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development;
C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report;
D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems;
E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision;
F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land;
G. That, in the case of a “land project” as defined in California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5, (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area;
35-128
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act;
I. That the subdivision is consistent with California Government Code Sections 66412.3 and 65584 regarding the City’s share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City’s residents and available fiscal and environmental resources;
J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act.
Staff believe facts to support the findings exist to approve the VTTM. These facts are discussed in detail in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The key facts in support of findings are summarized in the following paragraphs.
The project proposes to adjust the eastern property like between the project site and the adjacent AT&T property to increase the lot to 1.16 acres to accommodate the project design. The VTTM is essential to develop the property with a townhome project as it is required to allow for the individual sale of residential units.
Because the project includes for -sale units, t he project is subject to pay a n in-lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees) of the NBMC, as required for park and recreational purposes. The existing parcel is undeveloped; therefore, the in-lieu parking fee will be required for 27 new dwelling units. A preliminary application for residential development, filed as PA2025-0056, was deemed submitted on April 7, 2025, for this project. The preliminary application prevents the project from being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in Government Code Section 65589.5(o). Therefore, the project will be subject to an in-lieu park fee of $38,400 per unit which is the fee that was in effect at the time the preliminary application was deemed submitted.
The site is suitable for the type and density of the development in that the infrastructure serving the site has been designed to accommodate the proposed project. A sewer and water demand study were prepared by PSOMAS dated May 14, 2025, and concludes that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the project. The site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, or wetlands. Furthermore, the project is not expected to result in any public health or safety concern to residents in this area or throughout the City. All improvements associated with the project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, 35-129
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) of the NBMC. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval will be complied with.
Environmental Review
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and its implementing guidelines set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50 on July 23, 2024, certifying Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023060699 (PEIR), approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC which are available at: Housing Implementation Program EIR.
The project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines because, inasmuch as the property involved is within the HO-4 Subarea, the project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations; and would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial more adverse impact than addressed in the PEIR.
Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines provides, in relevant part:
a. Projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as mi ght be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.
This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.
b. In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
i. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;
ii. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent;
35-130
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
iii. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or
iv. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
c. If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdiv ision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.
d. This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
i. The project is consistent with:
A. A community plan adopted as part of a general plan;
B. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development; or
C. A general plan of a local agency; and
ii. An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.
As part of its decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. Additional CEQA review is only triggered if the project’s new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in PEIR such that major revisions to the PEIR would be required. A detailed consistency analysis has been prepared by T & B Planning Inc., dated June 2025, which was peer reviewed and accepted by Kimley -Horn & Associates, Inc., is provided as Exhibit “A” to the draft resolution and hereby incorporated by reference. Both the consistency analysis and peer review conclude that the project would not create any new significant impacts or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR and therefore no further environmental review is required.
35-131
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
SUMMARY
Staff believe the findings for project approval are made as demonstrated by Attachment No. PC 1 to this report. The project is consistent with the intent of the HO-4 Subarea and is consistent with several policies of the General Plan Housing, Land Use, and Circulation Elements. If approved, the project will provide a net increase in 27 for sale attached single-unit dwellings, which diversifies the City’s housing stock and helps increase the supply of housing in Newport Beach.
Alternatives and Housing Accountability Act Compliance
Should the Planning Commission’s review and evaluation of this project not coincide with City staff’s recommendation, then the following alternative options are available to the Planning Commission:
1. The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate any concerns. If the requested changes are substantial, the item could be continued to a future meeting. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions.
2. If the Planning Commission chooses to deny or reduce the density of the project, findings must be made consistent with the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5), which restricts the City’s ability to deny, reduce density of, or make infeasible housing develop ments for projects that are consistent with objective general plan , zoning (including objective design standards), and subdivision standards. The law also places the burden of proof on the City to justify denial or reduction in density. Therefore, if after consideration of all written and oral evidence presented, the Planning Commission desires to either disapprove or impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density or with any other conditions that would adversely impact feasibility of the proposed project, the Planning Commission must articulate the factual basis for making the following findings and direct staff to return with a revised resolution incorporating the articulated findings and factual basis for the decision:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
35-132
Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049)
Planning Commission, July 3, 2025
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of-way and waterways) including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting , consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
Correspondence
Correspondence received to date for the project is included as Attachment PC 6 for the Planning Commission consideration.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
JP/ja
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution
PC 2 Applicant’s Project Description
PC 3 Project Plans
PC 4 General Plan Policy Consistency
PC 5 Multi-Unit Objective Design Standard Checklist
PC 6 Project Correspondence
35-133
03/13/2018
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution
35-134
FRESOLUTION NO. PC2025-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH , CALIFORNIA , APPROVING A MAJOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP TO CONSTRUCT 27 RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED ON AN UNADDRESSED PARCEL
ABUTTING 1650 FORD ROAD (PA2025-0049)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Ford Road Ventures LLC (“Applicant”), on behalf of the property owner Pacific Bell Telephone Company (“Owner”) concerning property located at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02), and an undeveloped and unaddressed property abutting 1650 Ford Road (458-361-10), and legally described as Lot A and Lot B, respectively, of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2019-001 (“Properties”).
2. The Applicant proposes to develop a 27-unit, for sale, residential townhome complex upon the undeveloped and unaddressed property, near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection, northeast of the parking lot for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and west of the AT&T Facility located at 1650 Ford Road (“Project Site”). The proposed development includes two-, three-, and four-bedroom units ranging from 1,916 to 2,989 square feet. The development will include a two-car garage for each unit, 10 uncovered guest parking spaces and two uncovered delivery spaces for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces. Units will be distributed within four, detached, four-story buildings with a maximum structure height of 47 feet and 11 inches, above the established grade. The development will provide resident-serving amenities including an outdoor picnic area and an outdoor firepit area. Vehicular access to the Project Site will be taken from Ford Road, through a shared driveway with the adjacent AT&T facility. Pedestrian access will be provided to the adjacent Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail. The project also proposes improvements to the neighboring AT&T Facility property including the installation of a gate to restrict access to its parking lot, repaving of the parking lot, new landscaping, repainting the building, and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications monopole .
Lastly, the project will subdivide the undeveloped and unaddressed Project Site and reconfigure the lot line between the Project Site and the AT&T Facility property. (“Project”).
3. The following approvals are required from the City of Newport Beach (“City) to implement the Project:
• Major Site Development Review (“SDR”):
i. A SDR is required for projects proposing 5 or more units with a tract map.
Though not required as discussed in Fact 5 below, the Applicant has requested a SDR to allow for an increase in maximum structure height pursuant to Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) of the Newport 35-135
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”) A SDR is also requested to allow deviations from four multi-unit objective design standards pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC.
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map (“VTTM”):
i. A VTTM is requested to adjust the easterly property line between the undeveloped Project Site and the AT&T facility to increase the lot to approximately 1.16 acres, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes within the undeveloped Project Site, to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units for condominium purposes.
4. On September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2024-16 and 2024-17, approving amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC to establish the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts in Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) (“Housing Overlay”) and to create multi -unit objective design standards in Section 20.48.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. The new sections serve to implement Policy Actions 1A through 1G and 3A in the 6th Cycle Housing Element ("Housing Element") of the General Plan. The Project Site was identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141.
5. Subsequently, on June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, approving amendments to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC .
These amendments adjusted the height limitation for certain properties within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District to accommodate potential residential development with the intendent prescribed density range. Specifically, these amendments allowed for the base height limit of the Project Site to be increased from 3 7 feet to 48 feet. Independent of this amendment, pursuant to Section 20.30.060(C) (Height Limits and Exceptions – Increase in Height Limit) of the NBMC, the Project has the flexibility to increase the allowed base height limit of 37 feet up to 55 feet through the approval of a SDR. Facts in support of findings are included in Findings D through G.
6. The Project Site is located within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District ("HO-4 Subarea"). The Project Site is designated as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District.
7. The Project Site is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required.
8. The Project does not include the construction of affordable housing. However, the City’s Sites Inventory within the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element contains adequate other sites suitable for affordable housing opportunities and therefore is consistent with the State’s no net loss provisions.
35-136
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
9. A public hearing was held on July 3, 2025, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with 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 hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and its implementing guidelines set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50 on July 23, 2024, certifying Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023060699 ("PEIR"), approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), and adopting Findings and a Stateme nt of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC which are available at: Housing Implementation Program EIR.
2. The Project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code (“PRC”) and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines because, inasmuch as the property involved is within the HO -4 Subarea, the Project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations; and would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial more adverse impact than addressed in the PEIR.
3. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines provides, in relevant part:
a. Projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.
b. In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
i. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;
ii. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent;
iii. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or
35-137
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
iv. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
c. If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.
d. This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
i. The project is consistent with:
A. A community plan adopted as part of a general plan;
B. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development; or
C. A general plan of a local agency; and
ii. An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.
4. As part of its decision -making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the Project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. Additional CEQA review is only triggered if the Project’s new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in PEIR such that major revisions to the PEIR would be required. A detailed consistency analysis has been prepared by T & B Planning Inc., dated June 2025, which was peer reviewed and accepted by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., is attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated herein by reference and the additional findings set forth in Section 4 below.
5. The Project is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by the City ’s General Plan Housing Implementation Program as analyzed by the PEIR, and the required determinations can be made , as detailed in Exhibit “A.” Therefore, in accordance with Section 21083.3 of the PRC and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required to approve the Project.
The Planning Commission determines:
a. The Project is consistent with the development density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre established by existing zoning and general plan policies for which the PEIR was certified;
35-138
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
b. There are no significant environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project or the parcels on which the Project would be located;
c. There are no significant environmental effects of the Project that were not analyzed as significant effects in the PEIR;
d. There are no potentially significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the PEIR; and
e. There are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the PEIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior PEIR.
6. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges.
As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
Major Site Development Review
In accordance with Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews – Findings and Decisions) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject Zoning District
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Pro ject Site is located within the HO-4 Subarea and is identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141. Pursuant to Section 20.28.050 (B) (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts – Uses Allowed) in addition to the uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted in the base zoning district, multi-unit residential development that meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement shall be permitted within the HO Overlay Zoning District.
2. Pursuant to Table 2 -16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, the HO -4 Subarea requires a density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Based on the proposed 1.16-acre lot, the Project results in a density of 23.27 units per acre and meets the density requirement of the HO-4 Subarea.
35-139
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
3. The HO -4 subarea requires a zero-foot front, side, streetside and rear setback.
However, footnote No. 3 of Table 2-16 requires that any portion of a building that is over 20 feet in height, which includes the Project’s third and fourth floors, shall provide a 20- foot setback from the street right-of-way. The Project is bounded to the north by Bonita Canyon Drive and to the south by Ford Road. Though only the upper floors of required a 20-foot setback from the street right-of-way, the Project provides a varying streetside setbacks of 20 to 45-feet from of the entire height of the two buildings nearest to Bonita Canyon Drive and additional setbacks for the fourth-floor covered patios. The portion of Ford Road directly adjacent to the Project Site is dedicated as open space and not public right-of-way; therefore, the upper floor setback would not apply at this location. The Project also provides varying setbacks for the other setback areas including, a 6 to 56- foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west, and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project complies with setback requirements.
4. Table 2-16 establishes a maximum height for the HO-4 subarea consistent with the base zone of the property, which in this case, is 37 feet. However, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025 -10 on June 2 4, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section
20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. The Project proposes a height of 47-feet, 11 inches to the highest ridge as measure d from the established grade as indicated on the VTTM pursuant to Section 20.30.050 (B)(1) (Grade Establishment – Subdivisions) of the NBMC. Independent of the amendment, pursuant to Section
20.30.060(C) (Height Limits and Exceptions – Increase in Height Limit) of the NBMC, the Project has the flexibility to increase the allowed base height limit of 37 feet up to 55 feet through the approval of a SDR. Facts in support of findings are included in Findings D through G.
5. Table 2 -17 (Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 ( Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) of the NBMC requires 1.8 spaces per unit that includes two bedrooms , 2.0 spaces per unit that includes three or more bedrooms and 0.3 spaces per unit for visitor parking. The Project proposes 27 dwelling units, eight with two bedrooms and 19 with three or more bedrooms, resulting in a requirement of 61 spaces. Project provides a two- car garage for each unit, 10 guest parking spaces and two delivery spaces for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces. The Project therefore complies with the minimum parking requirement.
6. Pursuant to Section 20.4 8.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC, multi-unit objective design standards are applicable to any residential project with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. These standards ensure the highest possible design quality and provide a baseline standard for new multi-unit developments throughout the City. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference, the Project deviates from the following four objective design standards:
35-140
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
(1) Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone);
(2) 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation – Maximum Building Length); (3) 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation – Minimum Depth); and (4) 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation – Maximum Number) of the NBMC.
The Project otherwise complies with the design standards and, in come some cases, exceeds the intent of the standards. Section 20.40.185(C) of the NBMC allows for deviations from any objective design standards through the approval of a SDR by the Planning Commission if the Applicant can demonstrate that strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the objective design standards and that the project possesses compensating design and development features that meets or exceeds the intent of the objective design standards. The facts in support of the required findings are included in Findings H through I.
7. The HO-4 subarea requires a minimum building separation of 10 feet. The Project proposes varying building separations of 22 feet to 33 feet. The Project therefore complies with the minimum building separation requirement.
8. The HO-4 subarea requires that at least 75 square feet of common space to be provided per dwelling unit throughout the Project Site with a minimum length and width of 15 feet.
The Project is therefore required to provide a minimum of 2,025 square feet of common open space. Section 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defines common open space as the land area within a residential development that is not individually owned or dedicated for public use and that is designed, intended, and reserved exclusively for the shared enjoyment or use by all the residents and their guests including but not limited to areas of scenic or natural beauty, barbecue areas, landscaped areas, turf areas, and habitat areas. The Project provides a total of 2,857 square feet of common open area within an outdoor picnic area and firepit lounge area. The Project therefore complies with the minimum common open space requirement.
9. The HO-4 subarea requires that at least 5% of the proposed gross floor area per unit be dedicated to private open space . Qualifying areas of private open space shall have a dimension of at least 6 feet in length and width. Section 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defined private open spaces as outdoor or unenclosed area s directly adjoining and accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive private enjoyment and use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests including but not limited to a balcony, deck, porch or terrace. The Project requires between 96 to 150 square feet of private open space per unit. The Project provides between 139 to 156 square feet of qualifying private open space per unit in the form of balconies and covered decks and therefore complies with the minimum priv ate open space requiremen t. The Project provides additional private open space for certain units in the form of additional balconies. While these areas do not count as qualifying private open space, as they do not meet the minimum width requirement, the balconies provide additional private open space areas for residents and furthers the intent of this requirement.
35-141
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
Finding:
B. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the following applicable criteria:
i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure;
ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design;
iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas;
iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces;
v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and
vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection).
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Project Site is categorized as Public Facilities (PF) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. However, as indicated in Land Use Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities) residential use of any property includ ing within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category. In this case, the HO-4 subarea would allow residential development on the Project Site in addition to the uses allow in of the underlying PF land use category and zoning district.
2. The Project is consistent with the following General Plan Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Circulation Element policies that establish fundamental criteria for the formation and implementation of new residential development, including, but not limited to the following:
a. Housing Element Policy 3.2 . Encourage housing developments to offer a wide spectrum of housing choices, designs, and configurations.
See finding LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices below.
b. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.3 (Range of Residential Choices). Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. 35-142
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City’s Housing Element.
The Project proposes a 27 -unit residential condominium complex consisting of for -sale, attached single -unit dwellings offered in four distinct floor plan configurations ranging from two to four bedrooms and 1,916 to 2,989 square feet. This Project would diversify the City’s housing stock, accommodate a variety of household sizes, respond to market demand, and support the City’s efforts to increase the supply of housing throughout the City.
c. Land Use Element Policy LU3.2 (Growth and Change). Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re-use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach’s share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service.
The Project is proposed on an undeveloped and underutilized property within an area of the City that is considerably developed. The Project will add 27 attached single-unit dwellings to the City’s housing stock which allows the City to further its efforts of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation Program and meet the City’s RHNA. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department reviewed the Project’s projected traffic generation analysis and found that Ford Road wou ld adequately serve the project. The Project is projected to produce 182 average daily trips, which does not exceed the 300 average daily trip threshold, and therefore, no additional traffic analysis is required. Additionally, the Public Works Department r eviewed the submitted sewer and water demand study and found that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project, as adequate infrastructure is available and has sufficient capacity.
d. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities). Residential use of any property included within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category or density limit established through Policy LU 4.1, Table LU 1 and Table LU 2, or any other conflict in the Land Use Element. A general plan amendment is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity zoning overla y district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay districts specified in Policy LU 4.4 is an average over the entire property or project site.
For example, a portion of a development site may be developed at a higher 35-143
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
density than specified by Policy 4.4 provided other portions of the site are developed at lower densities such that the average does not exceed the maximum. Density calculations and total units identified in LU 4.4 do not include units identified as pipeli ne units or units permitted pursuant to State density bonus law.
The Project is located within Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 and is located within the HO-4 Subarea. The Project proposes 27 residential condominiums on a 1.16-acre property which yields a density of 23.27 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the allowed density of the HO-4 Subarea.
e. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.6 (Character and Quality of Residential Properties). Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized.
While Policy LU 5.1.6 is intended for single -family detached and two -unit projects, t he Project includes large setback areas that are thoroughly landscaped with drought tolera nt and noninvasive plant species . While the HO-4 Subarea does not require any base floor setbacks along the front, side or rear property lines, the Project provides varying setbacks including a 20 to 45-foot streetside setback on the north, a 6 to 56-foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west , and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the Project Site. This setback design allows the Project to better reflect the character of a single -family neighborhood. Trash containers will be located within each dwelling unit’s garage and screened from the public right-of-way. The visibility of driveway and parking paving has been minimized through use of landscaping to prevent an unpleasant visual experience to the surrounding neighborhood.
f. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.9 (Character and Quality of Multi-Family Residential) Require that multi -family dwellings be designed to convey a high-quality architectural character in accordance with the following principles:
Building Elevations
Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal façades 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
Provide street- and path-facing elevations with high -quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes.
35-144
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
Ground Floor Treatment
Set ground-floor residential uses back from the sidewalk or from the right -of- way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping.
Raise ground -floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking space.
Encourage stoops and porches for ground-floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways.
Roof Design
Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety.
Parking
Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units’ architecture.
Open Space and Amenity
Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit.
Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation.
As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference, the Project complies with the majority (48 of 52) of the applicable objective design standards and in some cases exceeds the intent of the standards. However, the Applicant requests minor deviations of four objective design standards . The Objective Design Standards were developed to implement Land Use Policy LU5.1.9, therefore compliance with these standards with negligible deviation ensures that the Project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU5.1.9.
g. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.1 (Compatible Development ). Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors
Although the Project Site has an irregular shape, the Project design compactly arranges the four separate buildings to maximize site efficiency and preserve larger than required setbacks. The Bonita Canyon Sports Park unique parcel shape extends in front of the northwest portion of the Project Site, further setting back the proposed development up to 50 feet from the Bonita Canyon right-of-way in that location. The Project site design includes interior drive aisles and resident amenity areas which are screened from public view. The Project’s large setbacks , landscaped edge conditions , and location of drive 35-145
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
aisles and residential amenities reduce the visual impact of the Project and ensures compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
h. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.2 (Form and Environment). Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns.
The contemporary coastal architectural style of the Project has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Harbor View community .
Architectural articulations and high-quality materials including brick and wood siding are utilized to blend in with the character of the surrounding community.
Additionally, the Project includes two color schemes: a coastal color scheme with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white. These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes throughout the City.
i. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.3 (Ambient Lighting) . Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location.
The Project has been conditioned to require the A pplicant to prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan which shows that lighting values are “1” or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources.
j. Land Use Policy LU 6.15.23 (Sustainable Development Practices ).
Require that development achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, tran sportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs -generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, max imized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss.
The Project is required to comply with the provisions of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR, Title 24, Parts 6 – California Energy 35-146
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
Code) and the Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11 - CALGreen). Additionally, the Project would implement water -efficient landscaping, water quality best management practices and low impact development practices. The Project is within proximity to Newport Center commercial and office developments and would provide housing near this employment center. The Project includes pedestrian linkage to the Ford Road public sidewalk and Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail which offer provide pedestrian and bicyclist connections to nearby destinations such as Newport Center, approximat ely two miles away, and the Newport Hills Shopping Center, one mile away. The Project is also l ocated in close proximity to the existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes provided along Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Drive.
k. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.3 (New Development Maintained Responsibility). Ensure minimization of traffic congestion impacts and parking impacts and ensure proper roadway maintenance through review and approval of Construction Management Plans associated with new development proposals in residential neighborhoods.
The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. This ensures that any traffic congestion impacts associated with the construction process is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
l. Circulation Element Policy CE 7.1.7 (Project Site Design Supporting Alternate Modes) . Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking.
See finding LU 6.15.23 Sustainable Development Practices above.
3. Facts 1 through 9 in support of Finding A are hereby incorporated by reference.
4. The Project Site is not located within a Specific Plan Area.
5. The Project includes various intentional architectural design features including recessed balconies, varied rooflines, and material changes with a neutral, earthy and coastal color pallet. These design features result in well -articulated facades which reduce the visual bulk of the Project and allow each unit to appear as distinct homes rather than a single, unarticulated, building. Additionally, the Project is integrated with the Bonita Canyon Sports Park through the use of landscaping and pedestrian walkways.
6. The Project will utilize an existing curb cut for vehicular access from Ford Road . The curb opening will be shared between the Project Site and the adjacent AT&T facility property; however, a di stinct drive aisle will be constructed for the Project. Offsite 35-147
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
improvements include the installation of a gate restricting access to the AT&T facility parking lot.
7. The Project landscaping complies with Chapter 14.17 (Water-Efficient Landscaping) and Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping) of the NBMC. Additionally, the Project complies with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance ( “WELO”) which requires the installation and maintenance of drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species. The Project’s varied setbacks, 6 to 56 fee t, allows for substantial perimeter landscaping, with enhanced treatments along Bonita Canyon Drive to improve the view for motorists and residents to the north, and along Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail to enhance the pedestrians and park user experience. Landscaping is also integrated throughout the Project Site, including around the picnic and firepit areas to enhance the residential experience.
8. Pursuant to Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection) of the NBMC, projects shall preserve significant visual resources from public views and corridors including identified in Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views) of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan.
The Project Site is not within the vicinity of any Public Viewpoints, nor any Coastal View Roads as identified in Figure NR3. The nearest designated public viewpoint is located at Big Canyon Park, over a mile west of the Project Site. The nearest designated coastal view road is MacArthur Boulevard, south of the San Joaquin Hills Road , over a mile south of the Project Site. Due to the distance and urbanized nature of the Project area , the Project is not anticipated to impact any public views.
Finding:
C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor will it endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of person residing or working in the neighborhood o f the proposed development.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Project has been designed to minimize aesthetic impacts to the surrounding neighborhood to the greatest extent possible by providing an architecturally pleasing contemporary coastal architectur al style design with articulation and high -quality materials.
2. The Project has been designed to have adequate, efficient, and safe pedestrian and vehicular access to and from the Project Site within driveways, parking, and loading areas. The Project includes the drive aisles that are located within the Project Site, behind the proposed buildings, which will significantly buffer any vehicle noise produced.
The Project is also designed to accommodate and provide safe access for emergency vehicles, and refuse collection vehicles through the Ford Road access point.
3. The Project Site is adjacent to Bonita Canyon Drive, a four -lane primary arterial road with a central median and Ford Road, a two-lane connector road with a central median. 35-148
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
These two roads create large buffers between the Project and the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the north and south.
4. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department reviewed the Project’s traffic generation analysis prepared by Pirzadeh & Associates Inc, dated May 13, 2025, which projected 182 average daily trips. The Public Works Department found that found that Ford Road would adequately serve the Project, and no additional traffic analysis is required.
5. The Project requires 61 onsite parking spaces; however, the Project provides 66 onsite parking spaces, including a two-car garage for each unit , 10 guest parking spaces and two delivery spaces . The additional parking and individual unit garage parking will mitigate use of street parking on Ford Road or the adjacent parking lot within the Bonita Canyon Sports Park.
6. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan which shows that lighting values are “1” or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Co mmunity Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources.
7. The Project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, along with all City ordinances and all conditions of approval which are attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.
Height Increase
The HO-4 subarea limits heights to that of the base zoning district. The underlying zoning district is Public Facilities (PF) which is regulated by the Nonresidential, Nonshoreline Height Limit Area. In this height limit area, the base height limit for structures with flat roofs is 32 feet and the base height limit for structures with sloped roofs is 37 feet. However, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section
20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site.
Though the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025 -10, in accordance with Section
20.30.060(C)(3) (Height Limits and Exceptions - Required Findings) of the NBMC, the Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height only after making all the following findings in addition to the findings required pursuant to Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews – Findings and Decision):
Finding:
D. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Examples of project amenities include, but are not limited to:
35-149
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
i. Additional landscaped open space;
ii. Increased setback and open areas;
iii. Enhancement and protection of public views;
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The HO-4 subarea is not subject to any minimum setback requirement for portions of a building that are below 20 -feet in height, which is the Project’s first and second floor s.
However, the Project voluntarily integrates varying setbacks of 6 to 56 feet at the first floor with additional setbacks on the higher levels . These setbacks help create more open areas throughout the Project Site than would otherwise be required by the NBMC.
2. The HO-4 subarea is not subject to any maximum lot coverage requirement . However, the compact site design of the Project is accommodated through the taller builder design which results in a lot coverage of approximately 45%. In comparison, properties located within the Multi ple Residential (RM-6000) Zoning District are allowed a maximum lot coverage of 60%. The Project provides additional open area through its compact design and less horizontal massing to reduce the site coverage compared to what is allowed a RM-6000 District, accomplished with the additional height of each building.
3. Fact 9 in Support of Finding A is hereby incorporated by reference.
4. The provided setbacks, open areas, and lower lot coverage offer amenities beyond those otherwise required by the HO-4 subarea and contribute s to a more visually appealing project for the neighborhood.
Finding:
E. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes;
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Facts 5 in support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference.
2. Architectural articulations and varied materials including high-end stone, brick and wood siding are provided to mirror the high-quality design of the neighborhood.
3. The Project is subject to comply with the City’s Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards which ensure a high-quality design. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist which is attached hereto as Exhibit “ B” and incorporated by reference , the Project deviates from four objective design standards but otherwise complies with the design standards and, in some cases, exceeds the intent of the standards. The facts in support of findings are included under Findings H and I.
Finding:
35-150
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
F. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Project is surrounded by the Newport Bluff apartment complex to the north across Bonita Canyon Drive , a parking lot within the Bonita Canyon Sports Park to the west, the Harbor View community to the south across Ford Road and the AT&T facility to the east.
2. The Project is separated from the Newport Bluffs apartment complex by Bonita Canyon Drive, a four-lane primary arterial road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height , and approximately 185 feet from the Project’s northmost structures. The Project has been conditioned to include perimeter landscaping along Bonita Canyon Drive, including trees , which will further buffer and soften the façade of the Project and ensure scale compatibility is maintained.
3. The Project is separated from the Port Street neighborhood by Ford Road, a two-lane connector road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 45 to 60 feet in height . The nearest single unit dwelling within the Port Street neighborhood is approximately 230 feet from the Project’s southmost structure. Homes within the Harbor View community consist of single-story to two -story structures and have an allowed maximum height of up to 32 feet. The adjacent AT&T building is approximately 35 feet in height. The changing scale of structures, intervening road with large street trees and distance provides a harmonious transition from the two-story Harbor View community to the Project.
4. The Project’s westmost structure is separated from the usable area of the Bonita Canyon Sport Park by approximately 185 feet. Intervening uses include the large parking lot and landscape buffer with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height. In addition to the visual screen provided by the landscaping the setbacks and landscaping within the park adjacent to the Project site , the Project provides upper floor setbacks, balconies, covered decks, and varied rooflines which prevent the appearance of an overly bulky building oriented towards the parking lot and park beyond.
5. The Project height is otherwise allowed pursuant to Ordinance No. 2025-10 as adopted by the City Council on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Table 2 -16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC to allow for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. These amendments become effective on July 26, 2025.
Finding:
35-151
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
G. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. Pursuant to Table 2 -16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, the HO-4 Subarea does not have a floor area ratio (FAR) limitation.
Muli-Unit Objective Design Standards Deviation
In accordance with Section 20.48.185(A) (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards – Purpose) of the NBMC, the Project is seeking deviation from the following Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards:
a) Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone) b) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation – Maximum Building Length) c) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation – Minimum Depth) d) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation – Maximum Number)
The Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow deviation of multi-unit objective design standards only after making all the following findings:
Finding:
H. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone (LPZ)) of the NBMC requires that a 4-foot minimum width zone abutting a building is required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping with a combination of vines, ornamental, grasses, shrubs, ground cover, and ornamental trees. The Project provides a 3-foot, 6-inch wide LPZ at most driveway areas which result from building offsets. The building offset contributes to enhanced building articulation, resulting in a more visually appealing facade. Increasing the LPZ zone to meet the four -foot width requirement would reduce the size of the building offsets and the open setback area in front of each building. The LPZ areas, however, are designed with more than the required 20% minimum landscaping. The narrower LPZ design maximizes the amount of landscaped open space in front of each building which provides more benefit to future residents than the negligible six inches of LPZ adjacent to garages.
2. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation – Maximum Building Length) of the NBMC limits building length to 150 feet. The Project proposes two eight-unit buildings with a length of 155 -feet. The intent of the building length requirement is to prevent lengthy unarticulated building masses . The Project addresses this by incorporating 35-152
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
varied rooflines, balconies, façade projections and recessions, and material variation which creates the appearance of distinct units and breaks up the building’s overall length and massing. The building provides more than the required articulation and upper floor setbacks which ensures the building length is less visually obtrusive.
3. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation –Minimum Depth) of the NBMC requires all building recesses or projections to be a minimum of 2 feet in depth. The Project proposes a variety of different recesses and projections including upper floor setbacks, balconies and covered patios which range from 6 inches to 12 feet. The intent of this requirement is to allow for sufficient depth of reces ses and projections so that building lengths are sufficiently modulat ed. While some of the Project’s recesses and projections are less than two feet in depth, the Project provides large upper floor setbacks, balconies, and patios between 5 and 12 feet. The Project provides additional depth for other recesses and projections features which ensure s building length is less visually obtrusive.
4. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation - Maximum Number) of the NBMC require a maximum of two recesses or projections per façade. The Project includes more than two recesses and projections in both of the largest buildings within the development. Due to their length, the additional recesses and projections allow for sufficient modulation to each unit. The intent of this requirement is to avoid lengthy and plain building faces. Limiting the design to only two recesses or projections would result in less modulation, less visual interest, and a building less reminiscent of townhomes.
The Project is furthering the intent of this requirement by sufficiently modulating the eight-plex building, which results in a less visually obtrusive building length.
Finding:
I. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. All facts in support of Finding H are hereby incorporated by reference.
2. Facts 3 and 9 in support of Finding A are hereby incorporated by reference.
3. Section 20.48.185(D)(1)(a) (Muli -Unit Objective Design Standards – General Standards) of the NBMC requires that development with more th an eight buildings to provide a minimum of two distinct color schemes. The Project include s only four buildings, however, the Project voluntarily provide s two distinct color schemes . These include a coastal color scheme with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white. These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes throughout the City.
35-153
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
In accordance with Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps) of the NBMC, the following findings, and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
J. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) is for 27-unit residential condominiums.
2. Fact 1 and 2 in support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference.
3. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed VTTM and found it consistent with Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the NBMC and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
4. The Applicant will provide an in-lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. The existing parcel is undeveloped; therefore, the in-lieu park fee will be required for 27 new dwelling units.
5. A preliminary application for residential development , filed as PA2025 -0056, was deemed submitted on April 7, 2025 for this Project. The preliminary application prevents the Project from being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in Government Code Section 65589.5(o). Therefore, the Project will be subject to the in-lieu park fee in the amount of $38,400 per unit which was the fee in effect at the time the preliminary application was deemed submitted.
Finding:
K. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed 1.16-acre Project Site is irregular in shape, slopes towards the northeast, and is not within a zone seemed to be subject to seismically induced liquefaction potential. The Project Site is adequality sized to accommodate the proposed density in compliance with all applicable requirements of the HO-4 subarea.
2. The site is suitable for the type and density of the development in that the infrastructure serving the site has been designed to accommodate the proposed project. A sewer and 35-154
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
water demand study were prepared by PSOMAS dated May 14, 2025. The study concluded that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project. The Project does not result in more than 500 dwelling units; therefore, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is not required for Project.
3. The Project has been reviewed by the Building, Fire, and Public Works Department and must comply with all Building, Fire, and Public Works Codes and City ordinances.
Finding:
L. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision-making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. As detailed in the CEQA Consistency Memorandum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference , the site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or wetlands. The proposed Project would not have any specific effects which are peculiar to the proposed Project or the Project site.
Additionally, there are no project-specific significant impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan Housing Implementation Program (“GPHIP”) Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), no potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GPHIP PEIR, and no substantial new information not known at the time the GPHIP PEIR was certified that shows that the proposed Project’s effects would be more severe than discussed in the GPHIP PEIR.
Finding:
M. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed VTTM i s for a 27 -unit condominium complex. All improvements associated with the Project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) of the NBMC and Section 66411 (Local agencies to regulate and control design of subdivisions) of the Subdivision Map Act. The Project will conform to all City ordinances and Conditions of Approval.
35-155
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
2. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures within GPHIP PEIR MMRP, as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Memorandum which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference.
3. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious health problems.
Finding:
N. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision-making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easemen ts, for access or use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by the judgment of a court of comp etent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed VTTM and determined that the design of the development will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of the Project Site within the proposed development because no public easements are located on the Project Site.
Finding:
O. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The Project Site is not subject to the Williamson Act . The Project Site is not designated as an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres in area.
2. The Project Site is within the HO -4 Subarea which is intended for development of a multi-story residential project. The intended use is not for residential development that is incidental to a commercial agricultural use.
35-156
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
Finding:
P. That, in the case of a “land project” as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (2) the decision -making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 has been repealed by the Legislature. However, this project site is not considered a “land project” as previously defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code because the project site does not contain 50 or more parcels of land.
2. The Project is not located within a specific plan area.
Finding:
Q. That, solar access, and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The VTTM includes attached dwelling units with open space, private driveways, and walkways which separate the individual buildings. The proposed subdivision design allows for solar access and passive and cooling opportunities through the use of large window and slide doors and the east-west alignment of 21 of the 27 dwelling units.
2. The Project and any future improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code, which requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The City’s Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process.
Finding:
R. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City’s share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City’s residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed 27 dwelling unit project yields a density of 23.37 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the HO-4 subarea. The Project is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code as the Project results in a net increase in 27 , for-sale, residential dwelling units which 35-157
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
contributes to the City’s assigned 6th Cycle RHNA. By developing vacant land with medium-density, ownership housing, the Project helps meet the City’s housing goals while utilizing existing infrastructure and public services.
Finding:
S. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Wastewater discharge from the Project into the existing sewer system has been designed to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( “RWQCB”) requirements.
2. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the Project.
3. Fact 2 in support of Finding K is hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
T. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The Project Site is not located in the Coastal Zone; therefore, compliance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Coastal Act is not applicable.
SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS.
1. The Project Site is designated as a Housing Opportunity Site under the City of Newport Beach’s certified 6th Cycle Housing Element, approved by the City Council and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Pursuant to that approval, a residential overlay was placed on the site, allowing for the development of the proposed 27 residential units. This overlay designation is supported by the certified PEIR, approving the MMRP , and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overridi ng Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC.
2. The Project Site is located within the HO -4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. The Project Site is designated as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District. The City Council’s duly adopted Housing Element and 35-158
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
accompanying actions establish the HO -4 (Newport Center) Subarea as a valid residential zoning mechanism consistent with California Government Code Sections 65583 and 65583.2. At the time of project approval, the certified Housing Element and residential overlay are in full legal effect.
3. The Project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the Project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations; and would not result in new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR.
4. Further, the proposed 27 -unit residential project does not trigger Charter Section 423 (Greenlight) because it does not seek a General Plan Amendment. Furthermore, even if a General Plan Amendment was sought the amendment would not be considered “major” because the proposed project is less than 100 dwelling units, has less than 100 peak hour trips (traffic) and has no commercial component (thus, it is less than 40,000 square feet of floor area). Therefore, even without reliance upon the HO -4 (Newport Center) Subarea, no public vote is required for this proposed project under Greenlight.
5. In the event the Housing Element and General Plan amendments are invalidated by court order, the City nonetheless finds that the Project may be approved for the following reasons:
• The certified PEIR, which is final and lawful, serves as a valid and independent basis for establishing the suitability of residential development at this site. • Under CEQA and California Government Code Section 65457 (exemption for residential projects consistent with a specific plan or general plan EIR), the certified PEIR’s confers legal stability on the City’s approval, including its reliance on the HO-4 subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District for land use purposes.
• The City’s approval advances the statewide interest in addressing housing needs, consistent with California Government Code Section 65589.5, and supports the City’s good faith compliance with state law. Preventing the development of 27 residential units—already environmentally analyzed and approved —due solely to procedural uncertainty would run contrary to both local planning policy a nd state housing mandates.
SECTION 5. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. In accordance with Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by the City’s General Plan Housing Implementation Program as analyzed by the PEIR, and the required determinations can 35-159
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
be made as detailed in the CEQA Consistency Memorandum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Site Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the 27-unit residential project are validly approved under existing law. The project is consistent with the certified Housing Element, is not subject to addi tional environmental review, and does not trigger Charter Section 423 thresholds.
3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map filed as PA2025-0049, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit “C”, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
4. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.64 (Appeals) of the NBMC.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Mark Rosene, Chair
BY:_________________________
David Salene, Secretary
Attachments: Exhibit “A” – CEQA Consistency Memorandum Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., Dated June, 2025
Exhibit “B” – Objective Design Standards Checklist
Exhibit “C” – Conditions of Approval
35-160
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
EXHIBIT “A”
CEQA Consistency Memorandum Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., dated June, 2025
File available via link due to size:
https://lms.newportbeachca.gov/energov_prod/energovwebapi/api/chunk/fileview/5252d440-e85a-4a8f-aeb6- 37e8584aa07f/5heWu94Oo4ZaG2vcln7pt1dok7NDGFeFXOw0pImjdLIaSDqAm1I_FIFTmbm3rVIbKqZ8e4Hm iAO_J8cbVHXJ5w
35-161
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
EXHIBIT “B”
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS CHECKLIST
File available via link due to size:
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/STAFF/DocView.aspx?id=3169605&repo=CNB&dbid=0
35-162
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
EXHIBIT “C”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Project-specific conditions are in italics)
Planning Division
1. The Project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, landscape plan, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). Minor changes to the approved development may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project). By way of example, a change to the number of stories of a unit (e.g., three-story product, etc.), floor plan redesign, and change to offered square footage ranges would be considered minor changes provided the project was within the allowed height limit, and in compliance with the Objective Design Standards and density range under the HO Overlay Zoning District.
2. Any substantial modification to the approved Site Development Review plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require an amendment to this Site Development Review application or the processing of a new application.
3. The Project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals approved by the City of Newport Beach (“City”) and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval
4. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be caused the revocation of this approval.
5. This Major Site Development Review shall expire and become void unless exercised within seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012 to coincide with the expiration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 as provided in Condition No. 16.
6. On June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025 -10 approving a amendments to properties within the HO-4 Subarea including allowing a base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. To ensure consistency with that Ordinance, this resolution shall be become effective on July 26, 2025.
7. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “C” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits.
8. The proposed residential development shall consist of 27 townhome, condominium units.
The number of condominium units may be reduced by the Applicant provided the total 35-163
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
number of units meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement under the HO Overlay Zoning District.
9. The maximum height of the residential structures shall be 48 feet as measured from the established grade. No building or any portion of structure, architectural feature or mechanical equipment shall exceed 48 feet.
10. The on-site residential amenities including the outdoor picnic area and firepit lounge area as illustrated on the approved plans shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the Project. The exact mix of amenities may be modified from the original approved plans subject to the approval by the Community Development Director. The Project shall maintain at least 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit on the Project Site as required by the HO -4 subarea. The square footage of on -site resident-serving amenities shall not be reduced so that the development no longer provides 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit
11. The residential structure shall be attenuated to provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less pursuant to Section 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards) of the NBMC. Use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double paned windows, advance insulation systems, or other noise mitigation measures, as deemed appropriate by the City shall be incorporated in the design of the new residential structure to provide adequa te noise attenuation.
12. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, and Chapter 15.42, Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Fair Share Traffic Fees and Transportation Corridor Agency fees shall be paid for the Project at the fee assessed at the time of payment.
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable school fees for the Project.
14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , the Applicant shall pay applicable property development tax as required pursuant to NBMC Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax) for the Project.
15. A preliminary application for residential development, filed as PA2025 -0056, was deemed submitted on April 7, 2025 for this Project. The preliminary application prevents the Project from being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in Government Code Section 65589.5(o). The Applicant shall provide an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. Therefore, the Project will be subject to an in-lieu park fee of $38,400 per unit which is the fee that was in effect at the time the preliminary application was deemed submitted.
35-164
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
16. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 shall expire seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012. Pursuant to Section 19.16.010(A) (Expiration of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, an approved tentative tract map expires 24 months after the date of its approval or conditional approval. Under Section 19.16.020(A) (Extension of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, the subdivider shall have the right to request an extension of the map for up to five years. The subdivider has submitted an application for an extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 and has requested that the extension be granted after the Planning Commission adopts Resolution No PC2025-012; thus, providing for an initial term of the vesting tentative tract map of 24 months, followed by extension of five years, for a total term of seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012.
17. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.49.1210 (Removal of Telecom Facilities), the Applicant shall inform the Community Development Director by certified mail no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinued use of a telecom facility.
18. Any future proposed wireless telecommunication facilities, including but not limited to the relocation of the existing wireless telecommunications monopole, shall conf orm with Chapter 20.49 (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities) of the NBMC.
19. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , the Applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought-tolerant planting and water-efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division.
20. The Project shall include landscaping around the perimeter of the Project Site to adequately screen drive aisles, parking areas, and create a visual buffer between the public right -of-way and the Project. These plans shall be approved by the Planning Division.
21. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained by the approved landscape plan . All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing , and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
22. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated.
35-165
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are “1” or less at all property lines.
24. Prior to the issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval.
25. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter
10.26 (Community Noise Control), under Sections 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) and 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards ), and other applicable noise control requirements of the NBMC.
26. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday.
27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. Upon approval of the plan, the Applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan.
28. The exterior of the development shall be always maintained free of litter and graffiti. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris, and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises.
29. All trash bins shall be stored within each residential unit and screened from the view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies .
The Applicant shall ensure that the trash receptacles are maintained to control odors.
The Applicant shall ensure that the trash bins are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of periodic steam cleaning of the trash bin, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash bins shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements).
30. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division.
31. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures within the General Plan Housing Implementation Program (“GPHIP”) Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Memorandum prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., dated June, 2025.
32. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future 35-166
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current property owner or leasing agent.
33. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorney’s fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s approval of Ford Road Townhomes including, but not limited to, Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Ma p (PA2025-0049).
This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit, or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
Building Division
34. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City’s Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required before the issuance of a building permit.
35. Exterior wall and opening protection shall comply with Chapter 705 of California Building Code (CBC).
36. The applicant shall employ the following best available control measures (“BACMs”) to reduce construction-related air quality impacts:
Dust Control
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway.
• Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt , or other dusty material.
• Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph.
Emissions
• Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment Off-Site Impacts
35-167
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
• Encourage carpooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
• Sweep access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
Fill Placement
• The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. • Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve a 10% soil moisture content in the top 6- inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer.
37. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit , a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the city with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project’s impact on water quality.
38. Before the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur.
39. A list of “good house keeping” practices will be incorporated into the long -term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of waste or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all str uctural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs.
Real Property Administrator
40. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , the Applicant shall enter into a license agreement, easement or similar agreement approved by the City Attorney with the City for points of access across the City property.
41. Points of access to the City property shall not be used for code required path of travel or accessible route.
35-168
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
42. The City reserves the right to redevelop City property and remove one or more points of access to City property.
43. Bonds are required prior to construction if any work is to occur on City Property.
44. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall update plans to ensure runoff remains onsite or connects to a drain in the public right-of-way. Cross lot draining is not permitted on City property.
Public Works Department
45. A Tract Map shall be recorded prior to the sale of any residential units. T he Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital -graphic file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7 -9-330 and 7 -9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City’s CADD standards. Scanned images will not be accepted.
46. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 pf the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18.
Monuments (one -inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project.
47. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map , a Subdivision Agreement shall be obtained and approved by the City Council consistent with the Section 19.36.010 (Improvement Agreements (California Government Code Section 66462)) of the NBMC.
48. Prior to Final Map approval , the Applicant shall provide a Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond, each for 100 % of the estimated improvement costs for the improvements in the public right-of-way, as prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Director, for each of the following, but not limited to, public and private improvements, street improvements, monumentation, sidewalks, striping, signage, street lights, sewe r systems, water systems, storm drain systems, water quality management systems, erosion control, landscaping and irrigation within the public right-of-way, common open spaces areas accessible by the public, fire access and off-site improvements required as part of the project.
49. Warranty Bond for a minimum of 10 % of the engineers cost estimate (final percentage to be determined by the Public Works Director) shall be released 1 -year after the improvements have been accepted.
35-169
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
50. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
51. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work activities within the public right - of-way.
52. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final construction management plan (CMP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer.
53. Parking layout shall comply with the City Parking Lot Standard 805. Dead-end drive aisle in public areas shall provide a dedicated turn around space and minimum 5 -foot drive aisle extension.
54. The Applicant shall reconstruct all existing broken and/or otherwise damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Ford Road frontages per City Standards.
55. All deliveries and move -ins/move-out shall be accommodated on -site and prohibited from parking or stopping within the public right-of-way.
56. The on-site sewer and water system is planned to be a public system. Final Design of the water and sewer services is subject to further review by the Public Works Department during plan check. The public sewer and water system shall be designed according t o the City of Newport Beach standards. All applicable sewer and water easements shall be dedicated to the City as part of the Tract Map.
57. The Project storm drain system shall be privately owned and maintained. The storm drain system shall be prohibited from discharging to the adjacent City lots and shall be redesigned accordingly. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , the final hydrology and hydraulic report shall be reviewed and approved. Any required improvements to downstream City infrastructure to accommodate the proposed project shall be designed and constructed by the proposed project.
58. The parking layout and gate operation within Lot 5 shall be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works Department
Fire Department
59. Onsite fire hydrants shall be required and a fire underground plan submital complying with the 2022 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 24 shall be a required as a deferred submittal.
60. Residential fire sprinklers complying with the 2022 NFPA Standard 13R shall be required.
61. Waterflow monitoring systems complying with the 2022 NFPA Standard 72 shall be required.
35-170
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012
07-29-24
62. Fire master plan complying with the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) Guideline D.08 shall be required as a deferred submital.
63. Fire rescue opening and laddering pads complying with NBFD Guideline C.05 shall be required.
35-171
03/13/2018
Attachment No. PC 2
Applicant’s Project Description
35-172
Ford Road Project
Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025
1 Ford Road Project
Site Development Review Project Description and Justification
Project Description
This signature project located at the Southeast corner of Macarthur Blvd . and Bonita Canyon Drive at the gateway to Newport Beach benefits from an SB 330 Preliminary Application that was deemed complete by the City on April 7, 2025 . As a result of this deemed complete status, this project is permitted to proceed through this entitlement process without being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in California Government Code Section 65589.5(o).
The intent of this development project is to provide much needed for-sale housing in the area close to UCI and the Irvine Business Complex. This area of Newport Beach is almost exclusively comprised of single family detached homes – for sale attached housing in this area is desperately desired particularly for families as starter homes . The total existing parcel is 1.06 acres and will be increased under the vesting tentative tract map to provide a 1.16-acre residential property and a separate gated parking area for the AT&T facility.
The proposed project includes 27 townhomes with in four proposed buildings that are aligned to provide ample landscape setbacks along Bonita Canyon Drive and at the same time block the Southern view of the unaesthetic AT&T building. The primary orientation of the buildings face toward the existing Bonita Canyon Sports Park – the project will connect to the existing trail on the North edge – this will keep ‘eyes on’ the park at all times of day and night creating a safer environment for all Newport Beach residents.
The vehicular access will come from the end of Ford Road that has little traffic. The entry will be shared with the AT&T parking lot. Fire aerial ladder access is easily available from Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Drive – however the project has been design ed to accommodate the fire radius at entry and a ‘T’ (hammerhead) at the center of the project, if desired by the Fire Marshal. Each home includes a 2 -car garage and there are an additional 13 guest parking spaces located on the project site. Residents will be required to use their garages for the parking of their vehicles to avoid any parking impacts on the adjacent community.
This project meets or exceeds all of the City’s objective design standards for multi-family projects. Where the project exceeds a standard, a waiver is technically required and explained below in the justification section. The architectural style has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Port Street neighborhood. Architectural articulations and high -end stone, brick, wood siding have all been used to portray the elegance of the community. The floor plans are all designed light and bright with huge indoor/outdoor spaces including a 4th level Lanai in several of the plans. Within t he community there are two common open space areas that will serve as social amenity areas including a cozy fire pit and picnic BBQ area.
35-173
Ford Road Project
Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025
2 The property that houses th is project was included within City Council Resolution No. 2025-13, which adjusted the height limit for various properties within the HO -4 Subarea to accommodate residential development within the intended prescribed density range of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Specifically, the City Council adjusted the height limit for this property to 48 feet , which is below the maximum height allowed for this area of 50 feet for flat roofs and 55 feet for sloped roofs . However, as explained in the justification section below this project would have independently qualified for a height adjustment under Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”) Section 20.30.060(C)(3).
Justification
Major Site Development Review – In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews), the City may approve or conditionally approve a site development review application, only after first finding that the Project is:
Finding:
A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district.
• The Project is allowed within the Zoning District . The Property is located at the terminus of Ford Road in the City of Newport Beach adjacent to Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and is identified by the City of Newport Beach as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 in HO-4.
• The Project has been designed to comply with applicable standards of the Housing Overlay and other applicable zoning code regulations.
B. In compliance with all of the following applicable criteria in NBMC Section
20.52.080(C)(2)(c):
a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design;
c. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas;
d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and
f. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection).
35-174
Ford Road Project
Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025
3 • The Project complies with the purpose and intent of the City’s Housing Overlay, which allows for the development of residential housing units.
• The Project complies with all applicable development standards, including, but not limited to, floor area ratio, setbacks and parking.
• The Project has been designed to fully integrate pedestrian and vehicle access in a safe and efficient manner.
• The Project has been designed to include finished materials and landscaping to ensure it blends seamlessly with the surrounding residential development currently located within the Port Streets.
• The proposed design, bulk, and scale of the development is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development. The open design, architecture and orientation of the Project helps ensure compatibly with the existing and long-term development pattern of the Port Streets.
• On site-parking is available to residents, guests, and visitors alike. The parking was developed to ensure the most efficient use of all available spaces, and to afford a greater interface with the adjacent rights -of-way to ensure compatibility with the pedestrian environment.
• There are no existing significant views through or across this property.
• Proposed landscaping complies with NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscaping) and NBMC Section 21.30.075 (Landscaping) including the installation and maintenance of drought tolerant and noninvasive species.
C. The proposed development is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience,
• The Project is consistent with the development goals for the Housing Overlay. The Project fits in and complements the existing surrounding residential developments.
• The Project architecture is timeless, elegant and blends seamlessly with the architecture of the Port Streets. The Project will be a visual upgrade to the existing site and area.
• On site vehicular and pedestrian circulation has been designed to provide safe and efficient public access.
35-175
Ford Road Project
Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025
4 • The Project has been designed to accommodate safe and effective emergency vehicle access. Emergenc y vehicles will have access to the development from Ford Road.
• The construction will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. All ordinances of the City and all conditions of approval shall be complied with.
Objective Design Standards
Request for limited waiver of Multi -Family Objective Design Standards under NBMC Section 20.48.185(C), because the proposed project design standards exceed the City’s standards. The Planning Commission may waive any of the design and development standards in this section upon finding that:
1. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section; and
2. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards. (1) 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Landscape and Paving Zone (LPZ)) A four -foot minimum width zone shall be provided. The zone shall be landscaped a minimum of twenty (20) percent of the total site abutting a building. A combination of vines, ornamental, grasses, shrubs, ground cover, and ornamental trees shall be provided. Landscaping in pots is permitted.
The current plan provides a 3.5’ wide LPZ at most driveway areas, with a minimum width of 3’ where the units are offset. These offsets contribute to enhanced building articulation, resulting in a more visually appealing elevation. Modifying the plan to mee t the 4’ minimum requirement would reduce the size of the amenity and landscape areas in front of the buildings due to setback and grading constraints. Our preference is to prioritize more landscaping in these front amenity areas rather than in front of th e garages. The plan, as currently designed, complies with the 20% landscaped minimum requirement. (2) 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation – Maximum Building Length) No building shall be greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet in length.
With the assumption that the original intent being to avoid lengthy, plain building masses, we've incorporated varied roof forms, deck recesses/projections, facade projections, and material variation individual to each unit from the next, providing the appearance of individual townhomes, rather than a long single building. The 8 -plex building le ngth is also limited by minimum garage widths and utility closet depths, so any further reduction would result in loss of a unit.
(3) 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation –Minimum Depth) All recesses or projections shall be a minimum of two feet in depth.
For the projections less than the 2 feet depth, varied material types and colors are provided at the projections for additional visual articulation. 35-176
Ford Road Project
Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025
5 (4) 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation - Maximum Number) No facade shall have more than two total recesses or projections per facade.
Due to the length of the 8 -plex and the townhome arrangement of the units, limiting the modulation over full length wouldn't allow for enough material breaks to individualize the units between one another, and further emphasizing the original purpose for limiting the building length to avoid lengthy building masses.
Height Adjustment Through Site Development Review
Under NBMC Section 20.30.060(C)(3), t he review authority may approve a site development review to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height only after first making all of the following findings:
a. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required.
Under the Housing Overlay the project is subject to zero setbacks from the property line for the first floor. This project voluntarily integrates varying setbacks of up to 20 feet at points along the first floor with additional setbacks on the higher levels , and is purposely not built out to the property line. These setbacks help create more open space than would otherwise be required by code. The setbacks offer a project amenity beyond those otherwise required and contribute to a more visually appealing project for the neighborhood and community.
b. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes; Special time and attention have been focused on the architectural design of the project to provide visual interest through the use of light , shadow, vertical elements and varied roof planes. Specifically, the project embraces an architectural style that has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Port Street neighborhood.
Architectural articulations and high -end stone, brick, wood siding have all been used to portray the elegance of the community. The floor plans are all designed light and bright with oversized indoor and outdoor spaces including a 4th level Lanai in several of the plans.
c. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties; and The project has been specifically designed to ensure that it blends in with the community, and avoids undesirable or abrupt scale changes with existing adjacent developments or public spaces. The project is separated from the homes to the north by a major arterial roadway (Bonita Canyon Drive) and there is approximately 185 feet of separation from the project’s structures to the closest residential property line. To the south, the project 35-177
Ford Road Project
Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025
6 is separated from the homes along Port Sheffield Place by approximately 230 feet when including setbacks. This separation ensures that the change in scale provides a subtle and gradual transition from existing uses.
d. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase.
The project is not seeking any additional floor area than could otherwise be achieved without the approval of the height increase. This project is proceeding under the City’s Housing Overlay, which establishes a minimum dwelling unit density of 20 -50 units per acre.
35-178
Tmplt: 04/03/18
Attachment No. PC 3
Project Plans
35-179
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
COVER SHEET | CS 1
35-180
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
PERSPECTIVE AT BONITA CYN RD - VIEW A | CS 2
35-181
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
PERSPECTIVE AT BONITA CYN RD - VIEW B | CS 3
35-182
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
INDEX
SHEET INDEX
COVER SHEET
PERSPECTIVE AT BONITA CYN RD - VIEW A
PERSPECTIVE AT BONITA CYN RD - VIEW B
SHEET INDEX
CS 1
CS 2
CS 3
INDEX
PLANNING
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
LANDSCAPE PAVING ZONE EXHIBIT
ARCHITECTURE
CODE ANALYSIS
UA SPLIT PLAN 1
UA SPLIT PLAN 2
UA SPLIT PLAN 3
UA SPLIT PLAN 4
COMPOSITE PLANS - 5 PLEX
COMPOSITE PLANS - 5 PLEX
COMPOSITE PLANS - 6 PLEX
COMPOSITE PLANS - 6 PLEX
COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX
COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX
UA SPLIT 5 PLEX ELEVATIONS
UA SPLIT 5 PLEX ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN
UA SPLIT 6 PLEX ELEVATIONS
UA SPLIT 6 PLEX ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN
UA SPLIT 8 PLEX ELEVATIONS
UA SPLIT 8 PLEX ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN
UA SPLIT 8 PLEX PERSPECTIVES
UA SPLIT COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD A
UA SPLIT COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD B
ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATIONS
ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATIONS
FSD SITE PLAN
OPENING CALCULATIONS
OPENING CALCULATIONS
LANDSCAPE
OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN
RETAINING WALL SECTIONS & SITE FURNISHINGS
OFFSITE AT&T SITE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS
FIREPIT LOUNGE AREA ENLARGEMENT
PICNIC AREA ENLARGEMENT
FENCE & WALL PLAN
CIVIL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
TITLE SHEET
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
SECTIONS
CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN
AVERAGE GRADE PLANE
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
1 OF 1
C-01
C-02
C-03
C-04
C-05
C-06
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
SP1
SP2
35-183
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 16 | 25
NORTH
0 4020
1’=20’ - 0” SCALE
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN | SP1
35-184
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 16 | 25
LANDSCAPE PAVING ZONE EXHIBIT | SP2
NORTH
0 4020
1’=20’ - 0” SCALE
3 1
4 17
2 EV
READY
EV
READY
EVCS
EVCS
EVREADY
EVREADY
EV
READY
MACARTHUR BOULEVARD
5'
5'
5'
3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-6"
LANDSCAPE PAVING ZONE EXHIBIT | SP2
0 20 40
1"=20'-0"SCALE NORTH
MACARTHUR BLVD
BONITA CANYON DR
FORD RD
4302 FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24-172
DATE 05 | 30 | 25
LPZ AREA: 153 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA: 572 SF
% LANDSCAPE: 27%
LPZ AREA: 187 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA: 677 SF
% LANDSCAPE: 28%
LPZ AREA: 100 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA: 349 SF
% LANDSCAPE: 29%
LPZ AREA: 106 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA: 423 SF
% LANDSCAPE: 25%
35-185
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
URBAN
ARENACODE ANALYSIS | A1
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 3 PLAN 4
PLAN 3
ROOF BELOW
PLAN 4
PLAN 2
PLAN 3
PLAN 4 PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 3
PLAN 4
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 3
1ST LEVEL 12'-8"
2ND LEVEL 43'-2"
3RD LEVEL 18'-2"
4TH LEVEL 45'-5"
TOTAL 119'-5"
PLAN 2
1ST LEVEL 12'-4"
2ND LEVEL 23'-11"
3RD LEVEL 17'-4"
4TH LEVEL 46'-7"
TOTAL 100'-1"
PLAN 1
1ST LEVEL 13'-3"
2ND LEVEL 39'-11"
3RD LEVEL 46'-7"
TOTAL 99'-10"
PLAN 4
1ST LEVEL 12'-8"
2ND LEVEL 46'-8"
3RD LEVEL 18'-9"
4TH LEVEL 45'-10"
TOTAL 123'-11"
FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
LYON LIVING | 24-172
DATE 03 | 06 | 25
3/16"=1'-0"SCALE
8 160
CODE ANALYSIS | A0
ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA:
BUILDING TYPE OCCUPANCY CONSTRUCTION TYPE
ALLOWABLE AREA TABLE
(CBC TABLE 506.2)
R2 / U
FRONTAGE (If) INCREASE
(CBC SECTION 506.3)
SPRINKLER (Is) INCREASE
(CBC SECTION 506.3)
ALLOWABLE
NUMBER OF STORIES
(CBC 504.4)
ACTUAL BUILDING AREA 1ST
FLOOR S.F.
R2
ACTUAL BUILDING AREA 2ND
FLOOR S.F.
R2
ACTUAL BUILDING AREA
3RD FLOOR S.F.
R2
ACTUAL BUILDING AREA 4TH
FLOOR S.F.
R2
ACTUAL BUILDING AREA
GARAGE S.F.
U
DECK & TERRACE
ALLOWABLE BUILDING
HEIGHT
(CBC TABLE 504.3)
TOTAL ACTUAL BUILDING AREA
S.F.
R2
ACTUAL BUILDING AREA S.F.
R2 + U
BUILDING
MIXED-AREA RATIO (<3)
FIRE WALL
REQUIRED
5 PLEX - 4 STORY R-2 / U TYPE VA, 1-HOUR 36,000 / 27,000 S.F. NOT USED USED FOR HEIGHT INCREASE (4-STORY) 4 1,340 3,468 3,661 1,184 2,415 1,177 70 10,830 13,245 0.36 NO 6 PLEX - 4 STORY R-2 / U TYPE VA, 1-HOUR 36,000 / 27,000 S.F. NOT USED USED FOR HEIGHT INCREASE (4-STORY) 4 1,765 4,283 4,592 1,620 2,879 1,574 70 13,834 16,713 0.45 NO 8 PLEX - 4 STORY R-2 / U TYPE VA, 1-HOUR 36,000 / 27,000 S.F. NOT USED USED FOR HEIGHT INCREASE (4-STORY) 4 2,644 6,032 6,404 2,520 3,792 2,244 70 19,844 23,636 0.63 NO BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS: 4-STORY TYPE VA
OCCUPANCY GROUP: (CBC SECTION 310.3 & 311.3) GROUP R-2/U SEPARATIONS: (CBC SECTION 420 & TABLE 508.4 & 406.3.4
& 708.3.2 & 711.3)
WALLS SEPARATING DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE 1/2-HOUR FIRE PARTITION PER CBC SECTION 708.3.2 WITH FULL NFPA 13 SPRINKLERS. 1-HR FIRE AND 50-54 STC SOUND RATING PARTITION PROVIDED
WALLS SEPARATING R-2 AND U OCC. SHALL BE 1/2” GYP BD MIN. AT GARAGE SIDE PER CBC TABLE 508.4 c AND SECTION 406.3.2. 5/8" GYP BD PROVIDED FLOORS SEPARATING R-2 AND U OCC. SHALL HAVE 5/8" TYPE 'X' GYP BD AT GARAGE CEILING PER CBC SECTION 406.3.4.
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: (CBC SECTION 602.5) TYPE VA
FIRE SPRINKLERS: NFPA 13 SPRINKLERS PER CBC SECTION 903.3.1.1, WITH SPRINKLER MONITORS AND ALARMS PER CBC 903.4.
ALLOWABLE HEIGHT: (CBC SECTION 503 & TABLE 504.3) 70 FT. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE STORIES: (CBC SECTION 503 & TABLE 504.4) 4 STORIES ALLOWABLE AREA PER FLOOR: (CBC SECTION 503.1 &
TABLE 506.2) R-2: 36,000 SF MAXIMUM
U: 27,000 SF MAXIMUM
ACCESSIBILTY: SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 11A. 10% OF TOTAL UNITS ON SITE SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE PER CBC 1102A.3. PRIVATELY FUNDED.
EXITING: ONLY ONE EXIT REQUIRED PER CBC SECTION 1021.2 - MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE IS 125 FEET
3RD LEVEL
4TH LEVEL
1ST LEVEL
2ND LEVEL
EXIT TRAVEL DISTANCES
35-186
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
84 1/4”=1’ - 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT PLAN 1 | A2
PLAN 1
PLAN 1 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT.
PLAN 1 TOTAL NET 1,314 SQ.FT.
PLAN 1 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 DECKS 139 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1
PLAN 1 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
PLAN 1 FIRST FLOOR - NET 54 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 SECOND FLOOR - NET 612 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 THIRD FLOOR - NET 647 SQ. FT.
NET LIVING AREA
13'-0" X 12'-4"
W.I.C.
7'-6" CLG.
BEDROOM 2
BATH 2
LAUNDRY
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
10'-6" X 11'-8"
PLAN 1
HALL
BALCONY
1'-10"12'-0"9'-0"
35'-10"
6'-0"19'-4"10'-6"
11'-6"
2" AIRSPACE
2" AIRSPACE 10'-6" 10"
AC UNIT
2-CAR GARAGE
ENTRY
2-CAR GARAGE
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
35G
BUILDING
ABOVE
10'-6"
41'-6"
30 X 48
14'-10"
H.B.
20'-0"
10'-2"
40'-6"
LIVING ROOM
PWDR
7'-9" CLG.
KITCHEN
PWDR
8'-0" CLG.
9'-8" X 7'-10"
10'-4" X 13'-2"
DINING
10'-8" X 16'-1"8'-10" X 15'-0"
DINING
REF.
MICRO/STOVE
SINK DW
PLAN 1
PANTRY
7'-9" CLG.
COFFEE
BALCONY
PANTRY
1'-10"
35'-10"
6'-0"19'-4"10'-6"
11'-6"
22'-10"
2" AIRSPACE
10'-6" 10'-8" 10"
PLAN 1 | A4.11
0 1/4"=1'-0"SCALE
4 8
FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
LYON LIVING | 24-172
DATE 03 | 06 | 25
FIRST FLOOR
SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR
NOTE:
ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE AN
EGRESS WINDOW WITH A MINIMUM
OPENING SIZE OF 5.7 SQ. FT.
35-187
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
84 1/4”=1’ - 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT PLAN 2 | A3
PLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2
PLAN 2 DECKS 111 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT.
PLAN 2 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TERRACE 214 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
BEDROOM 2
9'-0" CLG.
BATH 2
8'-0" CLG.
HALL
9'-0" CLG.
M. W.I.C.
8'-0" CLG.
BALCONY
LAUND.
8'-0" CLG.
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
PLAN 2
3RD LEVEL (4-STORY)
9'-8"11'-4"
10'-0" 10'-6"
1'-0"
35'-4"
5'-6"15'-0"14'-10"
DECK EXCLUDED FROM
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
CALCULATIONS
2-CAR GARAGE
BEDROOM 3
ENTRY
ENTRY
35G 35G
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 2
35G
BUILDING
ABOVE
BUILDING ABOVE
23'-10"
41'-6"
3'-0"3'-0" 5'-0"13'-4" 17'-2"
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
BATH 3
8'-0" CLG.
19'-4"
PATIO
WHERE OCCURS, REFER TO
LANDSCAPE PLANS
H.B.
H.B.
20'-5"
20'-0"
KITCHEN
PWDR
7'-9" CLG.
DINING
LIVING ROOM
PLAN 2
BALCONY
PANTRY
7'-9" CLG.
21'-0"
10'-0"
35'-4"
5'-6"15'-0"14'-10"
10'-6"1'-0"
DECK EXCLUDED FROM
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
CALCULATIONS
F.R.
TERRACE
9'-0" CLG.
AC UNITS
PLAN 2
BONUS ROOM
4TH LEVEL (4-STORY)
21'-2"
13'-11" 7'-9"
29'-8"
14'-10"14'-10"
13'-8"
13'-2"
23'-5" 5'-5"
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREA
PLAN 2 TOTAL NET 1,509 SQ.FT.
PLAN 2
PLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR - NET 340 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 SECOND FLOOR - NET 543 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 THIRD FLOOR - NET 619 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 FOURTH FLOOR - NET 292 SQ. FT.
NET LIVING AREA
PLAN 2 | A4.12
0 1/4"=1'-0"SCALE
4 8
FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
LYON LIVING | 24-172
DATE 03 | 06 | 25
FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR
OPPOSITE CLOSET CONDITION
NOTE:
ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE AN
EGRESS WINDOW WITH A MINIMUM
OPENING SIZE OF 5.7 SQ. FT.
FOURTH FLOOR
35-188
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
84 1/4”=1’ - 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT PLAN 3 | A4
42'-4"
21'-2"
ENTRY
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
PLAN 3
BEDROOM 4
9'-0" CLG.
13'-0" X 14'-0"
W.I.C.
9'-0" CLG.
BATH 3
8'-0" CLG.
35G
35G
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-0" X 20'-0"
35G
20'-1"
20'-4"
46'-0"
21'-2"
44'-4"
DECK
LIVING ROOM
9'-0" CLG.
14'-10" X 9'-0"
SINK
DW
MICRO/STOVE
REF.
RB
DN.
[email protected]"
16T@10"
UP
[email protected]"
16T@10"
KITCHEN
9'-0" CLG.
DINING
9'-0" CLG.
PWDR
8'-0" CLG.
(7'-10" CLG. MIN)
PANTRY
8'-0" CLG.
(7'-6" CLG. MIN.)
16'-6" X 15'-9"
PLAN 3
12'-8"
7'-0"
PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE AREA
21'-2"
44'-4"
M. BATH
9'-0" CLG.
9'-0" CLG.
9'-0" CLG.
M. W.I.C.
8'-0" CLG.
(7'-10" CLG. MIN.)
BATH 2
8'-0" CLG.
(7'-10" MIN.)
HALL
8'-0" CLG.
(7'-10" CLG. MIN.)
42X42
DN
[email protected]"
16T@10"
LAUNDRY
8'-0" CLG. (7'-10" MIN.)
UP
[email protected]"
16T@10"
8'-0" CLG.
(7'-10" CLG. MIN.)
M. BEDROOM
9'-0" CLG.
BEDROOM 2
9'-0" CLG.
10'-0" X 11'-0" 10'-0" X 12'-0"
13'-0" X 14'-8"
BEDROOM 3
9'-0" CLG.
PLAN 3
21'-2"
44'-4"BONUS ROOM
20'-2" X 18'-3"
TECH.
DN
[email protected]"
16T@10"
PLAN 3
AC UNITS
TERRACE
9'-0" CLG.
10'-2"
16'-10"PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE AREA
PLAN 3 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3
PLAN 3 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 DECK 89 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TERRACE 176 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2
NET LIVING AREA
PLAN 3 TOTAL NET 2,402 SQ.FT.
PLAN 3 FIRST FLOOR - NET 388 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 SECOND FLOOR - NET 764 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 THIRD FLOOR - NET 881 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 FOURTH FLOOR - NET 370 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
FIRST LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
LYON LIVING | 24-172
DATE 03 | 06 | 25 PLAN 3 | A4.13
0 1/4"=1'-0"SCALE
4 8
FOURTH LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
NOTE:
ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE AN
EGRESS WINDOW WITH A MINIMUM
OPENING SIZE OF 5.7 SQ. FT.
35-189
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
84 1/4”=1’ - 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT PLAN 4 | A5
21'-2"
43'-0"
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
2-CAR GARAGE
BEDROOM 4
9'-0" CLG.
ENTRY
9'-0" CLG.
BATH 3
8'-0" CLG.
W.I.C.
9'-0" CLG.
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 4
20'-1"
20'-4"
44'-6"
21'-0"
DN.
[email protected]"
16T@10"
LIVING ROOM
9'-0" CLG.
UP
[email protected]"
16T@10"
DINING
9'-0" CLG.
KITCHEN
9'-0" CLG.
PANTRY
9'-0" CLG.
POWDER
8'-0" CLG.
8'-0" CLG.
PLAN 4
21'-0"
45'-10"
DECK
M. BEDROOM
9'-0" CLG.
PLAN 4
M. W.I.C.
9'-0" CLG.
BATH 2
9'-0" CLG.
HALL
9'-0" CLG.
BEDROOM 2
9'-0" CLG.
DN.
[email protected]"
16T@10"
LAUNDRY
9'-0" CLG.
UP
[email protected]"
16T@10"
BEDROOM 3
9'-0" CLG.
8'-0" CLG.
M. BATH
9'-0" CLG.
13'-0"
5'-2"
DECK EXCLUDED FROM PRIVATE
OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS
21'-0"
45'-10"
ROOF BELOW
ROOF BELOW
DN.
[email protected]"
16T@10"
BONUS ROOM
9'-0" CLG.
TERRACE
9'-0" CLG.
PLAN 4
AC UNITS
12'-4"
12'-8"
PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE AREA
7'-8"
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PLAN 4 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4
PLAN 4 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 DECK 69 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TERRACE 204 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
NET LIVING AREA
PLAN 4 TOTAL NET 2,509 SQ.FT.
PLAN 4 FIRST FLOOR - NET 416 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4
PLAN 4 SECOND FLOOR - NET 879 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 THIRD FLOOR - NET 822 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 FOURTH FLOOR - NET 391 SQ. FT.
FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
LYON LIVING | 24-172
DATE 03 | 06 | 25 PLAN 4 | A4.14
0 1/4"=1'-0"SCALE
4 8
FIRST LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FOURTH LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
NOTE:
ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE AN
EGRESS WINDOW WITH A MINIMUM
OPENING SIZE OF 5.7 SQ. FT.
35-190
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
COMPOSITE PLANS - 5 PLEX | A6
21'-2"
91'-7"
21'-2"
34'-5"34'-5"
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 4
D.S.D.S.
D.S. D.S.D.S.
D.S.
35G35G
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
35G 35G 35G
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
35G
34'-5"
9"
D.S.
43'-0"
19'-5" 15'-0" 15'-0" 19'-5"
20'-0"
20'-5"
10'-2"
40'-6"
20'-4"
20'-0"
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
6"
43'-0"
PLAN 3 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3
PLAN 3 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 DECK 89 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TERRACE 176 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PLAN 4 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4
PLAN 4 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 DECK 69 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TERRACE 204 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREAPLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2
PLAN 2 DECKS 111 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT.
PLAN 2 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TERRACE 214 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
PLAN 1
PLAN 1 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT.
PLAN 1 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 DECKS 139 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
21'-2"
21'-2"
91'-8"
PLAN 4
29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4"29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4"
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
1'-10"
2'-0"
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
LYON LIVING | 24-172
DATE 03 | 06 | 25
3/16"=1'-0"SCALE
8 160
1ST FLOOR
5-PLEX COMPOSITE 1ST & 2ND FLOOR PLANS | A4.31
2ND FLOOR
35-191
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
COMPOSITE PLANS - 5 PLEX | A7
21'-2"
91'-8"
21'-2"
PLAN 4
29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4"29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4"
1'-10"
6"
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
21'-2"
21'-2"
21'-6"
ROOF BELOW
PLAN 4
PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE AREA
PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 2
40'-3"
29'-7"
21'-6"
40'-3"
29'-7"
29'-7"29'-7"
80'-4"
PLAN 3 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3
PLAN 3 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 DECK 89 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TERRACE 176 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PLAN 4 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4
PLAN 4 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 DECK 69 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TERRACE 204 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREAPLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2
PLAN 2 DECKS 111 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT.
PLAN 2 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TERRACE 214 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
PLAN 1
PLAN 1 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT.
PLAN 1 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 DECKS 139 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
LYON LIVING | 24-172
DATE 03 | 06 | 25
3/16"=1'-0"SCALE
8 160
3RD FLOOR
5-PLEX COMPOSITE 3RD & 4TH FLOOR PLANS | A4.32
4TH FLOOR
35-192
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
COMPOSITE PLANS - 6 PLEX | A8
21'-2" 21'-2"
112'-9"
21'-2"21'-2"
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
PLAN 3
35G
35G35G
34'-5"34'-5"
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 4
D.S.D.S.
D.S. D.S.D.S.
D.S.
35G35G
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
35G 35G 35G
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
35G
34'-5"
9"
D.S.
19'-5" 15'-0" 15'-0" 19'-5"
20'-0"
20'-5"
10'-2"
40'-6"
20'-4"
20'-0"20'-4"
20'-0"
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
6"
8"
4"
43'-0"
43'-0"
PLAN 3
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
21'-2" 21'-2"
21'-2" 21'-2"
112'-10"
PLAN 4
29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4"29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4"
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
1'-10"
1'-10"
8"
2'-0"
6"
1'-8"
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 3 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3
PLAN 3 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 DECK 89 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TERRACE 176 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PLAN 4 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4
PLAN 4 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 DECK 69 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TERRACE 204 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREAPLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2
PLAN 2 DECKS 111 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT.
PLAN 2 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TERRACE 214 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
PLAN 1
PLAN 1 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT.
PLAN 1 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 DECKS 139 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
LYON LIVING | 24-172
DATE 03 | 06 | 25
3/16"=1'-0"SCALE
8 160
1ST FLOOR
6-PLEX COMPOSITE 1ST & 2ND FLOOR PLANS | A4.41
2ND FLOOR
35-193
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
COMPOSITE PLANS - 6 PLEX | A9
PLAN 3
21'-2" 21'-2"
112'-10"
21'-2" 21'-2"
PLAN 4
29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4"29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4"
1'-10"
1'-10"
4"
2'-0"
6"
6"
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
21'-2"
21'-2"
21'-2"
21'-2"
PLAN 3
PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE AREA
21'-6"
ROOF BELOW
PLAN 4
PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE AREA
PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 2
40'-3"
29'-7"
21'-6"
40'-3"
29'-7"
29'-7"29'-7"
101'-6"
PLAN 3 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3
PLAN 3 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 DECK 89 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TERRACE 176 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PLAN 4 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4
PLAN 4 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 DECK 69 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TERRACE 204 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREAPLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2
PLAN 2 DECKS 111 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT.
PLAN 2 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TERRACE 214 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
PLAN 1
PLAN 1 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT.
PLAN 1 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 DECKS 139 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
LYON LIVING | 24-172
DATE 03 | 06 | 25
3/16"=1'-0"SCALE
8 160
3RD FLOOR
6-PLEX COMPOSITE 3RD & 4TH FLOOR PLANS | A4.43
4TH FLOOR
35-194
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX | A10
21'-2"
155'-0"
21'-2"
35G35G
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
35G 35G 35G
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
35G
21'-2" 21'-2"
21'-2"21'-2"
21'-2"
21'-2"
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
PLAN 3
35G
35G35G
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 4
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
35G 35G
35G
PLAN 4
D.S.D.S.
D.S. D.S.D.S.
D.S.D.S.
D.S.
34'-5"34'-5"
9"
D.S.
19'-5" 15'-0" 15'-0" 19'-5"
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
6"
1'-0"
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
30 X 48
CLR. SPACE
PLAN 3
35G
35G35G
43'-0"
43'-0"
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
21'-2"
21'-2"
155'-2"
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
21'-2" 21'-2"
21'-2" 21'-2"
PLAN 3
21'-2"
21'-2"
PLAN 4PLAN 4
29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4" 29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4"
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
1'-10"
1'-4"1'-0"
1'-0" 6"
6"
PLAN 3
PLAN 3 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3
PLAN 3 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 DECK 89 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TERRACE 176 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PLAN 4 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4
PLAN 4 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 DECK 69 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TERRACE 204 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREAPLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2
PLAN 2 DECKS 111 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT.
PLAN 2 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TERRACE 214 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
PLAN 1
PLAN 1 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT.
PLAN 1 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 DECKS 139 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
LYON LIVING | 24-172
DATE 03 | 06 | 25
3/16"=1'-0"SCALE
8 160
1ST FLOOR
8-PLEX COMPOSITE 1ST & 2ND FLOOR PLANS | A4.61
2ND FLOOR
35-195
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX | A11
21'-2"
21'-2"
21'-2" 21'-2"
21'-2" 21'-2"
PLAN 3
21'-2"
21'-2"
21'-6"
ROOF BELOW
PLAN 4
PLAN 2
ROOF BELOW
PLAN 4
PLAN 2
PLAN 3
PLAN 2
40'-3"
29'-7"
21'-6"
40'-3"
29'-7"
29'-7"29'-7"
143'-10"
21'-2"
155'-2"
21'-2"
21'-2" 21'-2"
21'-2" 21'-2"
PLAN 3
21'-2"
21'-2"
PLAN 4PLAN 4
29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4" 29'-11"
29'-11"
44'-6"
5'-4"
5'-4"
1'-10"
2'-4"
6"
6"
PLAN 3
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 3 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3
PLAN 3 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 DECK 89 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TERRACE 176 SQ. FT.
PLAN 3 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PLAN 4 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4
PLAN 4 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 DECK 69 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TERRACE 204 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT.
PLAN 4 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREAPLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2
PLAN 2 DECKS 111 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT.
PLAN 2 FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT.
PLAN 2 TERRACE 214 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
PLAN 1
PLAN 1 TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT.
PLAN 1 FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 DECKS 139 SQ. FT.
PLAN 1 THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD
OF CALCULATION.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT.
GROSS AREA
FORD RD
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
LYON LIVING | 24-172
DATE 03 | 06 | 25
3/16"=1'-0"SCALE
8 160
8-PLEX COMPOSITE 3RD & 4TH FLOOR PLANS | A4.62
4TH FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
35-196
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT 5 PLEX ELEVATIONS | A12
47'-4"
36'-3"
47'-11" TO RIDGE
1ST FLOOR
10'-1"
2ND FLOOR
10'-3"
3RD FLOOR
11'-8"
4TH FLOOR
VARIES
10'-0" MIN
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING 3 - 244.65
ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION
BUILDING 3 - 196.65
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
PLAN 1 PLAN 4 PLAN 1
PLAN 1PLAN 2 PLAN 2PLAN 1PLAN 4
PLAN 2 PLAN 2
35-197
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT 5 PLEX ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN | A13
47'-11" TO RIDGE
36'-3"
LOW SLOPE ROOF
3 8 :12
LOW SLOPE ROOF
3 8 :12
6:126:12
6:12
6:12 6:12
6:12 6:123:12
3:12
3:12 3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
6:12
6:12
3:123:12
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING 3 - 244.65
ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION
BUILDING 3 - 196.65
RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION
ROOF PLAN
PLAN 2 PLAN 2
35-198
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT 6 PLEX ELEVATIONS | A14
36'-3"
47'-4"
47'-11" TO RIDGE
1ST FLOOR
10'-1"
2ND FLOOR
10'-3"
3RD FLOOR
11'-8"
4TH FLOOR
VARIES
10'-0" MIN
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING 4 - 244.35
ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION
BUILDING 4 - 196.35
PLAN 1FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
PLAN 1PLAN 3 PLAN 4
PLAN 1PLAN 2 PLAN 4 PLAN 3 PLAN 1 PLAN 2
PLAN 2 PLAN 2
35-199
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT 6 PLEX ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN | A15
47'-11" TO RIDGE
36'-3"
3:12
3:12
3:12
6:126:12
6:12 6:12
6:12
6:12 6:12
3:123:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
LOW SLOPE ROOF
3 8 :12
LOW SLOPE ROOF
3 8 :12
LOW SLOPE ROOF
3 8 :12
3:12
3:12
6:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
6:12
3:123:12
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING 4 - 244.35
ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION
BUILDING 4 - 196.35
RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION
ROOF PLAN
PLAN 2 PLAN 2
35-200
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT 8 PLEX ELEVATIONS | A16
36'-3"
47'-4"
47'-11" TO RIDGE
1ST FLOOR
10'-1"
2ND FLOOR
10'-3"
3RD FLOOR
11'-8"
4TH FLOOR
VARIES
10'-0" MIN
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - 246.38
BUILDING 2 - 246.83
ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - 198.38
BUILDING 2 - 198.83
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
PLAN 1 PLAN 3 PLAN 4 PLAN 3 PLAN 4 PLAN 1
PLAN 1PLAN 2 PLAN 4 PLAN 3 PLAN 4 PLAN 3 PLAN 1 PLAN 2
PLAN 2 PLAN 2
35-201
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT 8 PLEX ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN | A17
36'-3"
47'-11" TO RIDGE
47'-11"
6:12
6:12 6:12
6:12
6:123:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12
3:12
6:12
3:12
3:12
LOW SLOPE ROOF
3 8 :12
LOW SLOPE ROOF
3 8 :12
LOW SLOPE ROOF
3 8 :12
6:126:12
6:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
6:12
6:123:126:12 3:123:12
3:12
3:12
3:12 3:12
3:12
6:12
3:12
6:12
3:12
ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - 198.38
BUILDING 2 - 198.83
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - 246.38
BUILDING 2 - 246.83
RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION
ROOF PLAN
PLAN 2 PLAN 2
*NOTE: WINDOW CONDITION VARIES BETWEEN BLDGS 1 & 2
PER OPENING RESTRICTIONS, SEE SHEET A25
*NOTE: WINDOW CONDITION VARIES BETWEEN BLDGS 1 & 2
PER OPENING RESTRICTIONS, SEE SHEET A25
35-202
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT 8 PLEX PERSPECTIVES | A18
FRONT PERSPECTIVE
REAR PERSPECTIVE
35-203
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD A | A19
AA E ECE E 31 2 D B
COLOR SCHEME A
ROOF
CAPISTRANO “ASH
GRAY”
MCELROY METAL
1. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
SINGLE HUNG - BLACK
MILGARD
2. BRICK
TUNDRABRICK
“L ATIGO”
EL DORADO STONE
3. SW 7594 “CARRIAGE DOOR”STUCCO 1 16/20
SW 7005 “PURE WHITE”
SW 7674 “PEPPERCORN”SW 9139 “DUBONAIR”
SW 6236 “GRAYS HARBOR”
D.A.
E.B.
C.
OUTDOOR FAN
HAIKU COASTAL 52”
BLACK
BIG ASS FANS
4. OUTDOOR LIGHTING
RAWLEY LED SCONCE
OIL RUBBED BRONZE
REJUVENATION
5. 4 4 4
35-204
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
UA SPLIT COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD B | A20
FORD SPLIT ELEVATION
DATE 2 | 12 | 25
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL LLC | 25-012
NEWPORT BEACH | CA
COLOR SCHEME B
ROOF
CAPISTRANO “ASH
GRAY”
MCELROY METAL
1. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
SINGLE HUNG - BLACK
MILGARD
2. BRICK
TUNDRA BRICK
“CHALK DUST”
EL DORADO STONE
3. STUCCO 1 16/20
SW 7008 “ALABASTER”
SW 7524 “DHURRIE BEIGE”
SW 7615 “SEA SERPENT”
A.
B.
C.
SW 9128 “GREEN ONYX”
SW 7048 “URBANE BRONZE”
D.
E.
4 4 4AC A F CC E E 31 D E
OUTDOOR FAN
HAIKU COASTAL 52”
BLACK
BIG ASS FANS
4. OUTDOOR LIGHTING
RAWLEY LED SCONCE
OIL RUBBED BRONZE
REJUVENATION
5. 2 B
35-205
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATIONS | A21
1ST FLOOR
10'-1"
2ND FLOOR
10'-3"
3RD FLOOR
11'-8"
4TH FLOOR
VARIES
10'-0" MIN
8 PLEX FACADE
FIRST FLOOR FACADE AREA: 1,382 SF
TOTAL WINDOW AREA: 306 SF
FIRST FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS REQUIRED: 20%
FIRST FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS PROVIDED: 306 / 1,382 = 22% UPPER FLOOR FACADE AREA: 2,879 SF
TOTAL WINDOW AREA: 602 SF
UPPER FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS REQUIRED: 20%
UPPER FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS PROVIDED: 602 / 2,879 = 21% 3RD FLOOR
11'-8"
4TH FLOOR
VARIES
10'-0" MIN
6 PLEX FACADE
FIRST FLOOR FACADE AREA: 1,008 SF
TOTAL WINDOW AREA: 210 SF
FIRST FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS PROVIDED: 210 / 1,008 = 21% UPPER FLOOR FACADE AREA: 2.251 SF
TOTAL WINDOW AREA: 467 SF
UPPER FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS PROVIDED: 467 / 2,251 = 21% 1ST FLOOR
10'-2"
2ND FLOOR
10'-3"
35-206
URBAN
ARENA
16 FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATIONS | A22
12" PROJECTION: 515 SF
21'-5"
88'-10"
4" PROJECTION: 540 SF
12" PROJECTION: 515 SF
4" PROJECTION: 540 SF 12" PROJECTION: 515 SF
5 PLEX FACADE
6 PLEX FACADE 8 PLEX FACADE
42'-2"
109'-8"
85'-5"
152'-2"
PRIMARY FACADE: 2,440 SF
PROJECTION AREA REQUIRED 10%
PROJECTION AREA PROVIDED: 515 / 2,440 = 21%
PRIMARY FACADE: 2,980 SF
PROJECTION AREA REQUIRED 10%
PROJECTION AREA PROVIDED: (515 + 540) / 2,980 = 35%
12" PROJECTION: 515 SF 4" PROJECTION: 540 SF
PRIMARY FACADE: 4,036 SF
PROJECTION AREA REQUIRED 10%
PROJECTION AREA PROVIDED: (540 + 515 + 540 + 515) / 4,036 = 52% 1ST FLOOR
10'-1"
2ND FLOOR
10'-3"
3RD FLOOR
11'-8"
4TH FLOOR
VARIES
10'-0" MIN
FIRST FLOOR FACADE AREA: 820 SF
TOTAL WINDOW AREA: 166 SF
FIRST FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS PROVIDED: 166 / 820 = 20%
UPPER FLOOR FACADE AREA: 1,927 SF
TOTAL WINDOW AREA: 393 SF
UPPER FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS PROVIDED: 393 / 1,927 = 20% 5 PLEX FACADE
35-207
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
0 3216
1/16”=1’ - 0” SCALE
FSD SITE PLAN | A23
3 1
4 16
2 EV
READY
EV
READY
EVCS
EVCS
EVREADY
EVREADY
EV
READY
PLAN 1
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 2
PLAN 3
PLAN 3
PLAN 4
PLAN 4
PLAN 2
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 1
PLAN 3
PLAN 4
9'-11"LEVELS 2 & 3
12'-6"
LEVELS 2 & 315'-1"
LEVELS 2 & 3
5'-0" 10'-0"
EXTERIOR WALL
AT LEVELS 2 & 3
EXTERIOR WALL
AT LEVELS 2 & 3
5'-0"
10'-0"
15'-7"
18'-7"
CENTERLINE OF EXISTING PUBLIC BIKEWAY
11'-0"
16'-10"
13'-7"LEVELS 2 & 3
15'-0"
5'-0"
10'-0"
15'-0"
16'-6"
16'-6"
16'-7"
16'-6"
13'-0"
13'-0"
NORTH
35-208
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
OPENING CALCULATIONS | A24
47'-4"
47'-11" TO RIDGE
1ST FLOOR
10'-1"
2ND FLOOR
10'-3"
3RD FLOOR
11'-8"
4TH FLOOR
VARIES
10'-0" MIN
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - 246.38
BUILDING 2 - 246.83
ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - 198.38
BUILDING 2 - 198.83
47'-4"
47'-11" TO RIDGE
1ST FLOOR
10'-1"
2ND FLOOR
10'-3"
3RD FLOOR
11'-8"
4TH FLOOR
VARIES
10'-0" MIN
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - 246.38
BUILDING 2 - 246.83
ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - 198.38
BUILDING 2 - 198.83
36'-3"
47'-11" TO RIDGE
47'-11"
ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - 198.38
BUILDING 2 - 198.83
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - 246.38
BUILDING 2 - 246.83
148 sf
16 sf
80 sf
12 sf
8 sf
278 sf
49 sf
8 sf
278 sf
16 sf
16 sf
8 sf
292 sf
16 sf
16 sf
1,488 sf
20 sf
20 sf
16 sf
40 sf
5 sf
10 sf
5 sf
12 sf
12 sf
40 sf
10 sf
20 sf
20 sf
12 sf
12 sf
12 sf
12 sf
16 sf
12 sf
12 sf
12 sf
12 sf
12 sf
12 sf
12 sf
12 sf
40 sf
40 sf
12 sf
12 sf
16 sf
48 sf
24 sf
18 sf
40 sf
24 sf
24 sf
24 sf
24 sf
24 sf
48 sf
18 sf
40 sf
42 sf
42 sf
LEVEL 1
FSD 5'-10': 25% MAX
PROVIDED: 20 SF / 80 SF = 25%
LEVEL 2
FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX
PROVIDED: 83 SF / 278 SF = 30%
LEVEL 3
FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX
PROVIDED: 71 SF / 278 SF = 26%
BUILDING 4 - NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING 2 - WEST ELEVATION BUILDINGS 1 & 2 - SOUTH ELEVATION
LEVEL 1
FSD 5'-10': 25% MAX
PROVIDED: 16 SF / 148 SF = 11%
LEVEL 2
FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX
PROVIDED: 97 SF / 292 SF = 33%
LEVEL 3
FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX
PROVIDED: 78 SF / 283 SF = 28%
49 sf
LEVEL 1
FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX
PROVIDED: 440 SF / 1,458 SF = 30%
LEVEL 2
FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX
PROVIDED: 520 SF / 1,607 SF = 32%
LEVEL 3
FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX
PROVIDED: 555 SF / 1,652 SF = 34%
LEVEL 4
FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX
PROVIDED: 661 SF / 1,659 SF = 40%
283 sf
5 sf
8 sf
8 sf
31 sf
34 sf
18 sf
33 sf
7 sf
7 sf
21 sf
8 sf
1,659 sf
101 sf
90 sf
8 sf
8 sf
101 sf
1,607 sf
683 sf
509 sf
460 sf
112 sf
113 sf
38 sf
38 sf
97 sf
97 sf
35 sf
35 sf
47 sf
11 sf
47 sf
11 sf
70 sf
70 sf
68 sf
327 sf
97 sf
18 sf
LEVEL 4
FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX
PROVIDED: 115 SF / 327 SF = 35%
119 sf
18 sf LEVEL 4
FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX
PROVIDED: 18 SF / 119 SF = 15%
35-209
URBAN
ARENA
FORD ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH | CALIFORNIA
KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL | 24 -172
DATE 6 | 25 | 25
1680
3/16” = 1’- 0” SCALE
OPENING CALCULATIONS | A25
47'-11" TO RIDGE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING 3 - 244.65
ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION
BUILDING 3 - 196.65
36'-3"
377 sf
59 sf
24 sf
14 sf
468 sf
419 sf
327 sf
97 sf
18 sf
80 sf
80 sf
86 sf
86 sf
7 sf
7 sf
7 sf
LEVEL 1
FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX
PROVIDED: 97 SF / 377 SF = 26%
LEVEL 2
FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX
PROVIDED: 204 SF / 468 SF = 44%
LEVEL 3
FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX
PROVIDED: 181 SF / 419 SF = 43%
LEVEL 4
FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX
PROVIDED: 115 SF / 327 SF = 35%
BUILDINGS 1 & 2 - SIDE ELEVATION (BETWEEN BUILDINGS 1 & 2 CONDITION ONLY) 16 sf
16 sf
820 sf
115 sf
115 sf
115 sf
58 sf
58 sf
952 sf
994 sf
32 sf
32 sf
32 sf
32 sf
10 sf
10 sf
10 sf
10 sf
10 sf
10 sf
17 sf
17 sf
17 sf
7 sf
7 sf
7 sf
7 sf
17 sf
923 sf
34 sf
34 sf
9 sf
9 sf
7 sf
20 sf
20 sf
LEVEL 1
FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX
PROVIDED: 461 SF / 820 SF = 56%
LEVEL 2
FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX
PROVIDED: 132 SF / 952 SF = 14%
LEVEL 3
FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX
PROVIDED: 152 SF / 994 SF = 15%
LEVEL 4
FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX
PROVIDED: 133 SF / 923 SF = 14%
BUILDING 3 - REAR ELEVATION
35-210
35-211
35-212
35-213
35-214
35-215
35-216
35-217
35-218
35-219
35-220
35-221
35-222
35-223
Tmplt: 04/03/18
Attachment No. PC 4
General Plan Policy Consistency
35-224
General Plan Policy Consistency
General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency
Housing Element Policy 3.2 . Encourage
housing developments to offer a wide
spectrum of housing choices, designs, and
configurations.
Land Use Element Policy LU 2.3 (Range of
Residential Choices). Provide opportunities
for the development of residential units that
respond to community and regional needs in
terms of density, size, location, and cost.
Implement goals, policies, programs, and
objectives identified within the City’s Housing
Element.
The project proposes a 27 -unit residential condominium complex. The project diversifies the City’s housing stock through a t ownhome design, accommodates a variety of
household sizes, responds to market demand, and
supports the City’s efforts t o increase the supply of
housing in the City.
Land Use Element Policy LU3.2 (Growth
and Change). Enhance existing
neighborhoods, districts, and corridors,
allowing for re-use and infill with uses that are
complementary in type, form, scale, and
character. Changes in use and/or
density/intensity should be considered only in
those areas that are economically
underperforming, are necessary to
accommodate Newport Beach’s share of
projected regional population growth, improve
the rela tionship and reduce commuting
distance between home and jobs, or enhance
the values that distinguish Newport Beach as
a special place to live for its residents. The
scale of growth and new development shall be
coordinated with the provision of adequate
infrastructure and public services, including
standards for acceptable traffic level of
service.
The project is proposed on an undeveloped and
underutilized property within an area of the City that is considerably developed. The Project will add 27 attached single-unit dwellings to the City’s housing stock which allows the City to further its efforts of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation Program and meet the City’s
RHNA. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing
Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department
reviewed the project’s projected traffic generation analysis and found that Ford Road would adequately serve the
project. The project is projected to produce 182 average daily trips, which does not exceed the 300 average daily trip threshold, and therefore, no additional traffic analysis is required. Additionally, the Public Works Department
reviewed the submitted sewer and water demand study
and found that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the project,
as adequate infrastructure is available and has sufficient capacity.
Land Use Element Policy LU 4.5
(Residential Uses and Residential
Densities). Residential use of any property
included within an established housing
opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed
regardless of and in addition to the underlying
land use category or density limit established
through Policy LU 4.1, Table LU 1 and Table
LU 2, or any other conflict in the Land Use
Element. A general plan amendment is not
required to develop a residential use within an
established housing opportunity zoning
overlay district. The maximum density
specified for the various overlay districts
specified in Policy LU 4.4 is an average over
the entire property or project site.
The project is identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 and is located within the HO -4 subarea. The project proposes 27 residential condominiums on a 1.16 -acre
property which yields a density of 23.27 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the allowed density of the HO-4
Subarea.
35-225
General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency
Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.6
(Character and Quality of Residential
Properties). Require that residential front
setbacks and other areas visible from the
public street be attractively landscaped, trash
containers enclosed, and driveway and
parking paving minimized.
While Policy LU 5.1.6 is intended for single-family and two- unit projects, the project includes large setback areas that are thoroughly landscaped with drought tolera nt and
noninvasive plant species. While the HO-4 Subarea does
not require any base floor setbacks, the project provides generous setbacks and better reflects the character of a low-density neighborhood. The visibility of driveway and parking areas have been minimized through use of
landscaping and t rash containers will be located within each dwelling unit’s garage and screened from the public right-of-way.
Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.9
(Character and Quality of Multi -Family
Residential) Require that multi -family
dwellings be designed to convey a high -
quality architectural character in accordance
with the following principles: Building
Elevations, Ground Floor Treatments, Roof
Design, Parking, Open Space and Amenity
As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference, the project complies with the majority (48 of 52) of the applicable objective design standards and in some cases exceeds the intent of the standards. However, the applicant requests minor deviations of four objective design standards. The Objective Design Standards were
developed to implement Land Use Policy LU5.1.9,
therefore compliance with these standards with negligible deviation ensures that the project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU5.1.9.
Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.1
(Compatible Development ). Require that
buildings and properties be designed to
ensure compatibility within and as interfaces
between neighborhoods, districts, and
corridors
Although the project site has an irregular shape, the project design compactly arranges the four separate buildings to maximize site efficiency and preserve larger than required setbacks. The Bonita Canyon Sports Park unique parcel
shape extends in front of the northwest portion of the
project site, further setting back the proposed development up to 50 feet from the Bonita Canyon Drive right-of-way in that location. The project site design includes interior drive aisles and resident amenity areas which are screened
from public view. The project’s large setbacks, landscaped edge conditions, and location of drive isles and residential amenities reduce the visual impact of the project and
ensures compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.2 (Form
and Environment). Require that new and
renovated buildings be designed to avoid the
use of styles, colors, and materials that
unusually impact the design character and
quality of their location such as abrupt
changes in scale, building form, architectural
style, and the use of surface materials that
raise local temperatures, result in glare and
excessive illumination of adjoining properties
and open spaces, or adversely modify wind
patterns.
The contemporary coastal architectural style of the project has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Harbor View community . Architectural
articulations and high-quality materials including, brick and wood siding, are utilized to blend in with the character of the surrounding community. Additionally, the project
includes two color schemes: a coastal color scheme with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white.
These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes throughout the City.
Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.3
(Ambient Lighting). Require that outdoor
lighting be located and designed to prevent
The project has been conditioned to require a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan . The project has also been conditioned to allow the Community
35-226
General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency
spillover onto adjoining properties or
significantly increase the overall ambient
illumination of their location.
Development Director to order the dimming of light
sources upon finding that the illumination creates an
unacceptable or negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources.
Land Use Policy LU 6.15.23 (Sustainability
Development Practices). Require that
development achieves a high level of
environmental sustainability that reduces
pollution and consumption of energy, water,
and natural resources. This may be
accomplished through the mix and density of
uses, building location and design,
transportation modes, and other techniques.
Among the strategies that should be
considered are the integration of residential
with jobs-generating uses, use of alternative
transportation modes, maximized walkability,
use of recycled materials, capture and re-use
of storm water on -site, water conserving
fixtures and landscapes, and architectural
elements that reduce heat gain and loss
Circulation Element Policy CE 7.1.7
(Project Site Design Supporting Alternate
Modes). Encourage increased use of public
transportation by requiring project site
designs that facilitate the use of public
transportation and walking.
The project is required to comply with the provisions of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR, Title 24, Parts 6 – California Energy Code) and the Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11 - CALGreen).
Additionally, the project would implement water -efficient landscaping, water quality best management practices
and low impact development practices. The project is
within proximity to Newport Center commercial and office developments and would provide housing near this
employment center. The project includes pedestrian
linkage to the Ford Road public sidewalk and Bonita
Canyon Sports Park Trail which offer provide pedestrian and bicyclist connections to nearby destinations such as Newport Center, approximately two miles away, and the
Newport Hills Shopping Center, one mile away. The
project is also located in close proximity to the existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus
routes provided along Ford Road and Bonita Canyon
Drive.
Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.3 (New
Development Maintained Responsibility).
Ensure minimization of traffic congestion
impacts and parking impacts and ensure
proper roadway maintenance through review
and approval of Construction Management
Plans associated with new development
proposals in residential neighborhoods.
The project has been conditioned to require the applicant to prepare a construction management plan (CMP) to be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development,
Fire and Public Works Departments. Th e CMP will help
ensure that congestion associated with the construction process is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
35-227
Tmplt: 04/03/18
Attachment No. PC 5
Multi-Unit Objective Design Standard
Checklist
35-228
Objective Design Standards Checklist
Community Development Department
Planning Division
100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 / Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3204
www.newportbeachca.gov
Disclaimer: This checklist is intended to help ensure compliance with Section 20.48.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). It does not include all design and development standards from other sections of the NBMC, planned community development plans, or any overlay zoning district; however, compliance with all applicable standards is still required. If you have questions on which standards apply to your project, please contact a planner at 949-644-3204.
Name of applicant: ______________________________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________________________ Project Address: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Application # (City staff to fill out) _____________________________________________________ Development Type:
Multi Family Unit Residential
Mixed Use Development
Project Site Context (check all that apply)
Situated adjacent to existing residential development
Situated next to existing commercial development
Situated adjacent to designated historical structure
Other ____________________________________________
20.48.185
Objective Design Standards
Checklist Items
Applicant
Evaluation
Staff
Evaluation
Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing
Reference
A. General Standards
1: Multi-unit development orientation
a. Development color scheme (8+ buildings)
b. Development color scheme (30+ buildings)
c. Pedestrian walkways and linkages
d. Architectural variety and features
e. Structured parking visibility
f. Corner lot loading docks/service areas
g. Parking facility entrances
35-229
City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist
2 | P a g e
20.48.185
Objective Design Standards
Checklist Items
Applicant
Evaluation
Staff
Evaluation
Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing
Reference
2: Mixed-use buildings orientation
a. Commercial unit entrances
b. Residential unit entrances
B. Orientation
1. Orientation to primary public street
2: Screening of parking areas
3: Multi-unit projects across from single-family
4: Building arrangement for outdoor space
C. Parking Standards
1: Parking compliance with NBMC 20.40.070
a. Parking lot placement
b. Landscaped area
2: Residential garages
a. Street facing garage door
i. Consistent garage and building architecture
ii. Arbor or other similar feature
3. Parking structures and loading bays
a. Shielding of parked vehicles
b. Minimize blank concrete facades
D. Common Open Space (C.O.S)
1: Common recreation area requirement
2: Residential entry distance from C.O.S.
3: Pedestrian walkway connection points
4: Open space location
5: Usable open space grade
6: Seating and lighting
E. Recreation Activities
1: Play area location and visibility
2: Senior housing areas of congregation
3: Recreational amenities per unit count
35-230
City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 3 | P a g e
20.48.185
Objective Design Standards
Checklist Items
Applicant
Evaluation
Staff
Evaluation
Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing
Reference
F. Landscaping
1: Min. 8% of total site landscaped
2: Landscaping materials
a. Ground cover
b. Nonliving decorative landscaping
c. Turf areas for recreation
3: Landscaping and irrigation
G. Frontage Types and standards
1: Storefronts
a. Ground floor elevation location
b. Entrance using one of given methods
c. Windows and/or glass doors coverage
d. Upper floor facade window coverage
e. Floor to floor height (15 ft)
f. Awnings or marquees min/max height
2: Live work/office fronts
a. Ground floor elevation location
b. Entrance for ground floor tenant
c. Entrance for upper floor tenants
d. Ground floor facade coverage
e. Upper-level facade coverage
f. Ground floor to ceiling height
g. Awnings or marquees min/max height
h. Setbacks
3: Residential fronts
a. Ground floor elevation
i. Garage length of building facade
ii. Entrance for ground floor tenants
iii. Entrance for upper-floor tenants
iv. Ground and upper floor facade coverage
v. Setbacks
35-231
City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 4 | P a g e
20.48.185
Objective Design Standards
Checklist Items
Applicant
Evaluation
Staff
Evaluation
Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing
Reference
H. Walls and Fences
1: Community perimeter and theme walls
2: Wall materials
3. Wall style conformance with architecture
4. Exterior perimeter wall depth
I. Utilities
1: Utility locations and placement
2: Mechanical equipment screening (if needed)
3: Utility rooms (if feasible) for certain equipment
a. If not feasible, incorporated into design
J. Private Street Standards
1: Private street right-of-way width
a. Without on-street parallel parking (41 ft)
b. With on-street parallel parking (50 ft)
2: Private street zones
a. Street zone (SZ) design standards
b. Sidewalk zone(SWZ) design standards
c. Landscaping and paving zone (LPZ) design
standards
K. Private Driveway Zones
1: Private driveway right-of-way (dimensions)
2: Driveway zones
a. Driveway zone (DZ)
b. Landscape and paving zone (LPZ)
L. Publicly Accessible Open Space (PAOS) Standards
1: Required PAOS
2: Site area calculations
3. PAOS Design Standards
a. PAOS minimum width
b. PAOS access
M. Façade Modulation Standards
1: Density and building typology
35-232
City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist
5 | P a g e
20.48.185
Objective Design Standards
Checklist Items
Applicant
Evaluation
Staff
Evaluation
Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing
Reference
N. Vertical Modulation
1: Components
a. Base
b. Middle
c. Top
2: Changes in facade material and/or color
a. Banding
b. Floor heights
c. Fenestration
d. Cladding material
3. Additional vertical modulation standards
a. First floor height
i. Density less than 30 units/acre
ii. Density greater than 30 units/acre (residential
only)
iii. Density greater than 30 units/acre (commercial
units on ground floor)
b. Vertical variation
i. Density less than 30 units/acre
ii. Density greater than 30 units/acre
O. Horizontal Modulation
1: Building standards for developments with density of less than 30 units/acre a. Maximum building length
b. Required minimum modulation area
c. Minimum depth
d. Maximum number
2: Building standards for developments with density of 30 units/acre or greater a. Maximum facade length
b. Required minimum modulation area
c. Minimum depth
d. Minimum width
e. Maximum number
35-233
City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist
6 | P a g e
20.48.185
Objective Design Standards
Checklist Items
Applicant
Evaluation
Staff
Evaluation
Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing
Reference
P. First Floor Opening and Transparency Standards
1: Building standards for development with density less than 30 units/acre a. Minimum opening standard
2: Building standards for development with density of 30 units/acre or more a. Minimum opening standard
i. For any at-grade or above-grade first floor unit
fronting a street or paseo
ii. For any mixed-use multi-unit building with a
first-floor commercial use fronting a street,
courtyard, or paseo
Q. First Floor Entry Standards
1: Individual residential unit entrances
a. Residential front door standards
i. Minimum entry sidewalk width
ii. Entry stoop, terrace and patio area
2: Lobby Entrances
a. Location standards and accessibility
i. Sidewalk entry width
ii. Entry landing area
iii. Prohibited primary entries
35-234
Tmplt: 04/03/18
Attachment No. PC 6
Project Correspondence
35-235
From: Anne-Marie Angeloff <[email protected]>
Sent: May 01, 2025 10:43 AM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Plan Number: PA2025-0056
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
I am writing as a concerned resident about the proposed development along MacArthur Blvd and Bonita Canyon Drive (1650 Ford Road) for a 27 unit residential dwelling. This project calls for 67 parking spots and the driveway will be near the cul de sac on Ford Road.
In their proposal the developer says "The vehicular access will come from the end of Ford Road that has little traffic". This is just blatantly false. This is an area that has intense bike and foot traffic as well as significant car traffic on the weekends. This is frequently used by young children not only from the adjoining neighborhoods but also from areas close by in Newport Beach. The pickleball courts are always full, the tennis courts have tons of people waiting and the fields and playgrounds are packed. This property was proposed a few years ago and shot down because of the concerns for traffic among others.
This is a tiny space and cramming SIXTY SEVEN parking spaces for 27 units is absolutely horrific. It will be messy and lower home values in our area. It will look like Irvine all over again. And it makes the area unsafe for our kids to walk or ride bikes to the park.
I am vehemently opposed to the city potentially allowing this property to be developed to squeeze so many people into a small area. This is Newport Beach and we should have higher standards.
Please let me know when the next City Council meeting is planned so that we as a neighborhood can show up to speak.
Sincerely,
Anne-Marie Angeloff
35-236
From: Port Street Mom <[email protected]>
Sent: June 19, 2025 5:40 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry
Subject: Ford Rd Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Hi Jerry
Thanks for taking the time yesterday to answer my questions about the proposed Ford Rd development project.
I sent out a community email with some of the information you shared. I am relieved to hear the new project will be required to use the existing ATT driveway, as creating a new one in that small area seems unsafe.
Janice Grace
949 413 7848
35-237
From: jane owen <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 4:46 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry
Subject: Old Ford Road condo project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or a4achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Bu4on above.
Dear sir,
I live in the Portstreets for 30 years. I’ve seen lots of changes come and go. Some produc>ve, some not.
The plans for the new condo project on Old Rd., Road I believe is not in the best interest of most people.
The Pickleball courts, tennis courts, soccer fields, basketball courts, usually fill the parking lot daily with cars and people. Also as you drive down old Ford Road the baseball fields and soccer fields fill the en>re street with cars that spill into the Portstreets neighborhood as well. I believe addi>onal traffic due to the condo project plus visitors plus maintenance plus repair man plus housekeepers, etc. etc. will provide an overload of traffic on that road which is already crowded. A be4er use of that area would be addi>onal sports facili>es, such as a park, Pickleball courts or even an addi>onal basketball court.
Thank you for your considera>on
Jane Owen 1715 Port Margate
714-745-9982.
35-238
From: Jody Ghozland <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 5:10 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Plan Number: PA2025-0056
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
City of Newport Beach Planning Division
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Community Feedback on Plan Number: PA2025-0056 Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding the proposed development identified as Plan Number: PA2025-0056, located adjacent to the AT&T building along Ford Road.
As you may recall, a similar project was proposed in 2019 and was met with considerable community feedback. The current iteration of the plan proposes a more intensive use of the site, with 27 residential units—six more than previously proposed—and a maximum building height of 47 feet, which is ten feet taller than the 2019 version.
This increase in density and height on such a compact parcel raises several concerns for those of us who live and work in the area. Chief among them are:
• Traffic Congestion: The influx of new residents and associated service vehicles (garbage trucks, delivery vans, ride-shares) will inevitably strain the already limited capacity of Ford Road and nearby intersections.
• Parking Impact: Overflow parking from the development will likely spill into public areas, further burdening residents and local businesses. • Scale and Compatibility: A 47-foot-high structure is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood's character and may set a precedent for future developments that are incompatible with our community’s scale.
While I appreciate the City's commitment to housing development, I believe responsible growth must align with the infrastructure and character of the neighborhood. I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to consider these concerns seriously and request that a 35-239
revised proposal more appropriately reflect the community’s feedback and the unique constraints of the site.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your ongoing service to our city.
Sincerely,
Jody Ghozland
35-240
From: Jenna Orzano <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 5:28 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Condo Development Adjacent to the Port Streets
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Mr. Arregui
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed condominium development adjacent to the Port Streets neighborhood.
This development poses significant concerns for our community. The additional traffic generated by new residents, delivery services (Amazon, mail), trash collection, and moving trucks would severely impact the safety and quality of life for current residents— particularly children who walk, bike, and play throughout the Port Streets. Ford Road is already under considerable strain, especially during afternoon hours due to activities at the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Adding more residential traffic to this already congested area would be both irresponsible and hazardous.
This proposed development also threatens to erode the character and property values of the Port Streets. Introducing a high-density, multi-family unit so close to our single-family neighborhood is incompatible with the established community and will diminish real estate values. Residents purchased their homes in the Port Streets with a reasonable expectation that the surrounding area would maintain its low-density residential character.
Additionally, there are serious implications for Andersen Elementary School. Allowing new multi-family units immediate access to this school would likely lead to increased class sizes, reduced attention per student, and strain on school resources—directly impacting the quality of education our children receive.
We urge the City of Newport Beach to reject this proposed development in order to preserve the safety, infrastructure, school quality, and long-term value of our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jenna Orzano (Port Streets resident and Andersen Elementary family) 35-241
From: Jusn Zev <jus[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 5:45 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry
Cc: Blom, Noah
Subject: RE: Ford Rd Condo Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Jerry, I’m also curious about the 40ft outside radius requirement related to fire apparatus being able to safely turn around.
There are many cul de sacs in Newport where they don’t allow you to park as it infringes on the turning radii and they ticket for this all the time.
How is this developer getting around this requirement. I realize that having a 2 nd access on Bonita
Cyn Rd would solve this issue but I assume they aren’t allowed to have an access that close to McArthur so this is being overlooked.
Regards,
Justin Zev
Vision and Sound
Direct 310.625.8549
www.visionandsound.tv
Los Angeles Orange County 2617 N. Sepulveda, Suite 200 1935 Port Locksleigh Place Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Justin Zev
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 5:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Ford Rd Condo Project
Hi Jerry,
I’m a Port Streets residence who understands the need for more housing but it sure seems like adding 27 additional unit to a small piece of land is very excessive. I’m going to make the assumption that anyone buying one of these condos is not single, and in most cases, already has kids as people are most likely to purchase for the access to Andersen Elementary school. If that’s the case, that means a minimum of 54 additional vehicles for husband and wife + workers, etc. and I’m not convinced that this street will support that as it’s already chaos during peak hours trying to get from Ford Rd to McArthur.
35-242
I also think that driveway is dangerous as we ride our bikes along there all the time and there are many young kids who ride along that path.
If it could be accessed from McArthur or Bonita it wouldn’t impact Port streets residence as much but my guess is that wasn’t an option so they are trying to squeeze in access from an already very busy road and cul-de-sac.
I am also not sure what these condos will sell for but my guess is that they will be 1/5 of the average Port streets home value which is a completely di>erent demographic and could have many conflicts with what makes Andersen such a great school.
If you wouldn’t mind, please keep me up to date on how these progresses. I also think having a hearing at 6pm on July 3rd seems like it was intentionally selected so that few people will show up.
That’s probably one of the days of the year where people are most likely to be out of town and unbale to attend.
Regards,
Justin Zev
Vision and Sound
Direct 310.625.8549
www.visionandsound.tv
Los Angeles Orange County 2617 N. Sepulveda, Suite 200 1935 Port Locksleigh Place Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Newport Beach, CA 92660
35-243
From: Julie Meggers <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 6:26 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development – Plan PA2025-0056
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom,
I’m writing as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form.
This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units—more than the 2019 proposal—and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern.
While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal.
Thank you for your time and for representing our interests.
Sincerely,
Julie Meggers
1815 Port Ashley Place
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-887-5550
35-244
From: Shelli Black <[email protected]>
Sent: June 26, 2025 10:00 AM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: PLEASE VOTE NO- Ford Road Development – Plan PA2025-0056
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Councilman Blom and Mr. Arregui,
I oppose the above project, as currently planned. I am out of town and unable to attend the hearing on July 3rd.
I am a homeowner in the Port Streets neighborhood and am concerned about the proposed development. Back in 2019 a similar project (with approximately 30 % less units and 30% lower in height) was denied. Why is this new project even on the table?
The Ford Road area near the development already has significant parking and traffic issues because of the community parks and athletic fields. Adding so many units will only increase those issues, and add additional safety concerns for those of us living in the Port Streets.
Development is likely to occur at this site, but the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal.
Thank you for your time and for representing our interests.
Sincerely,
Shelli Black
1721 Port Ashley Place
(949) 500-8523
35-245
From: Vita Prattes <[email protected]>
Sent: June 26, 2025 9:41 AM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Cc: Jason Prattes
Subject: Ford Rd. Housing Proposal / Plan PA2025-0056
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom,
I’m a new homeowner in the Port Streets. My husband and I purchased our house on 1947 Port Laurent Place in 2024 because we loved the community, specifically the open land, abundance of parks, fields and natural wilderness. We moved from neighboring city, Huntington Beach, to escape what has become a “concrete jungle” with too many cars and horrible traffic on a daily basis. As you may know, HB is cluttered with hundreds of tall skinny houses or “bowling alley” houses (as locals call them) that define the downtown area nowadays. So, I am very disheartened to learn about the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056) which seems to resemble this exact style and vibe. I strongly oppose this project for many reasons. There are way too many units being squeezed into a small space. But more importantly, this location is already congested with heavy traffic and poses a safety concern to pedestrians and children who frequently play and walk in this area. I fear building 27 new homes would create an even greater risk for the potential of a horrible accident. It wouldn’t be a question of “if” but rather a question of “when” this would happen.
While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. 27 homes, 27 families/residents is simply put way too many people/cars for this small area.
Thank you for your time in hearing my concerns.
Thank you,
Vita Prattes and Jason Prattes
35-246
(714) 322-4969
1947 Port Laurent Place, Newport Beach CA 92660
Vita Prattes
Realtor® | License # 02037037
Phone: 714.322.4969
35-247
From: SNLIVINGST <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 6:35 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Ford Rd condo project…Plan Number: PA2025-0056
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or a;achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Bu;on above.
Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom,
I’m wri@ng as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form.
This area on Ford Road has parking limita@ons, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athle@c fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addi@on, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into considera@on. Adding 27 units— more than the 2019 proposal—and a 47-foot-tall building will only worsen conges@on and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern.
While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal.
NB has so li;le open space leM it would be ashamed to lose this space for condo units which are inappropriate for this small loca@on. It would be more appropriate for the city to purchase the land for recrea@onal use.
Thank you for your @me and for represen@ng our interests.
Sincerely,
Stephen Livingston
35-248
From: Amy <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 6:45 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: PA2025-0049 / 0056 - Public Comment
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Sirs,
I would like to register my concerns over the proposed development of townhouses on Ford Road (PA2025-0049/0056). I am a resident of the nearby Port Streets neighborhood with two children.
The planned entrance to the development is proposed to be shared with the existing entrance of the AT&T building. In addition to this road being already heavily used by people visiting the community parks and athletic fields, this location crosses a bike path used by students living in the Port Streets neighbourhood to commute to CDM Middle School and CDM High School. The additional traffic generated by the new development poses a significant potential hazard to the students using the bike lane, and will only increase congestion and noise.
The plans state in the Project Description & Justification that the development has been designed to ensure it "blends seamlessly with the surrounding residential development currently located within the Port Streets" and "The proposed design, bulk, and scale of the development is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development. The open design, architecture and orientation of the project helps ensure compatibility with the existing and long-term development pattern of the Port Streets". The Port Streets community consists of over 1,000 one and two-storey single-family homes, spaced out on lots which average ~7,000 square feet. There are no townhouses in this community, much less four-storey homes. The bulk, scale and density of the planned projects is not consistent with the existing two-story single-home housing. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge there are no plans to change the zoning of the Port Streets to allow 4-story town homes that support the statement that the new development reflects the 'long term development' of the existing community.
As a home-owner who found purchasing a home for my family a daunting prospect, I am very sympathetic to the stated goals of providing additional starter homes to Newport Beach, and don't object to the development of this particular location. However, this particular development seems ill-conceived for this particular location, given the proposed entrance, scale and density. I would also note that a prior development received strong community opposition, and that was on a smaller scale and density. I would urge the city to take community feedback seriously, and reconsider the proposal as presented.
35-249
Sincerely,
Amy McLean
1948 Port Claridge PL
Newport Beach
92660 CA
35-250
From: Teresa <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 7:21 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; [email protected]
Subject: Terrible Ford Road project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom,
I’m writing as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form.
This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units—more than the 2019 proposal—and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern.
While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal.
Thank you for your time and for representing our interests.
I know Mr. Blom was a chef in Costa Mesa and Newport, I grew up in Costa Mesa and have lived in Newport since 1987. I strongly feel Mr. Blom has no interest in my area, why would you cram an area with so many children around for a few small apartments. Have you even seen that area?? Sincerely
Teresa Manni
Sent from my iPad
35-251
From: Annie Sulentic <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 7:27 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development – Plan PA2025-0056
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom,
My name is Annie Sulentic. My family and I are residents of the Port Streets neighborhood and I’m writing with concerns about the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form.
My main concerns are parking limitations and the already heavy congestion and traffic in the area. 27 units and a 47-foot-tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure.
The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern.
The current scale and density of the proposal are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. What gets approved will directly impact our neighborhood — traffic, safety, parking, noise, and overall character. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal.
Thank you for your time and for representing our interests.
Sincerely,
Annie Sulentic
1 836 Port Ashley Place
35-252
From: Catherine Bartz <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 7:36 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry
Subject: Proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or a:achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Bu:on above.
Dear Mr. Arregui,
I’m wri>ng as a concerned homeowner and resident of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form.
This area on Ford Road has parking limita>ons, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athle>c fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addi>on, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into considera>on.
Adding 27 units—more than the 2019 proposal—and a 47-foot-tall building will only worsen conges>on and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to the concern.
In addi>on, the current scale, style and density are not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal.
Thank you for your >me and for represen>ng our interests.
Sincerely,
Catherine Bartz
2233 Port Carlisle Place
949-500-0605
35-253
From: Kristen Angle <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 7:43 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development – Plan PA2025-0056
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom,
I’m writing as a resident and homeowner in the Port Streets neighborhood to express my concerns about the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose the project as it’s currently proposed.
This stretch of Ford Road already faces serious parking challenges and heavy traffic from park and field users. It is also a key access point in and out of our neighborhood. Adding 27 units and a 47-foot-tall building would only make these problems worse. I’m also concerned about safety and would urge that updated traffic studies be done before anything moves forward. The lack of clear ingress and egress plans—especially with the mention of using the AT&T driveway—is troubling.
I also want to flag a growing concern among many of us: if this development were to fall under the Andersen Elementary school zone, it would add another layer of pressure, as class sizes there are already increasing simply from our local neighborhood enrollment and NMUSD transfer students.
While I understand that some development may happen at this site, the current scale and density just don’t fit with the character, community, and infrastructure of the surrounding neighborhood. I hope you’ll work with our community to reconsider or scale back the proposal.
Thank you for your consideration and for your continued service.
Best regards,
Kristen Angle
2427 Port Whitby
35-254
From: Laurie Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 7:49 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development – Plan PA2025-
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom,
I’m writing as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form.
This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units—more than the 2019 proposal—and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern.
While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal.
Thank you for your time and for representing our interests.
Sincerely,
Laurie Fitzgerald-Letourneau
1927 Port Cardiff
Sent from my iPhone
35-255
From: l neppell <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 7:57 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development – Plan PA2025-0056
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom,
I’m writing as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form.
This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units—more than the 2019 proposal—and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern.
While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal.
Thank you for your time and for representing our interests.
Sincerely,
LA Neppell
1848 Newport Hills Dr. E.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
35-256
From: Nancy Gadol <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 8:44 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development – Plan PA2025-0056
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom,
I’m writing as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form.
This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by t raffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units—more than the 2019 proposal—and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern.
While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal.
Thank you for your time and for representing our interests.
Sincerely,
Nancy Gadol
1 954 Port Seabourne Way
[email protected]
35-257
From: Karol Hatch <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 8:59 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Ford Road development project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom,
I’m writing as a concerned homeowner in the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025- 0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form.
This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units—more than the 2019 proposal—and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern .
While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. We went through this in 2019, with the Hines development project and pointed out a number of issues for a big development project- for this specific area.
Thank you for your time and for representing our interests.
Sincerely,
Karol Hatch
1836 Port Ashley Place - Newport Beach 92660
Sent from my iPhone
35-258
From: David Verfaillie <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 9:05 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Opposi)on to Ford Road Development – Plan PA2025-0056
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or a:achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Bu:on above.
Dear Councilman Blom and Mr. Arregui,
I am a homeowner on Port Abbey and and wri)ng to express my strong disagreement with the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056).
This area on Ford Road has parking limita)ons, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athle)c fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addi)on, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into considera)on. Adding 27 units— more than the 2019 proposal—and a 47-foot-tall building will only worsen conges)on and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern.
While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal.
Thank you for your )me and for represen)ng our interests.
Sincerely,
David Verfaillie
1621 Port Abbey Pl.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
35-259
From: Polly Verfaillie <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 9:33 PM
To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah
Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development – Plan PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom,
I’m writing as a concerned resident and homeowner of the Port S
treets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). We live directly behind the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and would be impacted greatly if this project were to go through. I strongly oppose this project in its current form.
This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units—more than the 2019 proposal—and a 47-foot-tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern.
While I understand development may occur at this site, the current s
cale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal.
Thank you for your time and for representing our interests.
Sincerely,
Polly Verfaillie
1 621 Port Abbey Place, Newport Beach CA 92660
35-260
From: Amy Hykes <[email protected]>
Sent: June 25, 2025 9:47 PM
To: Blom, Noah
Cc: Arregui, Jerry
Subject: Plan Number: PA2025-0056 Input
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dear Councilmember Noah Blom, Planning Commission Members, and Mr. Jerry Arregui, As residents of the Port Streets, we are writing to express strong concerns regarding the proposed d
evelopment project under Plan Number: PA2025-0056. The primary issues we and our neighbors are worried about are traffic safety and overdevelopment density.
This project would significantly increase vehicular traffic in an area that is already congested, particularly a
t the intersections of Mesa Road & Bonita Canyon, and Mesa Road & Ford Road. During the school year, traffic regularly backs up for multiple light cycles as cars try to exit onto Bonita Canyon. The development’s sole exit on Ford Road will only worsen these delays.
In the afternoons, additional traffic from soccer practices, pickleball matches, and food trucks already s
trains the area. Many vehicles double park along Ford Road to pick up children from sports practices, creating unsafe conditions on a street not designed to handle such volume. The proposed development would only compound these issues.
More importantly, this is a high-traffic corridor for children and teens on e-bikes and on foot, especially t
hose attending CdM High School. The PTA recently invested in expanded bike parking due to the sharp rise in student ridership. Ford Road is a heavily trafficked route for these students, and placing the only entrance and exit of a 27-unit residential complex directly on this path significantly increases the risk of accidents. One of the reasons we chose to live in this community was the walkability and safety of these routes.
We also have major concerns about parking. The proposal includes only two parking spaces per unit, i
ncluding some in tandem garages. In practice, as you know many residents in Newport Beach use garages for storage, not parking. What’s more, tandem spaces are often underutilized due to the inconvenience of moving cars to access the car parked in the inner space. This will likely lead residents to park along already limited street parking on Ford Road or in the heavily used park parking lot.
The development includes only 13 guest spaces, two of which are designated for truck turnarounds, l
eaving just 11 true overflow spots. With 27 units, 8 of which with tandem spots, and limited enforcement mechanisms, this is not nearly sufficient. Without proactive planning and enforcement to prevent residents from using park parking, we will see significant spillover that disrupts both park access and neighborhood streets. What would the plan be for construction vehicle parking during the buildout? Will trucks occupy public park spaces or street parking that residents rely on? It’s also worth noting that the last proposal for this lot in 2019 included only 21 units with a maximum h
eight of 37 feet. This current proposal increases the density to 27 units and the height to 47 feet. This 35-261
proposed project seems wholly out of scale with the surrounding area and inappropriate for such a small lot.
Please preserve the character, safety, and functionality of our neighborhood parks and streets. The r
ecent addition of pickleball courts has transformed the park into a vibrant multi-generational hub where teens and seniors connect through casual sports. That’s a rare and wonderful feature in our community, and one we should protect. Please don’t over develop the “tiny lot” with an out of place looking three story building towering over our outdoor space while creating safety hazards and parking issues.
We urge you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely, Amy Hykes
35-262