Attachment H - Coastal Comm. Reports and Correspondence — Newport Beach City Council, May 26, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

Attachment H
Coastal Commission Staff Report,
Addendum, and Correspondence
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
301 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 300
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
VOICE (562) 590-5071
FAX (562) 590-5084

F11a
DATE: April 17, 2026
TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons
FROM: Karl Schwing, Deputy Director
Amrita Spencer, District Manager
Mandy Revell, District Supervisor
Dulce Cortez, Coastal Program Analyst
SUBJECT: Major Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2, 6th Cycle Housing Element, to the City of Newport Beach LUP & IP for Commission Action at the April 15- 17, 2026, meeting.

SUMMARY OF LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST
The City of Newport Beach requests that the Commission certify an amendment to the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5- NPB-24-0032-2 proposes amendments to both the certified Land Use Plan (LUP) and the certified Implementation Plan (IP) to implement portions of the City’s adopted and certified Sixth Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period.

The proposed amendment would establish Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay coastal zoning districts on selected sites within the coastal zone to facilitate residential development consistent with state housing law and City’s Housing Element. Citywide, the Housing Element identifies 228 sites with a collective capacity of accommodating approximately 1,874 dwelling units. Of these sites, 26 parcels- representing roughly 11% of the total- are located within the coastal zone and would be subject to the proposed HO Overlay, with an assumed collective capacity of approximately 1,441 dwelling units.

Under the proposed amendment, multi-family residential uses would be permitted as an allowable use on the HO Overlay sites regardless of underlying land use designations or density limits, subject to applicable development standards and coastal resource protections. Because several HO Overlay sites are currently designated for commercial, visitor-serving commercial, marine-related, parks, recreation, or open-space uses, the amendment raises questions regarding consistency with the Coastal Act priorities and certified LUP policies that protect visitor-serving uses, public access, recreation, and coastal resources.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
2 The primary concerns regarding the HO Overlay amendment involve allowing residential units to be constructed in four parcels currently designated for open space and recreational uses that are also immediately adjacent to the planned Santa Ana Delhi Channel Project, which includes channel widening, habitat restoration and potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).

The Coastal Commission certified the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) on January 13, 2017. The Commission’s standard of review for the proposed LUP amendment are the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, while the standard of review for the proposed IP amendment is whether the IP, as amended, conforms with and is adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP. Commission staff identified a set of suggested modifications necessary to ensure that residential development authorized by the HO Overlay does not displace or diminish Coastal Act priority uses, maintains public access and recreational opportunities, protected marine- related and coastal dependent uses, protects tribal cultural resources, and remains subject to all applicable coastal resources protection standards.

As modified, the amendment clarifies that residential development under the HO Overlay is permitted only in addition to, and not in place of, existing or planned visitor- serving, marine-related or public serving uses; prohibits the conversion or replacement of hotels, motels or other lodging accommodations with residential use; requires retention or on-site provision of functionally equivalent visitor-serving uses where such uses exist or are planned; and establishes additional protections of open-space and recreation sites, including HO-1 parcels within the Santa Ana Heights area. The suggested modifications also clarify continued applicability of certified IP provisions addressing hazards, water quality, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and public access.

The proposed LCP amendment was submitted for Commission certification by City Council Resolution No. 2024-52 on July 23, 2024, following public hearings before the City Planning Commission and City Council.

Staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, reject the proposed LUP and IP amendment as submitted and certify the amendment with suggested modifications to both the LUP and IP, which can be found in Section III of this staff report. The suggested modifications are necessary to ensure the amendment to the LUP is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and the amendment to the IP conforms with, is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the City’s certified LUP, as amended. The motions and resolutions to accomplish this recommendation are found in Section II of this staff report.

Further information on the City of Newport Beach’s LCP Amendment Request No. LCP- 5-NPB-24-0032-2 may be obtained from Dulce Cortez, Coastal Program Analyst, at (562) 590-5071. If you wish to comment on the proposed amendment, please contact City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
3 either [email protected] via email or the South Coast District Office via hard- copy mail by 5pm on Friday, April 10, 2026.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 5 A. STANDARD OF REVIEW....................................................................................... 5 B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ....................................................................................... 5 C. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................... 6 D. DEADLINE FOR COMMISSION ACTION ............................................................... 7 II. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS ............................................................ 7 A. DENY LUP AMENDMENTS AS SUBMITTED .......................................................... 7 B. APPROVE LUP AMENDMENTS WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS ............... 8 C. DENY IP AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED .......................................................... 8 D. APPROVE IP AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS ............... 9 III. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS ........................................................... 9 IV. FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 16 A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 16 B. CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 17 C. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ................................................. 25 APPENDIX A—SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS IN TEXT ...................... 27

Exhibits
Exhibit 1 - Resolution No. 2024-52
Exhibit 2 - Ordinance No. 2024-16
Exhibit 3 - Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts maps City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
5 I. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Coastal Act Sections 30512, 30513, and 30514(b), the standard of review for amendments to a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) depends on which component of the LCP is being amended. The City of Newport Beach’s LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 proposes amendments to both the certified Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) and the certified Implementation Plan (IP) to implement the City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021–2029) within the coastal zone.

Amendments to the certified LUP must be reviewed for consistency with Chapter 3 polices of the Coastal Act. Amendments to the certified IP must be reviewed to determine whether the IP, as amended, conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified (as amended) LUP.

B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Section 30503 of the Coastal Act states:

During the preparation, approval, certification, and amendment of any local coastal program, the public, as well as all affected government agencies, including special districts, shall be provided maximum opportunities to participate. Prior to submission of a local coastal program for approval, local governments shall hold a public hearing or hearings on that portion of the program which has not yet been subjected to public hearing within four years of such submission.

Coastal Act Section 30503 thus requires local governments to provide adequate opportunities for public participation during the LCP amendment process. The City of Newport Beach held multiple publicly noticed hearings to consider the proposed amendment to the certified LUP and IP to establish the Housing Opportunity (HO) overlay, consistent with the City’s adopted and certified 6 th Cycle Housing Element.

On April 18, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the proposed LCP amendment and receive testimony from City staff and members of the public. City staff presented an overview of the Housing Element implementation program and described how the proposed overlay would enable residential development on selected parcels within the coastal zone to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA).

One member of the public- Jim Mosher- provided comments at the local level. Jim Mosher expressed concern regarding the relationship between the proposed overlay and existing visitor-serving commercial uses and raised questions about how the City City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
6 would ensure that future housing did not displace those priority uses. Members of the public raised concerns about the potential changes to the HO-1 (Airport Environs/Santa Ana Heights) site, including the potential loss of open space and recreational land, traffic and parking impacts, and the adequacy of supporting infrastructure. Some community members supported the addition of affordable-housing capacity but requested further assurances that sensitive coastal resources and public access would remain protected. After discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council.

On July 23, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the proposed amendments to the certified LCP.

City staff summarized the purpose of the Housing Opportunity Overlay and explained how it would implement the City’s Housing Element while maintaining consistency with Coastal Act policies. Public comments reiterated many of the issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing. Jim Mosher again emphasized the need to retain existing visitor-serving uses and requested clarification on how such uses would be protected within the overlay. Other commenters expressed concern about potential impacts to the Santa Ana Heights open-space area, including changes to land currently utilized as a golf course and public-access amenities. Following deliberation, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-52 (Exhibit 1), approving the LCP amendment and authorizing its submittal to the Coastal Commission for certification.

In summary, the City complied with Coastal Act Section 30503 through the provision of multiple public hearings and the consideration of public testimony at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels. Notice of the Coastal Commission hearing for the subject amendment has been distributed to all known interested parties.

C. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
If the Commission certifies the LCP amendment as submitted, no further City Council action will be necessary, and the amendment takes effect. Should the Commission deny the LCP Amendment, as submitted, without suggested modifications, no further action is required by either the Commission or the City, and the LCP amendment is not effective, pursuant to Section 13542(f). Should the Commission deny the LCP Amendment, as submitted, but then approve it with suggested modifications, then the City Council may consider accepting the suggested modifications and submitting them by resolution to the Executive Director for a determination that the City’s acceptance is consistent with the Commission’s action.
1 (Exhibit 2) In that scenario, pursuant to
Section 13544(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the modified LCP Amendment will become final at a subsequent Commission meeting if the

1 The City’s submittal resolution indicates that the ordinance will only become final after effective certification by the Commission, but pursuant to CCR Section 13544(c)(3), no further formal Commission action is required if the Executive Director reports having determined the City’s action accepting the Commission’s suggested modifications and the City’s notification procedures are legally adequate.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
7 Executive Director reports a Determination that the City’s action in accepting suggested modifications approved by the Commission for the LCP Amendment is legally adequate.

If the City does not accept the suggested modifications within six months of the Commission’s action, then the LCP amendment remains uncertified and not effective within the coastal zone.
2 D. DEADLINE FOR COMMISSION ACTION
On August 16, 2024, the City of Newport Beach submitted LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 to the Coastal Commission to amend both the certified IP and LUP to establish a Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay District. The amendment was submitted through adoption of City Council Resolution No. 2024-52. Commission staff reviewed the submittal for completeness in accordance with Coastal Act Section 30510 and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 13518–13520 and determined that additional materials were necessary on September 3, 2024. The City provided supplemental materials on November 14, 2024, and again on December 20, 2024. On January 7, 2025, Commission staff determined that the amendment was in proper order and legally adequate to comply with the submittal requirements of CCR Section 13553.

Pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30512 and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 13522, the Commission must act on a combined LUP and IP amendment within 90 working days of a complete submittal. Based on the January 7, 2025, filing date, the deadline for Commission action would have been May 16, 2025 (i.e., the May 7–9, 2025 hearing). However, at its March 13, 2025, meeting, the Commission approved a one- year extension, as permitted under Coastal Act Section 30517 and CCR Section 13535(c), to allow additional time for review of the amendment. Accordingly, the deadline for Commission action on LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032- 2 is now May 16, 2026.

II. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS
Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolutions and findings.

A. DENY LUP AMENDMENTS AS SUBMITTED
Motion I: I move that the Commission certify Land Use Plan Amendment No. 5- NPB-24-0032-2 as submitted by the City of Newport Beach.

Staff recommends a NO vote. Passage of this motion will result in denial of the amendment as submitted and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed Commissioners.

2 See 14 CCR § 13537(b) and 13542(b).

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
8 Resolution to Deny Certification of the LUP as Submitted:

The Commission hereby denies certification of Land Use Plan Amendment No. LCP-5- NPB-24-0032-2 as submitted and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the amendment to the Land Use Plan does not conform with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Certification of the amendment to the Land Use Plan as submitted would not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there are feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the amendment to the Implementation Program as submitted.

B. APPROVE LUP AMENDMENTS WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
Motion II I move that the Commission certify the Land Use Plan Amendment LCP-5- NPB-24-0032-2, for the City of Newport Beach if modified as recommended by staff.

Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in certification of the land use plan with suggested modifications and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed Commissioners.

Resolution to Approve with Modifications:

The Commission hereby certifies Land Use Plan Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032- 2 if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the land use plan with the suggested modifications will meet the requirements of and be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Certification of the land use plan if modified as suggested complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the land use plan if modified.

C. DENY IP AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED
Motion III: I move that the Commission reject Implementation Plan Amendment No.

LCP 5-NPB-24-0032-2, as submitted by the City of Newport Beach.

Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in rejection of Implementation Program Amendment and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
9 Resolution to Deny as Submitted:

The Commission hereby denies certification of Implementation Plan Amendment No.

LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-1, as submitted by the City of Newport Beach and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the Implementation Plan Amendment does not conform with, and is not adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. Certification of the amendment to the Implementation Plan would not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there are feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the amendment to the Implementation Program as submitted.

D. APPROVE IP AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
Motion IV: I move that the Commission certify Implementation Plan Amendment No.

LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2, if modified as recommended by staff.

Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in the certification of the Implementation Plan Amendment with suggested modifications and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only upon an affirmative vote of the majority of the Commissioners present.

Resolution to Certify if Modified:

The Commission hereby certifies Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2, to the Implementation Plan for the City of Newport Beach certified LCP if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Amendment to the Implementation Plan with the suggested modifications will be in conformance with and adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. Certification of the Amendment to the Implementation Program if modified as suggested complies with the California Environmental Quality Act, because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the Implementation Plan on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on the environment.

III. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
Certification of LUP and IP Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2, related to the standards for the housing overlay, is subject to the following modifications:

The City’s proposed new text is shown in underlined text.

The City’s proposed deleted text is shown in single strike-through.

The Commission’s proposed new text is shown in bold underline.

The Commission’s proposed deleted text is shown in bold strike-through.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
10 The following suggested modifications to the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) are necessary to ensure that the proposed LUP amendments are consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The following suggested modifications to the Implementation Plan (IP) are necessary to ensure that the proposed IP amendments conform with, and are adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified (as amended) LUP. For clarity, the suggested modifications are presented using the section numbering and terminology proposed in the City’s amendment.

Land Use Plan (LUP) Modifications
Suggested Modification 1: Delete all text in CLUP Policy 2.1.11-1 that applies the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay to parcels in the Deferred Certification Area (DCA) of the HO-2 (West Newport Mesa) Subarea.

CLUP Policy 2.1.11-1 shall be modified as follows:

Accommodate housing opportunities through the adoption of housing opportunity overlay coastal zoning districts or other land use regulatory policy. The following areas are intended to be consistent with the Housing Element’s focus areas. Properties within each overlay coastal zoning district should include, but are not limited to, sites identified in the Housing Element; however, not all sites must be included, and other sites may be identified in the future through rezoning unless precluded by state law. T he City will reserve 25% of allocated dwelling units within the Coastal Zone until such a time as the City’s Local Coastal Program has been amended to allow for housing consistent with the implementation of the 6 th Cycle Housing Element. Following the City’s Local Coastal Program Amendment, priority for the reserved units will be given to sites located within the Coastal Zone. The goal is to ensure an adequate number of sites Citywide to accommodate the City’s allocation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment:

 Airport Environs: the intent is to support a density between 20 and 50 dwelling units per gross acre to accommodate up to 2,577 total dwelling units within the entire area, inclusive of those properties in the Coastal Zone.  West Newport Mesa: the intent is to support a density between 20 and 50 dwelling units per gross acre to accommodate up to 1,107 total dwelling units within the entire area, inclusive of those properties in the Coastal Zone.  Newport Center: the intent is to support a density between 20 and 50 dwelling units per gross acre to accommodate up to 2,439 total dwelling units within the entire area, inclusive of those properties in the Coastal Zone.  Dover / Westcliff: the intent is to support a density between 20 and 50 dwelling units per gross acre to accommodate up to 521 total dwelling units within the entire area, inclusive of those properties in the Coastal Zone.

Suggested Modification 2: Ensure that residential uses permitted under the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning District are harmonized with the Coastal Act with respect to prioritizing visitor-serving, marine-related, or public-serving uses.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
11 CLUP Policy 2.1.11-2 shall be modified as follows:

Residential use of any property included within an established housing opportunity overlay coastal zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category or density limit established herein. However, for properties with base designations of either Visitor Serving Commercial or Parks and Recreation, any housing project shall be required to retain or replace existing higher priority Coastal Act uses with an on -site functionally equivalent use th at maintains comparable visitor peak use intensity and public availability. Replacement of any existing priority use with a new priority use that provides lower-cost and/or no-cost coastal access is preferred. An amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity zoning overlay coastal zoning district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay coastal zoning districts specified in Policy 2.1.11-1 is an average over the entire property or project site. For example, a portion of a development site may be developed at a higher density than specified by Policy 2.1.11-1 provided other portions of the site are developed at lower densities such that the average does not exceed the maximum. Density calculations and total units do not include units identified as pipeline units or units permitted pursuant to State density bonus law.

Implementation Plan (IP) Modifications:

Suggested Modification 3:

IP Subsection 21.28.070(A) shall be modified as follows:

1. Applicability. This section applies to properties located in one of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts, as identified in Part 8 of this title.

This includes the following subareas:

1. 1. HO-1 - Airport Area Environs Area – The Airport Area Environs Area is located north of the Upper Newport Bay Nature Reserve, primarily around the John Wayne Airport.

2. HO-2 - West Newport Mesa Area – The West Newport Mesa Area is located near the southwest corner of the City and primarily consists of industrial properties along 16 th Street, Production Place, and 15 th Street.

3. 2. HO-3 - Dover-Westcliff Area – The Dover -Westcliff Area includes property on both sides of West Coast Highway and the west of Dover Drive.

Properties in the Lido Village area are included.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
12 4. 3. HO-4 - Newport Center Area – The Newport Center Area is generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, MacArthur Blvd, Coast Highway, and Jamboree Road.

IP Table 21.28-1 shall be modified as follows:

TABLE 21.28-1

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY ZONES

Development
Feature
Housing Opportunity Subareas
HO-1 HO-2 HO-3 HO-4
Lot
Size/Dimension
Per Base Zone
Lot area
required per
unit (sq. ft.)1
Minimum:
2,178 (20 du/ac)
Maximum:
871 (50 du/ac)
Minimum:
2,178 (20 du/ac)
Maximum:
871 (50 du/ac)

Setbacks
Front 0 ft.(2) 10 ft.(2) 10 ft.(2)(3) 0(2)
Rear 0 20 ft. 20 ft. 0
Side 0’ (4)
Street Side 0(2) 10 ft.(2) 10 ft.(2) 0 ft.(2)
Height Per Base Zone
unless otherwise
identified on the map
65 ft. 65 ft.(5) Per Base
Zone(6)
Building
Separation
10 ft.

Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
No restriction(6)
Common Open
Space(7)
Minimum 75 square feet/dwelling unit. (The minimum dimension [length and width] shall be 15 feet.)
Private Open
Space(7)
5% of the gross floor area for each unit. (The minimum dimension [length and width] shall be 6 feet.)
Fencing See Section 21.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls).

Landscaping See Section 21.30.075 (Landscaping) and 21.30.085 (Water Efficient Landscaping).

Lighting See Section 21.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting).

Parking See Subsection (D)(2) below and Chapter 21.40 (Off-Street Parking).

Signs See Chapter 21.30.065 (Sign Standards).

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
13 (1) Minimum/maximum allowable density range may be based on an average density of the entire project site, excluding density bonus units.
(2) Any portion of the building that is over 20 feet in height shall be setback a minimum 20 feet from the street right-of-way.
(3) Except in the Mixed-Use Mariners Mile (MU-MM) Zoning District wherein residential uses are only allowed beginning 100 feet north of Coast Highway.
(4) The combined total from both sides shall be 15 feet. (5) The height shall be limited to 35 feet in the Shoreline Height Limit Area, as identified in Map H -1. (6) The FAR in this table only applies to residential floor area, including any supporting facilities. In mixed-use developments, the FAR for nonresidential is still applicable. (7) For purposes of this section, common and private open space in HO -1 may include enclosed shared amenities such as a clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court, weightlifting facility, children’s playground equipment, sauna, jacuzzi, day care facility, or any other recreational amenities/facilities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director.

IP Subsection 21.28.070(C) shall be modified as follows:

3. West Newport Mesa Area (HO -2). The following development standards shall only apply to projects with the West Newport Mesa Area:

a. West Newport Mesa Streetscape Master Plan. Any residential or mixed - use residential development shall implement applicable components of the adopted West Newport Mesa Streetscape Master Plan.

IP Section 21.80.032 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) shall be modified as follows:

HO-1 - Airport Area Environs Area (PDF)
HO-2 - West Newport Mesa Area (PDF)
HO-3 - Dover-Westcliff Area (PDF)
HO-4 - Newport Center Area (PDF)

Suggested Modification 4: Update Table 21.14-1 (Coastal Zoning Districts) by inserting “Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay” to reflect inclusion within the certified set of coastal zoning districts.

IP Table 21.14-1 shall be modified as follows:

Coastal
Zoning Map
Symbol Coastal Zoning Districts
Coastal Land Use Plan Designations
Implemented by Zoning Districts
Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts
MHP Mobile Home Park RM Multiple-Unit Residential
PM Parking Management All designations
City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
14 Coastal
Zoning Map
Symbol Coastal Zoning Districts
Coastal Land Use Plan Designations
Implemented by Zoning Districts
B Bluff All designations
C Canyon RS, RM Single-Unit Residential
Multiple-Unit Residential
H Height RM Multiple-Unit Residential
HO Housing Opportunity Varies Varies

Suggested Modification 5: Add a new subsection (5) to Subsection 21.28.070(B) to prohibit displacement of visitor -serving and public -serving commercial uses, including hotels and lodging accommodations, by residential development under the Housing Opportunity Overlay.

Subsection 21.28.070(B) shall be modified as follows:

4. Residential supporting uses such as leasing/sales/property management offices, fitness facilities, recreation facilities, etc.; and

5. Residential uses permitted under this section shall harmonize with the Coastal Act’s priority uses, including visitor-serving, marine-related, public- serving, or recreational uses, and shall retain or provide functionally equivalent uses, as measured by comparable visitor peak use intensity and public availability.

Suggested Modification 6: Add a new subsection (d) to Subsection 21.28.070(C)(2) to apply habitat protection and open space preservation requirements to Housing Opportunity Sites 23- 26. These parcels are located immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel, which is the site of the proposed Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project that is pending a Coastal Development Permit and is currently being reviewed by Commission staff.

Subsection 21.28.070(C)(2) shall be modified as follows:

d. Housing Opportunity Sites 23, 24, 25 and 26. A residential or mixed- use development encompassing Housing Opportunity Sites 23, 24, 25, and 26 shall include a free to access public park or public recreational opportunity that conforms to all the following:

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
15 1. A minimum 50 ft. ESHA buffer measured from the outermost extent of the riparian vegetation shall be provided. For a minimum 10 -year period, the buffer shall be measured from the outermost extent of the vegetation established as part of the Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project proposed by the Orange County Flood Control District. The 50 ft. buffer shall be consistent with 21.30B.30 (D); however, the exceptions criteria for smaller ESHA buffers shall not apply.

2. An additional 50 ft. buffer measured from the outermost extent of the ESHA buffer shall also be provided consistent with 21.30B.30 (E). This transitional buffer may be used to accommodate a free, low -impact public recreational opportunity. At a minimum, such public recreational opportunity shall include a contiguous open space corridor along the entire length of the Santa Ana Delhi Channel located adjacent to the subject properties that is of sufficient width to accommodate a 100 -ft. biological buffer, sepa rately and contiguously, to protect habitat in and along the channel. Such recreational opportunity shall also provide public access and recreational open space that will accommodate passive and active public recreational opportunities including, but not limited to continuous pedestrian/cycling trail, benches, drinking fountains and/or water fill stations, picnic tables, shade structures and fitness/exercise equipment.

3. In the event the Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project does not occur there shall be a minimum 100 ft. wide corridor along the channel that extends from the top of the channel bank to be used for the free, low-impact coastal access and public recreational opportunity described in subsection B. above.

Suggested Modification 7: Add new sections to Subsection 21.28.070(D) to 1) e nsure that development on sites with visitor-serving or marina-related uses results in no net loss of public availability or capacity; 2) p rohibit displacement of visitor -serving and public - serving commercial uses, including hotels and lodging accommodations, by residential development under the Housing Opportunity Overlay; and 3) a dd explicit language in §21.28.070 confirming that HO Overlay projects must comply with §§21.30.015,

21.30.030, 21.30.100, 21.30.105, and Ch. 21.30B.

Subsection 21.28.070(D) shall be modified as follows:

3. Visitor-Serving Commercial, Marine-Related Uses, or Visitor Accommodations. For sites with base designations intended for Visitor- Serving Commercial, Marine-Related Uses, or Overnight Visitor City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
16 Accommodations, any existing uses consistent with the intent of those designations shall be retained, replaced, or expanded where feasible, with a functionally equivalent use in terms of comparable visitor peak use intensity and public availability. No hotel, motel, or other overnight visitor accommodations shall be converted or replaced with residential use.

4. Parks and Recreation or Open Space- Uses. For sites with base designations intended for Parks and Recreation or Open Space, any existing uses consistent with the intent of those designations shall be retained, replaced or expanded where feasible, with a fu nctionally equivalent use in terms of comparable visitor peak use intensity and public availability. When there is a proposed replacement of any existing priority use with a new priority use, a use that provides lower -cost and/or no -cost visitor -serving and coastal access is preferred.

5. All housing projects within the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning District shall demonstrate consistency with:

a. Section 21.30.015 (General Site and Development Standards); b. Section 21.30.030 (Natural Landform and Shoreline Protection); c. Section 21.30.100 (Scenic and Visual Quality Protection); d. Section 21.30.105 (Cultural Resource Protection); and e. Chapter 21.30B (Habitat Protection).

IV. FINDINGS
The Commission hereby finds and declares:

A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
The City of Newport Beach requests that the Commission certify Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2, which proposes amendments to the City’s certified Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) to implement the City’s adopted and certified 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021-2029).

Specifically, the Amendment would establish a new Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning District (Exhibit 1).

State housing law, including recent legislation such as Senate Bill 423, requires local governments to plan for and accommodate their assigned share of regional housing need through adoption of a Housing Element that is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Each Housing Element must identify adequate sites with realistic development capacity to meet the jurisdictions Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the applicable planning period. The HO City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
17 Overlay is a key Housing Element implementation tool intended to facilitate residential development on selected sites, and implementation of the HO Overlay on sites within the coastal zone requires amendment of the City’s certified LCP to ensure consistency with the Coastal Act. The subject amendment was submitted for Commission certification pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2024-52, adopted July 23, 2024 (Exhibit 1). The proposed LCPA is part of a broader Housing Element implementation program that includes complementary amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Title 20 (Planning and Zone).

Collectively, these actions are intended to provide capacity for 8,175 dwelling units citywide, including 2,707 units affordable to very-low, low-, and moderate-income households, across 228 Housing Elements. Of those sites, 26 parcels (appx 11%) are located within the coastal zone, with an assumed collective capacity of approximately 1,441 dwelling units.

Housing Opportunity Overlay
The proposed LCPA would establish a new Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay on selected Housing Element sites within the coastal zone where residential use is not currently allowed by underlying LUP land use designation or IP zoning. Specifically, The HO Overlay is intended to allow multifamily residential use in addition to existing allowable uses on designated parcels, while maintaining consistency with the Coastal Act and the certified LCP. In other words, the proposed overlay would add residential development as an allowable use on the 26 coastal affected parcels (Exhibit 3), but it would not rezone the subject parcels or remove any of the existing allowable uses.

The proposed Amendment to the certified LUP would add new policies that identify the purpose of the HO Overlay, establish residential densities of 20-50 units per gross acre (which corresponds to a medium density residential use), and clarifies the relationship between the overlay and underlying land use designations. The amendment also adds a The proposed Amendment to the certified IP (NBMC Title 21) would add a new IP (Section 21.28.070) to incorporate the HO Overlay Coastal Zoning District, establish objective development standards governing overlay applicability, and outline allowed uses, developments, and coastal development permit processing associated with the HO Overlay Coastal Zoning District.

The Commission’s standard of review for the subject amendment is whether the proposed LUP amendments are consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and whether the proposed IP amendments conform with, and are adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified (as amended) LUP. As discussed in Section II of this report, Commission staff recommends certification of the amendment with suggested modifications to ensure continued Coastal Act consistency with the certified LCP.

B. CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act includes the following relevant sections:

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
18 30210 Maximum public access and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people, consistent with public safety needs and the protection of private property rights and natural resources. 30213 Lower-cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided.
30222 The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.
30221 Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use unless adequate recreational opportunities are already provided in the area.
30231 The biological productivity and quality of coastal waters shall be maintained and restored through control of runoff and nonpoint source pollution.
30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) shall be protected against significant disruption of habitat values.
30253 New development shall do all of the following:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
(b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area.
30244 Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.

The LUP includes the following relevant policies:

2.3.1-3 On land designated for visitor-serving and/or recreational uses, give priority to visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation over other commercial uses.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
19 2.3.3-3 Identify, protect, encourage, and provide lower-cost visitor-serving and recreational facilities.

2.3.3-4 Encourage visitor-serving and recreational developments that provide public recreational opportunities.

2.4.1-1 Give priority to coastal-dependent uses over other uses on or near the shoreline.

2.4.1-3 Discourage reuse of properties that result in the reduction of coastal- dependent commercial uses; allow reuse only where coastal-dependent uses remain.

2.3.2-1 Protect and enhance public and private recreational facilities and open space.

2.3.2-4 Ensure recreational uses are preserved and remain available to the public.

3.1.1-1 Protect, maintain, and enhance public access to the coast.

4.1.1-4 Protect ESHAs against any significant disruption of habitat values.

4.1.1-6 Require development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas to be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas, and to be compatible with the continuance of those habitat areas.

4.1.1-8 Limited public access improvements and minor educational, interpretative and research activities and development may be considered resource dependent uses. Measures, including, but not limited to, trail creation, signage, placement of boardwalks, and fencing, shall be implemented as necessary to protect ESHA.

4.1.1-9 Where feasible, confine development adjacent to ESHAs to low impact land uses, such as open space and passive recreation.

4.1.1-10 Require buffer areas of sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the habitat they are designed to protect. Terrestrial ESHA shall have a minimum buffer width of 50 feet wherever possible. Smaller ESHA buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 50-foot wide buffer is not possible due to site-specific constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the ESHA given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and intensity of disturbance.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
20 4.1.1-11 Provide buffer areas around ESHAs and maintain with exclusively native vegetation to serve as transitional habitat and provide distance and physical barriers to human and domestic pet intrusion.

4.1.1-12 Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within ESHAs and ESHA buffer areas.

4.5.1-1. Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources. If avoidance of the resource is not feasible, require an in situ or site-capping preservation plan or a recovery plan for mitigating the effect of the development.

4.5.1-2 Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources. If grading operations or excavations uncover paleontological/archaeological resources, require the
paleontologist/archeologist monitor to suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/ archaeological resources. If resources are determined to be significant, require submittal of a mitigation plan.

Mitigation measures considered may range from in-situ preservation to recovery and/or relocation. Mitigation plans shall include a good faith effort to avoid impacts to cultural resources through methods such as, but not limited to, project redesign, in situ preservation/capping, and placing cultural resource areas in open space.

4.5.1-3. Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.

4.5.1-4. Where in situ preservation and avoidance are not feasible, require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Orange County, whenever possible.

4.5.1-5. Where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources, require the submittal of an archeological/cultural resources monitoring plan that identifies monitoring methods and describes the procedures for selecting archeological and Native American monitors and procedures that will be followed if additional or unexpected archeological/cultural resources are encountered during development of the site. Procedures may include, but are not limited to, provisions for cessation of all grading and construction activities in the area of the discovery that has any City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
21 potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits in the area of the discovery and all construction that may foreclose mitigation options to allow for significance testing, additional investigation and mitigation.

As described in the “Standard of Review” subsection above, the proposed LUP amendment must be consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and the IP amendment must conform with, and be adequate to carry out, the provisions of the City’s certified Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP). The proposed amendment would establish Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay coastal zoning districts to facilitate residential development on selected sites within the coastal zone in furtherance of the City’s adopted Housing Element.

Suggested Modifications 1 and 2 will modify the Land Use Plan in order to be consistent with Chapter 3 Coastal Act policies. Suggested modifications 3-7 will modify the IP to be consistent with the LUP.

Suggested Modification 1 provides clarifying revisions to the HO Overlay provisions to clearly define the scope, applicability, and implementation of the overlay within the certified LCP, ensuring consistent interpretation and administration. Because the HO Overlay introduces a new policy framework allowing residential use on properties with a range of underlying land use designations, the amendment must be evaluated to ensure that it does not conflict with Coastal Act priorities and existing certified LUP policies addressing visitor-serving uses, marine-relates uses, public access, parks and recreation, open space, or coastal resource protection.

Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act prioritizes public access and coastal recreation, protection of lower-cost visitor-serving facilities, and the priority of visitor-serving commercial recreational uses over private residential development on suitable coastal lands. In addition, the Coastal Act requires protection of coastal resources, including water quality, environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs), and public safety in hazardous areas. The City’s certified LUP implements these Coastal Act mandates through polices that protect and encourage visitor-serving and recreation uses, prioritize coastal- dependent and marine-related uses, preserve parks, recreation, and open space, and protect public access to the coast.

Suggested Modification 1 and 3 remove all text that applies the HO Overlay to HO-2 (West Newport Mesa) Subarea parcels because this subarea is in the Deferred Certification Area (DCA) of the Newport Beach LCP.

Visitor-Serving and Marine-Related Uses
The proposed HO Overlay would allow residential use on certain properties with underlying commercial, visitor-serving commercial, marine-related, or parks and recreations designations. Absent appropriate safeguards, residential development on such sites could result in the displacement or reduction of Coastal Act priority land use, City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
22 including visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities and marine-related uses. See Coastal Act Sections 30210, 30213, and 30222.

To address this concern, Suggested Modifications 2, 5, and 7 revise the HO Overlay provisions to ensure that residential development authorized in the HO Overlay is permitted only in addition to, and not in place of, existing or planned visitor-serving, marine-related, public serving uses on applicable sites. Specifically, these suggested modifications clarify that where such priority uses exist or are planned, any development proposing to reduce or remove them must retain, replace or provide an on-site visitor - serving or functionally equivalent use that maintains comparable capacity and public availability. Suggested Modification 7 further prohibits the conversion or replacement of hotels, motels, or other lodging accommodations with residential use under the HO Overlay, thereby protecting lower-cost and overnight visitor-serving facilities.

In addition, Suggested Modification 3 removes the HO Overlay designation from certain sites where the potential for conflict with the Coastal Act priority uses cannot be adequately addressed through development standards alone, thereby avoiding land use conflicts and ensuring the continued protection of such uses. Suggested Modification 4 further clarifies the application of the HO Overlay within the IP plan by updating Table

21.14-1 to ensure consistency between the overlay districts and permitted land uses.

Together, these suggested modifications ensure that residential development facilitated by the HO Overlay does not displace or diminish Coastal Act priority uses and remains consistent with the certified LUP’s policies requiring protection of visitor-serving, marine- related, and public-serving uses.

Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Habitat Protection
Although the proposed HO Overlay would facilitate residential development on selected coastal zone sites, it does not exempt development from compliance with existing coastal resource protection standards. Coastal Act sections 30210, 30213, 30221, 30231, 30240, and 30253, together with corresponding certified LUP polices require protection of public access, recreational opportunities, water quality, biological resources and public safety in hazardous areas. The primary concerns regarding the HO Overlay amendment involve allowing residential units to be constructed in four parcels currently designated for open space and recreational uses that are also immediately adjacent to the planned Santa Ana Delhi Channel Project, which includes channel widening, habitat restoration and creation.

Open Space/Recreation
The City’s proposed HO Overlay includes four parcels (Housing Opportunity Sites 23, 24, 25, and 26, hereafter referred to as the “Golf Course Parcels”) within HO-1that are currently designated as PR (Parks and Recreation) and developed with a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course. As mentioned previously, the proposed amendment would City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
23 amend both the certified LUP and the IP to permit residential development as an allowable use on these sites. Certified LUP Polices 2.3.1-3, 2.3-3.3, and 2.3.3-4 collectively require the prioritization, encouragement, and protection of recreational uses, particularly recreational uses that are lower cost. This is in line with Chapter 3 of Coastal Act Sections 30210, 30213, and 30222, which prioritize and protect recreational uses within the Coastal Zone.

As currently proposed by the City, the HO Overlay does not contain clear policies to protect recreational uses onsite to the maximum extent feasible. If residential uses are allowed on the site without meaningful protections for recreational uses, a developer could opt to redevelop the sites with a completely residential project, with no recreational uses that benefit the general public. The City has indicated that the Golf Course Parcels have a development potential of over 700 units, which comprise approximately half of the potential unit creation within their entire HO Overlay. The Commission is understanding of the need for the City to identify sites and create opportunities to accommodate new residential development to conform to State housing laws. However, the Commission is charged with implementing the Coastal Act and upholding the City’s certified LCP, both of which explicitly call for the prioritization of open space and recreational uses. Thus, in this case, modifications to the proposed Amendment are needed to balance the protection of open space/recreational uses as required in the Coastal Act and LCP with opportunities to allow for multifamily residential development on the site.

ESHA/Habitat Creation
The Orange County Department of Public Works is currently seeking authorization from the Commission for the Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project, which includes restoration and/or creation of riparian habitat which has been determined by the Commission’s Ecology staff as potential ESHA. Although the Commission has not yet acted upon this application, if the project is approved, additional ESHA will be created immediately adjacent to Parcels 23-26, which would require ESHA buffers and additional habitat protections under Certified LUP Policies 4.1.1-10, 4.1.1-11, and 4.1.1-

12. In addition, the resulting ESHA has the potential to be adversely impacted by the construction of residential units on these parcels. The currently proposed HO Overlay amendment does not account for this potential for new ESHA creation. If not addressed through modifications, a future residential development project could adversely impact riparian ESHA by encroaching too close to the sensitive habitat.

Tribal Cultural Resources
During tribal consultation, a tribal member discussed the sensitivity of some of the open space/ public park parcels that are part of the HO Overlay, particularly the Housing Opportunity sites 23, 24, 25, and 26, and requested that consultation occur prior to any approved development on these sites. The City’s certified LUP contains policies that require the protection of tribal cultural resources; however, the currently proposed HO City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
24 Overlay amendment does not identify that projects proposed under the overlay must also be consistent with existing code sections that require protection of tribal cultural resources.

Suggested Modifications
While the HO Overlay is intended to facilitate residential development, such development must occur in a manner that does not adversely impact coastal resources.

As recognized in prior Commission actions, including LCP Amendment LCP-4-STB-18- 0098-3 Part B, housing and other supportive uses may be accommodated in the coastal zone, but only where such development is sited and designed to avoid impacts to protected resources and to maintain their long-term viability. In this case, the subject sites are located adjacent to an area planned for habitat restoration and enhanced public access, and without clearly established standards, residential development could encroach into sensitive habitat areas, reduce open space, or compromise the integrity of potential habitat and recreational corridor.

With respect to parks, recreation, open-space resources, and habitat protection, the Commission imposes Suggested Modification 6, which establishes specific requirements for Housing Opportunity sites 23, 24, 25, and 26 located immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel, the site of the proposed Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project which includes habitat restoration and creation, that is pending a Coastal Development Permit and is currently being reviewed by Commission staff. These provisions require a minimum 100-foot buffer area, consisting of a 50-foot ESHA buffer and an additional 50-ft transitional buffer, and the provision of a free low- impact public recreational opportunity, including a contiguous open space corridor with public access amenities. This requirement ensures the protection of sensitive habitat areas while providing expanded public access and recreational opportunities along the channel corridor.

Suggested Modification 6 also ensures that residential development may still occur on the subject sites, but only in a manner that preserves open space, protects biological resources, and maintains public access. The implementation of setbacks or other site features does not eliminate the need for biologically protective buffers, as such measures do not ensure the protection of habitat functions or the long-term viability of adjacent ESHA proposed with the future Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project. To the extent the site constraints limit the intensity or density of development, such limitations are necessary to ensure consistency with the resource protection policies of the certified LCP and chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Moreover, should the Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project not occur within 10 years, Suggested Modification 6 requires a minimum 100 ft. wide corridor along the channel that extends from the top of the channel bank to be used for the free, low-impact coastal access and public recreational opportunity described in subsection B. above.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
25 The Commission also imposes Suggested Modification 7, which clarifies that development under the HO Overlay remains subject to all applicable certified IP resources-protection standards, including those addressing natural landforms, shoreline protection, scenic and visual resources, tribal cultural resources, and habitat protection.

With regard to tribal cultural resources, Suggested Modification 7 includes a reference to IP section 21.30.105 which states that when a development is proposed in an area where there are known or has potential for archaeological or paleontological resources an Archaeological Research Plan (ARP) shall be prepared. The development of the ARP must include consultation with tribal governments listed on the Native American Heritage Commission list. Only as modified to require consistency with this provision of the IP is the amendment consistent with the certified LUP.

As such, development authorized under the HO Overlay must be reviewed and conditioned, as necessary, to avoid adverse impacts to coastal resources and public safety and to ensure consistency with the certified LCP.

In addition, Suggested Modification 7 requires that development on sites designated for parks, recreation, or open space retain, replace, or provide functionally equivalent uses that maintain comparable public access, visitor-serving capacity, and recreational opportunities. Together, these suggested modifications ensure that implementation of the HO Overlay does not result in the loss or degradation of public access, recreational opportunities, or open-space resources. While the proposed amendment facilitates residential development to implement the City’s adopted Housing Element, such development must be carefully balanced with the protection of coastal resources. As modified by the Commission’s suggested modifications, the amendment ensures that residential development remains subject to all applicable coastal resource protection standards and preserves public access and recreational opportunities consistent with the certified LUP and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

C. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Section 21080.9 of the California Public Resources Code, within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), exempts local governments from the requirement to prepare environmental review documentation in connection with activities and approvals necessary for the preparation and adoption of a LCP. In addition, pursuant to CCR Section 15251(f), the Commission’s LCP review and approval program has been certified by the Secretary of the Resources Agency as functionally equivalent to the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). CEQA Section 21080.5 further provides that the Commission’s review of LCP amendments satisfies CEQA if the Commission considers whether there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed LCP amendment.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
26 As discussed in the Consistency Analysis sections above, the proposed LCP amendment, which includes amendments to both the LUP and the IP, is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified LUP. The Commission therefore finds that approval of the proposed LCP amendment, as modified, will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts within the meaning of CEQA and is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A). In addition, there are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any potential adverse environmental effects of the proposed LCP amendment.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
27 APPENDIX A—SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS IN TEXT
For ease of reading, the suggested modifications associated with the subject LCP amendment have been incorporated into Appendix A. The suggested modifications are shown overlaid onto the City’s proposed amendments to both the Coastal Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan, as submitted pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2024-52, resulting in a consolidated and more readable presentation of the proposed amendments as modified.

Normal Text = Existing, unmodified language
Strikethrough Text = City’s proposed eliminated language Underline Text = City’s proposed added language
Bold Strikethrough Text = Commission’s proposed eliminated language Bold Underline Text = Commission’s proposed added language Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) Modifications

1. Modify proposed LUP policy 2.1.11-1 as follows:

The City will reserve 25% of allocated dwelling units within the Coastal Zone until such a time as the City’s Local Coastal Program has been amended to allow for housing consistent with the implementation of the 6
th Cycle Housing Element. Following the
City’s Local Coastal Program Amendment, priority for the reserved units will be given to sites located within the Coastal Zone. The goal is to ensure an adequate number of sites Citywide to accommodate the City’s allocation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment:

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
28 2. Modify proposed LUP policy 2.1.11-2 as follows:

Replacement of any existing priority use with a new priority use that provides lower-cost and/or no- cost coastal access is preferred. An amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity zoning overlay coastal zoning district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay coastal zoning districts specified in Policy

2.1.11-1 is an average over the entire property or project site. For example, a portion of a development site may be developed at a higher density than specified by Policy

2.1.11-1 provided other portions of the site are developed at lower densities such that the average does not exceed the maximum. Density calculations and total units do not include units identified as pipeline units or units permitted pursuant to State density bonus law.

3. Modify proposed IP Subsection 21.28.070(A) as follows:

2. Applicability. This section applies to properties located in one of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts, as identified in Part 8 of this title.

This includes the following subareas:

1. 1. HO-1 - Airport Area Environs Area – The Airport Area Environs Area is located north of the Upper Newport Bay Nature Reserve, primarily around the John Wayne Airport.

3. 2. HO-3 - Dover-Westcliff Area – The Dover-Westcliff Area includes property on both sides of West Coast Highway and the west of Dover Drive. Properties in the Lido Village area are included.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
29 4. 3. HO-4 - Newport Center Area – The Newport Center Area is generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, MacArthur Blvd, Coast Highway, and Jamboree Road.

Modify proposed IP Table 21.28-1 as follows:

TABLE 21.28-1

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY ZONES

Setbacks
Front 0 ft.(2) 10 ft.(2) 10 ft.(2)(3) 0(2)
Rear 0 20 ft. 20 ft. 0
Side 0’ (4)
Street Side 0(2) 10 ft.(2) 10 ft.(2) 0 ft.(2)
Height Per Base Zone
unless otherwise
identified on the
map
65 ft. 65 ft.(5) Per Base
Zone(6)
Building
Separation
10 ft.

Landscaping See Section 21.30.075 (Landscaping) and 21.30.085 (Water Efficient Landscaping).

Lighting See Section 21.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting).

Parking See Subsection (D)(2) below and Chapter 21.40 (Off-Street Parking).

Signs See Chapter 21.30.065 (Sign Standards).

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
30 (1) Minimum/maximum allowable density range may be based on an average density of the entire project site, excluding density bonus units.
(2) Any portion of the building that is over 20 feet in height shall be setback a minimum 20 feet from the street right-of-way.
(3) Except in the Mixed-Use Mariners Mile (MU-MM) Zoning District wherein residential uses are only allowed beginning 100 feet north of Coast Highway.
(4) The combined total from both sides shall be 15 feet. (5) The height shall be limited to 35 feet in the Shoreline Height Limit Area, as identified in Map H -1. (6) The FAR in this table only applies to residential floor area, including any supporting facilities. In mixed-use developments, the FAR for nonresidential is still applicable. (7) For purposes of this section, common and private open space in HO -1 may include enclosed shared amenities such as a clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court, weightlifting facility, children’s playground equipment, sauna, jacuzzi, day care facility, or any other recreational amenities/facilities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director.

IP Subsection 21.28.070(C) shall be modified as follows:

3. West Newport Mesa Area (HO -2). The following development standards shall only apply to projects with the West Newport Mesa Area:

b. West Newport Mesa Streetscape Master Plan. Any residential or mixed - use residential development shall implement applicable components of the adopted West Newport Mesa Streetscape Master Plan.

IP Section 21.80.032 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) shall be modified as follows:

HO-1 - Airport Area Environs Area (PDF)
HO-2 - West Newport Mesa Area (PDF)
HO-3 - Dover-Westcliff Area (PDF)
HO-4 - Newport Center Area (PDF)

4. Modify Table 21.14- 1 (Coastal Zoning Districts) by inserting “Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay” to reflect inclusion within the certified set of coastal zoning districts as follows:

IP Table 21.14-1 shall be modified as follows:

Coastal
Zoning Map
Symbol Coastal Zoning Districts
Coastal Land Use Plan Designations
Implemented by Zoning Districts
Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts
MHP Mobile Home Park RM Multiple-Unit Residential
City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
31 Coastal
Zoning Map
Symbol Coastal Zoning Districts
Coastal Land Use Plan Designations
Implemented by Zoning Districts
PM Parking Management All designations
B Bluff All designations
C Canyon RS, RM Single-Unit Residential
Multiple-Unit Residential
H Height RM Multiple-Unit Residential
HO Housing Opportunity Varies Varies

5. Modify proposed 21.28.070(B) as follows:

Subsection 21.28.070(B) shall be modified as follows:

6. Residential supporting uses such as leasing/sales/property management offices, fitness facilities, recreation facilities, etc.; and

7. Residential uses permitted under this section shall harmonize with the Coastal Act’s priority uses, including visitor-serving, marine-related, public- serving, or recreational uses, and shall retain or provide functionally equivalent uses, as measured by comparable visitor peak use intensity and public availability.

6. Modify proposed LUP Subsection 21.28.070(C)(2) as follows:

Subsection 21.28.070(C)(2) shall be modified as follows:

d. Housing Opportunity Sites 23, 24, 25 and 26. A residential or mixed- use development encompassing Housing Opportunity Sites 23, 24, 25, and 26 shall include a free to access public park or /public recreational opportunity that conforms to all the following:

4. A minimum 50 ft. ESHA buffer measured from the outermost extent of the riparian vegetation shall be provided. For a minimum 10 -year period, the buffer shall be measured from the outermost extent of the vegetation established as part of the Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project proposed by the Orange County Flood Control District. The 50 ft. buffer shall be consistent with 21.30B.30 (D); however, the exceptions criteria for smaller ESHA buffers shall not apply.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
32 5. An additional 50 ft. buffer measured from the outermost extent of the ESHA buffer shall also be provided consistent with 21.30B.30 (E). This transitional buffer may be used to accommodate a free, low -impact public recreational opportunity. At a minimum, such public recreational opportunity shall include a contiguous open space corridor along the entire length of the Santa Ana Delhi Channel located adjacent to the subject properties that is of sufficient width to accommodate a 100- ft. biological buffer, separately and contiguously, to protect habitat in and along the channel. Such recreational opportunity shall also provide public access and recreational open space that will accommodate passive and active public recreational opportunities including, but not limited to continuous pedestrian/cycling trail, benches, drinking fountains and/or water fill stations, picnic tables, shade structures and fitness/exercise equipment.

6. In the event the Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project does not occur there shall be a minimum 100 ft. wide corridor along the channel that extends from the top of the channel bank to be used for the free, low-impact coastal access and public recreational opportunity described in subsection B. above.

7.Modify proposed LUP Subsection 21.28.070(D) as follows:

Subsection 21.28.070(D) shall be modified as follows:

6. Visitor-Serving Commercial, Marine- Related Uses, or Visitor Accommodations. For sites with base designations intended for Visitor - Serving Commercial, Marine- Related Uses, or Overnight Visitor Accommodations, any existing uses consistent with the intent of those designations shall be retained, replaced, or expanded where feasible, with a functionally equivalent use in terms of comparable visitor peak use intensity and public availability. No hotel, motel, or other overnight visitor accommodations shall be converted or replaced with residential use.

7. Parks and Recreation or Open Space. For sites with base designations intended for Parks and Recreation or Open Space, any existing uses consistent with the intent of those designations shall be retained, replaced or expanded where feasible, with a functionally equivalent use in terms of comparable visitor peak use intensity and public availability. When there is a proposed replacement of any existing priority use with a new priority use, a use that provides lower -cost and/or no -cost visitor -serving and coa stal access is preferred.

City of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment Request No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
6th Cycle Housing Element
33 8. All housing projects within the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning District shall demonstrate consistency with:

f. Section 21.30.015 (General Site and Development Standards); g. Section 21.30.030 (Natural Landform and Shoreline Protection); h. Section 21.30.100 (Scenic and Visual Quality Protection); i. Section 21.30.105 (Cultural Resource Protection); and j. Chapter 21.30B (Habitat Protection).

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
301 E. OCEAN BLVD., SUITE 300
LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4830
(562) 590-5071
F11a
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 (Housing Overlay
April 17, 2025

EXHIBITS
Table of Contents
Exhibit 1 – Resolution 2024-52
Exhibit 2 – Ordinance 2024-16
Exhibit 3 – Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts maps RESOLUTION NO. 2024- 52

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING

SUBMITTAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM

AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL

COMMISSION TO AMEND THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AND TITLE 21

LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

PLAN) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE

RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
HOUSING ELEMENT ( PA2022- 0245)
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach (" City") Charter vests the City Councilwith the authorityto makeand enforceall laws, rules, and regulationswith respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California;
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65580 et seq. (" State Housing Element Law") requires each city and county adopt a housing element that identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs within their jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, andprograms, andquantifiedobjectivestofurtherthedevelopment, improvement, and preservation of housing;
WHEREAS, Section 30500 of the California Public Resources Code requires each county and city to prepare a Local Coastal Program ("LCP") for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission effectively certified the City' s Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan on January 13, 2017, and the City added Title 21 ( Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) (" Title 21") to the Newport Beach Municipal Code (" NBMC") whereby the City assumed coastal development permit issuing authority on January 30, 2017;
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Land Use Element is a mandatory element that governs the ultimate pattern of development and requires updating as necessary for consistency with other General Plan elements;
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 1 of 21 ends

Resolution No. 2024- 52

Page 2 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, every eight years, State Housing Element Law requires the City to update its General Plan Housing Element to identify and analyze existing and projected housingneedsfor the City alongwith a housingplan that providesadequateland use capacity to meet those needs,
WHEREAS, the City was assigned a Regional Housing Needs Assessment RHNA") allocation of 4,845 new unitsas its projectedhousingneedfor the planningperiod covering2021-2029and, as a result, the Cityworkeddiligentlyto prepareits 6thCycle Housing Element in compliancewith state law;
WHEREAS, preparationof the 6thCycle Housing Elementinvolvedextensive public participationwith community groups at numerousworkshops, as well as meetings with the PlanningCommissionand CityCouncil, andwas assistedby an ad -hoccommitteecalled the Housing Element UpdateAdvisory Committee ("HEUAC") formed and appointed by the City Council;
WHEREAS, after several meetings with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (" HCD") and numerous drafts, the City Council adopted the final 6thCycle Housing Element on September 13, 2022;
WHEREAS, HCD certified the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element on October 5, 2022, as statutorily compliant with state law;
WHEREAS, Section4 (Housing Plan) of the 6thCycle HousingElement presents a framework and strategyfor meetingthe needs of existing and future resident populations in Newport Beach based on the RHNA allocation of 4,845 new housing units, the "fair share" of regional housing need and demand, by planning for units within the following site groupings or "focus areas" that are best suited for residentialgrowth: Airport Area Environs, West Newport Mesa, Newport Center, Dove r/Westcliff, and Coyote Canyon; WHEREAS, the 6thCycle Housing Element opportunitysites are to be rezoned per Housing ElementPolicyActions 1Athrough 1F to accommodatethe City's RHNA obligation, includinga buffer necessaryto addressfuture "no net loss" of availablesites andto preclude the need to identify replacementsites during implementation; WHEREAS, the rezoningincludesthe establishmentof overlayzoning districts and accompanying development standards, as well as corresponding amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program; California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 2 of 21 ends

Resolution No. 2024- 52

Page 3 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, to comply with state law, the City has been working diligently to implement the 6t" Cycle Housing Element no laterthan February 2025 ("6t" Cycle Housing Element Implementation"), which requires the following amendments and actions:

General Plan Amendment (" GPA") - To revise the necessary goals and/ or policieswithinthe City's LandUseElementto supporthousingproductionin the focus areas identified by the 6t" Cycle HousingElement; Amendment to Title 20 ( Planning and Zoning) (" ZCA") - To implement the Land Use Element's policy changes by allowing housingdevelopment as an opportunity and establishing appropriate objective design and development standards for multi -unit residential and mixed - use development projects; Local Coastal Program Amendment (" LCPA") - To revise and create new policies within the City's Coastal Land Use Plan and update Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC to support housing productioninthefocusareasidentifiedbythe6t" CycleHousingElementthat are within the Coastal Zone; and
Program Environmental Impact Report (" PEIR") ( SCH No. 2023060699) - To analyze potential environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA") related to the 6t" Cycle Housing Element Implementation, a Draft Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments Program Environmental Impact Report (" Draft PEIR"), to addressreasonablyforeseeableenvironmentalimpactsresultingfromthe6t" Cycle Housing Element Implementation;
WHEREAS, the 6t" Cycle Housing Element Implementation must take effect by February2025to avoidsignificantpenaltiesandlossof localcontroldictatedbystatelaw, which may include, but are not limited to:

Increased exposure to public and private litigation;
Loss of permitting authority;
Financialpenaltiesincluding monthly fines of up to $600, 000; Loss of eligibilityfor state and regionalfunding sources; Court receivership;
Allowing housingdevelopersto bypassthe City's zoning requirements; and Increased exposure to monitoring by the newly formed Housing Accountability Unit of HCD;
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 3 of 21 ends

Resolution No. 2024- 52

Page 4 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, City staff worked closely with the community through the City Council -appointed General Plan Advisory Committee (" GPAC") and General Plan Update Steering Committee (" GPUSC") from March 2023 to August 2023 to draft Land Use Elementgoalsandpoliciesthat support6t" CycleHousingElementImplementation; WHEREAS, the draft GPA that was supported by the GPAC and the GPUSC was postedonlineon August30, 2023, with additionalpubliccommentsand participationat the PlanningCommissionStudySessionon September21, 2023, and the City Council Study Session on February 13, 2024;
WHEREAS, the draft GPA was revised and reposted online on January 16, 2024, and March 28, 2024, based on the public' s input;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 18, 2024, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California to consider the actions and amendments required for the 6t" Cycle Housing Element Implementation. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (" Ralph M. Brown Act"), Chapter 20. 62 ( Public Hearings) and Chapter 21. 62 ( Public Hearings) of the NBMC.

Page 4 of 21 ends

Resolution No. 2024- 52

Page 5 of 7 ends

WHEREAS, pursuantto Sections 21670 and 21676 of the CPUC, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 28, 2024, and adopted Resolution No. 2024- 32 ( 7 ayes, 0 nays), to notify the ALUC and State Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program of the City's intent to override ALUC's inconsistency finding and on May29, 2024, the Cityissuedthe Noticeof Intentto OverrideALUC's determinationand received two comments in response;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 23, 2024, by the City Council in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California to consider the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation, including consideration of certifying the PEIR, adoption of CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A notice of time, place, and purposeof the hearingwasgivenin accordancewith CPUCSection21676(b), the Ralph M. Brown Act, Chapter 20. 62 ( Public Hearings), Chapter 20. 66 ( Amendments), and Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC, and City Council Policy K-1 (General Plan and Local Coastal Program) and City Council Policy K-3 (Implementation procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act). Evidence both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing; and WHEREAS, pursuantto Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 5. 5, Chapter 8 (" Section 13515"), drafts of the LCPA were made available and a Notice of Availability was distributed on April 15, 2024, at least six weeks prior to the anticipated final action date.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows:

Section 1: The City Council finds amendments to the LCP are legislative acts.

Neither Title 21 nor State Planning Law set for any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the LCPA is consistent with the corresponding GPA and ZCA.

Section 2: The City Council does hereby make the findings attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference and authorizes staff to submit this LCPA to amend portions of the Coastal Land Use Plan and Title 21, as set forth in Exhibits "B" and C," which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference, to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 5 of 21 ends

Resolution No. 2024- 52

Page 6 of 7 ends

Section 3: The Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments Final PEIR ( SCH No. 2023060699) was prepared for the 6t" Cycle Housing Element Implementation ( also referred to as the " Project") in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA") as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations CEQA Guidelines"), and City Council Policy K-3 (Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act). On July 23, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50, to certify the PEIR as complete and adequate, inclusive of all required findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring reporting program. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Resolution approving the LCPA was considered within the PEIR. Resolution No. 2024-50 is hereby incorporated by reference.

Section 4: This LCPA shall not become effective until voter approval set forth in Section 8 below followed by approval by the California Coastal Commission and adoption, including any modifications suggested by the California Coastal Commission, by resolution and/ or ordinance of the City of Newport Beach.

Section 5: This LCPA, if approved, will be carried out fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act.

Section 6: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.

Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 6 of 21 ends

Resolution No. 2024- 52

Page 7 of 7 ends

Section 8: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.

ADOPTED this 23rdday of July, 2024.

Will O' Neill
Mayor
ATTEST:

A64vv-142VU
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE
ar n C. Harp
City Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit " A" — Findings for Approval
Exhibit " B" — Amendment to Coastal Land Use Plan
Exhibit " C" — Amendment to Title 21 ( Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan)
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 7 of 21 ends

EXHIBIT " A"
Findings for Approval
General Finding:

An amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program is a legislative act. Neither Title 21 Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC nor California Government Code Section 65000 et seq., set forth any required findings for approval of such amendments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following amendments to the Local Coastal Program will create internal consistency with the certified 6t" Cycle Housing Element:

Facts in Support of Finding:

1. The Local Coastal Program (" LCP"), including the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Implementation Plan ( Title 21) are designed to implement the General Plan within the Coastal Zone in furtherance of the California Coastal Act. Since the 6t" Cycle Housing Element Implementation involves an amendment to the General Plan and Title 20 ( Planning and Zoning) affecting several properties within the Coastal Zone, it is necessary to also amend the LCP to achieve the goals and policies.

2. The LCP Amendment (" LCPA"), attached to this resolution as Exhibits " B" and " C" incorporated herein, including the Housing Opportunity ( HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts with associated development standards, are consistent with the implementation program in the Housing Plan of the Housing Element, as discussed in Resolution No. 2024- under the Findings for the General Plan Amendment. The LCPA will enable the implementation of the Housing Element' s key objective, which is to accommodate the development of housing projects to fulfill City' s " fair share" of regional housing need and demand.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 8 of 21 ends

EXHIBIT " B"
Amendment to Coastal Land Use Plan
Policy 2. 1.2-1 of the CLUP is revised as follows:

Development in each district and corridor shall adhere to policies for land use type and density/ intensity contained in Table 2.1.1-1, except as modified in Sections 2. 1.3 to 2.1.8, and 2. 1. 11.

Policy 2. 1.10-1 of the CLUP is revised as follows:

Land uses and new development in the coastal zone shall be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan Map and all applicable LCP policies and regulations, except as modified by all Policies in the 2.1.11 series.

New Policy 2.1.11-1 is inserted and reads as follows:

Accommodate housing opportunities through the adoption of housing opportunity overlay coastal zoning districts or other land use regulatory policy. The following areas are intended to be consistent with the Housing Element' s focus areas. Properties within each overlay coastal zoning district should include, but are not limited to, sites identified in the Housing Element; however, not all sites must be included, and other sites may be identified in the future through rezoning unless precluded by state law. The City will reserve 25% of allocated dwelling units within the Coastal Zone until such a time as the City' s Local Coastal Program has been amended to allow for housing consistent with the implementation of the 6t" Cycle Housing Element. Following the City' s Local Coastal Program Amendment, priority for the reserved units will be given to sites located within the Coastal Zone. The goal is to ensure an adequate number of sites Citywide to accommodate the City's allocation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment:

Airport Environs: the intent is to support a density between 20 and 50 dwelling units per gross acre to accommodate up to 2,577 total dwelling units within the entire area, inclusive of those properties in the Coastal Zone.

West Newport Mesa: the intent is to support a density between 20 and 50 dwelling units per gross acre to accommodate up to 1,107 total dwelling units within the entire area, inclusive of those properties in the Coastal Zone.

Newport Center: the intent is to support a density between 20 and 50 dwelling units per gross acre to accommodate up to 2,439 total dwelling units within the entire area, inclusive of those properties in the Coastal Zone.

Dover / Westcliff: the intent is to support a density between 20 and 50 dwelling units per gross acre to accommodate up to 521 total dwelling units within the entire area, inclusive of those properties in the Coastal Zone.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 9 of 21 ends

New Policy 2.1.11-2 is inserted and reads as follows:

Residential use of any property included within an established housing opportunity overlay coastal zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category or density limit established herein. An amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity zoning overlay coastal zoning district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay coastal zoning districts specified in Policy 2. 1.11- 1 is an average over the entire property or project site. For example, a portion of a development site may be developed at a higher density than specified by Policy 2.1.11-1 provided other portions of the site are developed at lower densities such that the average does not exceed the maximum. Density calculations and total units do not include units identified as pipeline units or units permitted pursuant to State density bonus law.

New Policy 2. 1.11-3 is inserted and reads as follows:

Residential opportunities are in addition to existing uses allowed by the Coastal Land Use Plan. Properties within the established overlay coastal zones are not required to be developed for mixed -use or residential. Existing uses may continue to operate provided they are legally established and consistent with policies and regulations related to legal nonconforming uses. The adoption of housing opportunity overlay coastal zoning districts shall not affect existing rights to use the property.

New Policy 2.1.11-4 is inserted and reads as follows:

If residential or mixed -use projects pursuant to a housing opportunity overlay coastal zoning district are developed, projects shall be consistent with applicable overlay coastal zoning district or Implementation Plan requirements unless modified consistent with an established procedure to grant relief from standards ( e. g., Coastal Modification or Variance, or the application of Density Bonus regulations).

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 10 of 21 ends

EXHIBIT " C"
Amendment to Title 21 ( Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) Chapter 21.28 ( Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts) of the NBMC is amended to include a new Section 21. 28.070 ( Housing Opportunity [ HO] Overlay Coastal Zoning District) as follows:

Chapter 21. 28

OVERLAY COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS ( MHP, PM, B, C, H, AND HO) Sections:

21. 28. 010 Purposes of Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts.

21. 28. 020 Mobile Home Park ( MHP) Overlay Coastal Zoning District.

21. 28. 030 Parking Management ( PM) Overlay District.

21. 28. 040 Bluff ( B) Overlay District.

21. 28. 050 Canyon ( C) Overlay District.

21. 28. 060 Height ( H) Overlay District.

21. 28. 070 Housing Opportunity ( HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts.

Section 21.28.010 ( Purposes of Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts) is amended to include a new Subsection ( F) as follows:

F. HO (Housing Opportunity) Overlay CoastalZoning Districts. The HO Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts are intended to accommodate housing opportunities consistent with the HousingElement's focus areasandto ensurethe Citycan meet its allocation of the Regional Housing NeedsAssessment (RHNA). The specific areas are identified in Part 8 of this title Maps).

New Section 21.28.070 (Housing Opportunity [HO] Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts) is incorporated into the Chapter as follows:

21.28.070 Housing Opportunity ( HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts.

A. Applicability. This section applies to properties located in one of the Housing Opportunity HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts, as identified in Part 8 of this title. This includes the following subareas:

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 11 of 21 ends

1. HO- 1 - Airport Area Environs Area - The Airport Area Environs Area is located north of the Upper Newport Bay Nature Reserve, primarily around the John Wayne Airport.

2. HO- 2 - West Newport Mesa Area - The West Newport Mesa Area is located near the southwest corner of the City and primarily consists of industrial properties along 16thStreet, Production Place, and 15thStreet.

3. HO- 3 - Dover- Westcliff Area - The Dover- Westcliff Area includes property on both sides of West Coast Highway and the west of Dover Drive. Properties in the Lido Village area are included.

4. HO- 4 - Newport Center Area - The Newport Center Area is generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, MacArthur Blvd, Coast Highway, and Jamboree Road.

The above listed are general descriptions of each subarea and additional properties may be included with the subarea. To be eligible for the provisions of this chapter, the property must be listed on the HO area map as an " Opportunity Site".

B. Uses Allowed. The following uses shall be permitted in the Housing Opportunity ( HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts:

1. Any use that is permitted or conditionally permitted in the base zone;

2. Multiple -unit development that meets the density requirements set forth in this section;

3. Mixed - use development that includes a residential component which complies with the minimum density set forth in this section; and

4. Residential supporting uses such as leasing/sales/ property management offices, fitness facilities, recreation facilities, etc.

C. Subarea Development Standards.

1. Development Standards. The following development standards shall apply to any residential or mixed -use project permitted pursuant to this section. Unless otherwise modified bythis section, all applicable development standards, including any adopted objective design standards, shall apply.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 12 of 21 ends

TABLE 21. 28- 1

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY ZONES Development Housing Opportunity Subareas
Feature HO- 1 HO- 2 HO- 3 H04
Lot
Size/ Dimension
Per Base Zone
Lot area
required per
unit ( sq. ft.)'
Minimum:
2, 178 ( 20 du/ ac)
Maximum:
871 ( 50 du/ ac)
Minimum:
2, 178 ( 20 du/ ac)
Maximum:
871 ( 50 du/ ac)
Setbacks
Front 0 ft.( 2) 10 ft.( 2) 10 ft.( 2)(3) 0(2)
Rear 0 20 ft. 20 ft. 0
Side 0'( 4)
Street Side 0(2) 10 ft.( 2) 10 ft.( 2) 0 ft.( 2)
Height Per Base Zone unless
otherwise identified
on the map
65 ft. 65 ft.( 5) Per Base Zone( 6)
Building
Separation
10 ft.

Floor Area
Ratio ( FAR)
No restriction ( 6)
Common Open
Space( 7)
Minimum 75 square feet/ dwelling unit. ( The minimum dimension [ length and width] shall be 15 feet.)
Private Open
Space
5% of the gross floor area for each unit. (The minimum dimension [ length and width] shall be 6 feet.)
Fencing See Section 21.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls).

Landscaping SeeSection 21.30.075 (Landscaping) and 21.30.085 (Water Efficient Landscaping).

Lighting See Section 21. 30. 070 ( Outdoor Lighting).

Parking See Subsection ( D)(2) below and Chapter 21. 40 ( Off -Street Parking).

Signs See Chapter 21. 30. 065 ( Sign Standards).
1) Minimum/ maximum allowable density range may be based on an average density of the entire project site, excluding density bonus units.
2) Any portion of the building that is over 20 feet in height shall be setback a minimum 20 feet from the street right- of- way.
3) Except in the Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU-MM) Zoning District wherein residential uses are only allowed beginning 100 feet north of Coast Highway.
4) The combined total from both sides shall be 15 feet. 5) The height shall be limited to 35 feet in the Shoreline Height Limit Area, as identified in Map H- 1. 6) The FARin this table only applies to residential floor area, including any supporting facilities. In mixed -use developments, the FAR for nonresidential is still applicable. 7) For purposes of this section, common and private open space in HO-1 may include enclosed shared amenities such as a clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court, weightlifting facility, children' s playground equipment, sauna, jacuzzi, day care facility, or any other recreationalamenities/facilities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 13 of 21 ends

2. Airport Area Environs Area ( HO- 1). The following development standards shall only apply to projects with the Airport Area Environs Area:
a. Sound Mitigation. The interior ambient noise level of all new residential dwelling units shall meet applicable standards of the Section 10.26.030 Interior Noise Standards). An acoustical analysis report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted describing the acoustical design features of the structure that will satisfy the interior noise standard. The residential units shall be constructed, and noise attenuated in compliance with the report.
b. Advanced Air Filtration. The design of all new residential and mixed - use residential developments shall include advanced air filtration systems to promote cleaner air within living environments.
c. Notification to Owners and Tenants. A written disclosure statement shall be prepared prior to sale, lease, or rental of a residential unit within the development. The disclosure statement shall indicate that the occupants will be living in an urban type of environment adjacent to an airport and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area. The disclosure statement shall include a written description of the potential impacts to residents of both the existing environment ( e.g., noise from planes, commercial activity on the site and vehicles streets) and potential nuisances based upon the allowed uses in the zoning district. Each and every buyer, lessee, or renter shall sign the statement acknowledging that they have received, read, and understand the disclosure statement. A covenant shall also be included within all deeds, leases or contracts conveying any interest in a residential unit within the development that requires: ( 1) the disclosure and notification requirement stated herein; ( 2) an acknowledgment by all grantees or lessees that the property is located within an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area; and ( 3) acknowledgment that the covenant is binding for the benefit and in favor of the City of Newport Beach.

3. West Newport Mesa Area ( HO- 2). The following development standards shall only apply to projects with the West Newport Mesa Area:
a. West Newport Mesa Streetscape Master Plan. Any residential or mixed -use residential development shall implement applicable components of the adopted West Newport Mesa Streetscape Master Plan.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 14 of 21 ends

D. General Development Standards. The following development standards shall apply to all projects within the Housing Opportunity zone, regardless of subarea:

1. Landscaped Setbacks. All front and street side setbacks shall be landscaped, except for areas that provide vehicle and pedestrian accessto the right- of-way.

2. Residential Off -Street Parking Requirements. Residential parking requirements for projects within the Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones shall be provided in accordance with Table 21.28-2 below. Parking for all other uses not included in this table shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 21.40 ( Off -Street Parking Requirements) of the NBMC.

TABLE 21. 28- 2

RESIDENTIAL OFF- STREET PARKING FOR HOUSING OPPORTUNITY COASTAL OVERLAY ZONES
Land Use Subtype Parking Requirement
Residential Studio 1. 1 spaces per dwelling unit
Rental) 1 Bedroom 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
2 Bedrooms 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit
3 Bedrooms 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit
Visitor Parking 0.3 spaces per dwelling unit
Residential Studio 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit
Ownership) 1 Bedroom 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit
2 Bedrooms 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit
3 Bedrooms 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit
Visitor Parking 0.3 spaces per dwelling unit
Part 8. Maps, Chapter 20. 80 ( Maps) is amended to include new Section 21. 80. 032 Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) as follows:

Chapter 21. 80
MAPS
Sections:

21. 80. 010 Area Maps.

21. 80. 020 Bluff Overlay.

21. 80. 025 Canyon Overlay.

21. 80. 030 Height Limit Areas.

21. 80. 032 Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps.

21. 80. 035 Parking Management Overlay District Maps.

21. 80. 040 Setback Maps.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 15 of 21 ends

21. 80. 055 Planned Community Site Plans.

21. 80. 065 Planned Community Land Use Maps.

Section 21.80.032 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts Maps) is added in its entirety to include an indexing of maps as follows:
1-10- 1 - Airport Area Environs Area ( PDF)
1-10- 2 - West Newport Mesa Area ( PDF)
1-10- 3 - Dover- Westcliff Area ( PDF)
HO- 4 - Newport Center Area ( PDF)
The corresponding maps for each of the Housing Opportunity Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts, as indexed in Section 21. 80. 032 and linked as a PDF, are to be in a similar format to the following series of maps beginning on the next page:

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 16 of 21 ends

Legend
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay ( Coastal Zone)
lIHousing Opportunity Sites Overlay
IMIN Coastal Zone Boundary
O60' maximum
O35' maximum
w
HO- 1 Airport Area Environs Area NBG
CMy. 1 Nawp- 1 I.- h
G15 P h -
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 17 of 21 ends

Legend
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay ( Coastal Zone)
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay
9111111 Coastal Zone Boundary
I o
M NBGISHO- 2 West Newport Mesa Area
City a! N.- P." 5— b
015 O bi-
J.". ] 0, i0SA
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 18 of 21 ends

Legend
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay ( Coastal Zone)
T _
I HousingOpportunitySites f {
111111 Coastal Zone Boundary a l 1
7 j \'
Q-
c
r a ry NBGISHO- 3 Dover- Westcliff Area
@T of Nv port 3s .Th
U45 Dbiven
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 19 of 21 ends

Legend
MHousing OpportunitySitesOverlay (CoastalZone)
Housing Opportunity Sites
f 111111 Coastal Zone Boundary
6 fin
ll iall1
HO- 4 Newport Center Area NBGSCny
of NaWporrbeach limns
Ztl, 20 d d
V. mrt _ erter . 4m. n C
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 1

Page 20 of 21 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ss.

I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2024-52 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 23rd day of July, 2024; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Mayor Pro Tern Joe Stapleton, Councilmember Brad Avery, Councilmember Noah Blom, Councilmember Robyn Grant, Councilmember Lauren Kleiman, Councilmember Erik Weigand
NAYS: None
ABSTAINED: Mayor Will O'Neill
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 24th day of July, 2024.

City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
City of Newport Beach
Proposed
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-16

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE
20 {PLANNING AND ZONING) OF THE NEWPORT

BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT THE
GENERAL PLAN 5TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT
{PA2022-0245)
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach ("City") Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules, and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California;
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65580 et seq. ("State Housing Element Law'') requires each city and county adopt a housing element that identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs within their jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs, and quantified objectives to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing;
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Land Use Element is a mandatory element that governs the ultimate pattern of development and requires updating every now and then for consistency with other General Plan elements;
WHEREAS, every eight years, State Housing Element Law requires the City to update its General Plan Housing Element to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for the City along with a housing plan that provides adequate land use capacity to meet those needs;
WHEREAS, the City was assigned a Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") allocation of 4,845 new units as its projected housing need for the planning period covering 2021-2029 and, as a result, the City worked diligently to prepare its 6th Cycle Housing Element in compliance with state law;
WHEREAS, preparation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element involved extensive public participation with community groups at numerous workshops, as well as meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council, and was assisted by an ad-hoc committee called the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee ("HEUAC") formed and appointed by the City Council;
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 1 of 21 ends

Proposed
Ordinance No. 2024-16

Page 2 of 6 ends

WHEREAS, after several meetings with the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") and numerous drafts, the City Council adopted the final 6th Cycle Housing Element on September 13, 2022;
WHEREAS, HCD certified the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element on October 5, 2022, as statutorily compliant with state law;
WHEREAS, Section 4 (Housing Plan) of the 6th Cycle Housing Element presents a framework and strategy for meeting the needs of existing and future resident populations in Newport Beach based on the RHNA allocation of 4,845 new housing units, the ''fair share" of regional housing need and demand, by planning for units within the following site groupings or ''focus areas" that are best suited for residential growth: Airport Area Environs, West Newport Mesa, Newport Center, Dover/Westcliff, and Coyote Canyon; WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Housing Element opportunity sites are to be rezoned per Housing Element Policy Actions 1A through 1 F to accommodate the City's RHNA obligation, including a buffer necessary to address future "no net loss" of available sites and to preclude the need to identify replacement sites during implementation; WHEREAS, the rezoning includes the establishment of overlay zoning districts and accompanying development standards, as well as corresponding amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program; WHEREAS, to comply with state law, the City has been working diligently to implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element no later than February 2025 ("6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation"), which requires the following amendments and actions:
• General Plan Amendment ("GPA") - To revise the necessary goals and/or policies within the City's Land Use Element to support housing production in the focus areas identified by the 6th Cycle Housing Element; • Amendment to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) ("ZCA") - To implement the Land Use Element's policy changes by allowing housing development as an opportunity and establishing appropriate objective design and development standards for multi-unit residential and mixed-use development projects; California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 2 of 21 ends

Proposed
Ordinance No. 2024-16

Page 3 of 6 ends

• Local Coastal Program Amendment ("LCPA") - To revise and create new policies within the City's Coastal Land Use Plan and update Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") to support housing production in the focus areas identified by the 6th Cycle Housing Element that are within the Coastal Zone; and • Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR") (SCH No. 2023060699) - To analyze potential environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") related to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation, a Draft Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments Program Environmental Impact Report ("Draft PEIR"), to address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation;
WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation must take effect by February 2025 to avoid significant penalties and loss of local control dictated by state law, which may include, but are not limited to:
• Increased exposure to public and private litigation;
• Loss of permitting authority;
• Financial penalties including monthly fines of up to $600,0000; • Loss of eligibility for state and regional funding sources; • Court receivership;
• Allowing housing developers to bypass the City's zoning requirements; and • Increased exposure to monitoring by the newly formed Housing Accountability Unit of HCD;
WHEREAS, City staff worked closely with the community through the City Council-appointed General Plan Advisory Committee ("GPAC") and General Plan Update Steering Committee ("GPUSC") from March 2023 to August 2023 to draft Land Use Element goals and policies that support 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation, including the ZCA;
WHEREAS, the draft GPA that was supported by the GPAC and the GPUSC was posted online along with the draft ZCA on August 30, 2023, with additional public comments and participation at the Planning Commission Study Session on September 21, 2023, and City Council Study Session on February 13, 2024; WHEREAS, the draft GPA was revised and reposed online on January 16, 2024, and March 28, 2024, based on the public's input;
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 3 of 21 ends

Proposed
Ordinance No. 2024-16

Page 4 of 6 ends

WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 18, 2024, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California to consider the actions and amendments required for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act"), Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) and Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC.

Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2024-006 by a unanimous vote (5 ayes, 2 recusals) recommending the City Council certify the Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments Draft PEIR and approve the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation; WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code ("CPUC") Section 21676(b) requires the City to refer the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") to review for consistency with the 2008 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan ("AELUP");
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2024, the ALUC determined the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation is inconsistent with the AELUP;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 21670 and 21676 of the CPUC, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 28, 2024, and adopted Resolution No. 2024-32 (7 ayes, 0 nays), to notify the ALUC and State Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program of the City's intent to override ALUC's inconsistency finding and on May 29, 2024, the City issued the Notice of Intent to Override ALUC's determination and received two comments in response; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 23, 2024, by the City Council in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California to consider the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation, including consideration of certifying the PEIR, adoption of CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with CPUC Section 21676(b), the Ralph M. Brown Act, Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings), Chapter 20.66 (Amendments), and Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC, and City Council Policy K-1 (General Plan and Local Coastal Program) and City Council Policy K-3 (Implementation procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act). Evidence both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 4 of 21 ends

Proposed
Ordinance No. 2024-16

Page 5 of 6 ends

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newp~rt Beach ordains as follows:

Section 1: The City Council finds amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC are legislative acts. Neither Title 20 nor State Planning Law set for any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the ZCA is consistent with the corresponding GPA and LCPA.

Section 2: The City Council does hereby make the findings attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference, and approves the ZCA, as set forth in Exhibit "B," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 3: The Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments Final PEIR (SCH No. 2023060699) was prepared for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation (also referred to as the "Project") in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines"), and City Council Policy K-3 (Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act). On July 23, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50, to certify the PEIR as complete and adequate, inclusive of all required findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring reporting program. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Resolution approving the ZCA was considered within the PEIR. Resolution No. 2024-50 is hereby incorporated by reference.

Section 4: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance.

Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other sections, subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the NBMC shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 5 of 21 ends

Proposed
Ordinance No. 2024-16

Page 6 of 6 ends

Section 7: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published pursuant to City Charter Section 414. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) calendar days after its adoption.

This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 23rd day of July, 2024, and adopted on the _ day of _____ , 2024, by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES: -----------------------
NAYS: -----------------------
ABSENT: ----------------------

WILL O'NEILL , MAYOR
ATTEST:

LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY A ORNEY'S OFFICE
-.--- C ~
C. HARP, CITY ATT
Attachments : Exhibit "A" - Findings for Approval
Exhibit "B" - Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 6 of 21 ends

Proposed
General Finding:

EXHIBIT "A"
Findings for Approval
An amendment to the City's Zoning Code is a legislative act. Neither Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC nor California Government Code Section 65000 et seq., set forth any required findings for approval of such amendments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following amendments to the Zoning Code will create internal consistency with the certified 6th Cycle Housing Element:

Facts in Support of Finding:

1. The Zoning Code is a tool designed to implement the General Plan. Since the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation involves an amendment to the General Plan, it is necessary to also amend Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) to achieve its goals and policies.

2. The Zoning Code Amendment ("ZCA"), attached to this ordinance as Exhibit "B" incorporated herein, including the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts with associated development standards, are consistent with the implementation program in the Housing Plan of the Housing Element, as discussed in Resolution No. 2024-__ under the Findings for the General Plan Amendment. The ZCA will enable the implementation of the Housing Element's key objective, which is to accommodate the development of housing projects to fulfill City's "fair share" of regional housing need and demand.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 7 of 21 ends

Proposed
EXHIBIT "B"
Title 20 (Planning and Zoning)
Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts
Chapter 20.28 (Overlay Zoning Districts) of the NBMC is amended to include a new Section 21.28.050 (Housing Opportunity [HO] Overlay Zoning Districts) as follows:

Chapter 20.28

OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS (MHP, PM, B, HO, H)
Sections:

20.28.010 Purposes of Overlay Zoning Districts.

20.28.020 Mobile Home Park (MHP) Overlay Zoning District.

20.28.030 Parking Management (PM) Overlay District.

20.28.040 Bluff (B) Overlay District.

20.28.050 Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts.

20.28.060 Height (H) Overlay District.

Section 20.28.010 (Purposes of Overlay Zoning Districts) is amended to include a new Subsection (D) as follows:

D. HO (Housing Opportunity) Overlay Zoning Districts. The HO Overlay Zoning Districts are intended to accommodate housing opportunities consistent with the Housing Element's focus areas and to ensure the City can meet its allocation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RH NA). The specific areas are identified in Part 8 of this title (Maps).

New Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity [HO] Overlay Zoning Districts) is incorporated into the Chapter as follows:

20.28.050 Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts.

A. Applicability. This section applies to properties located in one of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts, as identified in Part 8 of this title (Maps - NOTE: Maps largely mirror the focus areas in Appendix B of the Housing Element and will be posted once available). This includes the following subareas:

1. HO-1 - Airport Area Environs Area - The Airport Area Environs Area is located north of the Upper Newport Bay Nature Reserve, primarily around the John Wayne Airport.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 8 of 21 ends

Proposed

2. HO-2 - West Newport Mesa Area - The West Newport Mesa Area is located near the southwest corner of the City and primarily consists of industrial properties along 16th Street, Production Place, and 15th Street.

3. HO-3 - Dover-Westcliff Area - The Dover-Westcliff Area includes property on both sides of West Coast Highway and the west of Dover Drive. Properties in the Lido Village area are included.

4. HO-4 - Newport Center Area - The Newport Center Area is generally bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, MacArthur Blvd, Coast Highway, and Jamboree Road.

5. HO-5 - Coyote Canyon Area - The Coyote Canyon Area is located on the south side of California State Route 73, at the junction of Newport Coast Drive.

6. HO-6 - 5th Cycle Housing Element Sites - Those sites that are identified as 5th Cycle Housing Element sites on Figure B-5 of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. See subsection 20.28.0S0(E) for alternative review process.

B. Uses Allowed. The following uses shall be permitted in the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts with exception of HO-6 where only the base zoning standards apply:

1. Any use that is permitted or conditionally permitted in the base zone;

2. Multiple-unit development that meets the density requirements set forth in this section;

3. Mixed-use development that includes a residential component which complies with the minimum density set forth in this section; and

4. Residential supporting uses such as leasing/sales/property management offices, fitness facilities, recreation facilities, etc.

C. Subarea Development Standards.

1. 1. Development Standards. The following development standards shall apply to any residential or mixed-use project permitted pursuant to this section. Unless otherwise modified by this section, all applicable development standards, including any adopted objective design standards, shall apply.

California Coastal
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 9 of 21 ends

Proposed
TABLE 2-16

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY ZONES Development Feature Housing Opportunity Subareas
H0-1 H0-2 H0-3 H0-4 H0-5 H0-6
Development Limit 2,577 1,107 521 2,439 1,530 N/A
(units)<1>
Lot Size/Dimension Per Base Zone
Lot area required per unit Minimum: Minimum: Minimum: All (sq. ft.)<2> 2,178 (20 2, 178 (20 du/ac) 2,178 (20 Standards du/ac) Maximum: du/ac) Per Base
Maximum: 871 (50 du/ac) Maximum: Zone
871 (50 726(60
du/ac) du/ac)<10>
Setbacks
Front 0 ft.(3) 10 1 0 ft. <3><4> 0(3) 10 ft.(3)
ft.(3)
Rear 0 20ft. 20ft. 0 20ft.

Side 0(4)
Street Side 0(3) 10 10 ft.(3) 0 ft.(3) 10 ft.<3>
ft.(3)
Height Per Base 65 ft. 65 ft.CG) Per 65ft.

Zone Base
unless Zone<1>
otherwise
identified
on the
map
Building Separation 10 ft.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) No restriction<8>
Common Open Space<9> Minimum 75 square feet/dwelling unit. (The minimum dimension [length and width] shall be 15 feet.)
Private Open Space<9> 5% of the gross floor area for each unit. (The minimum dimension [length and width] shall be 6
feet.)
Fencing See Section 20.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls).

Landscaping See Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping Standards).

Lighting See Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting).

Outdoor Storage/Display See Section 20.48.140 (Outdoor Storage, Display, and Activities).

Parking See Subsection (D)(3) below and Chapter 20.40 (Off- Street Parking).

Satellite Antennas See Section 20.48.190 (Satellite Antennas and Amateur Radio Facilities).

Signs See Chapter 20.42 (Sign Standards).

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 10 of 21 ends

Proposed
(1) Development limits are additional residential development opportunities beyond the base allowances in this Title and General Plan, including projects approved under those base allowances and units identified as pipeline units in the 6th Cycle Housing Element (Table B-2). Development limits shall not include density bonus units. Furthermore, eligible units are only counted against the development limits when they are either entitled or are issued a building permit if allowed by right. However, 25% of the development limit within each HO Overlay Zoning District that includes properties within the Coastal Zone shall be reserved until such a time as the City's Local Coastal Program has been amended to allow for housing consistent with the implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Following the City's Local Coastal Program Amendment, priority for the reserved units will be given to sites located within the Coastal Zone.
(2) Minimum/maximum allowable density range may be based on an average density of the entire project site, excluding density bonus units.
(3) Any portion of the building that is over 20 feet in height shall be setback a minimum 20 feet from the street right-of way.
(4) Except in the Mixed-Use Mariners Mile (MU-MM) Zoning District wherein residential uses are only allowed beginning 100 feet north of Coast Highway.
(5) The combined total from both sides shall be 15 feet. (6) The height shall be limited to 35 feet in the Shoreline Height Limit Area, as identified in Map H-1. (7) "Base Zone" includes all height limitations established by the Sight Plane Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1371 and Ordinance No. 1596).
(8) The FAR in this table only applies to residential floor area, including any supporting facilities. In mixed-use developments, the FAR for nonresidential is still applicable. (9) For purposes of this section, common and private open space in HO-1 may include enclosed shared amenities such as a clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court, weightlifting facility, children's playground equipment, sauna, jacuzzi, day care facility, or any other recreational amenities/facilities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director.
(10) This density is intended for the former Coyote Canyon Landfill site only. The Sage Hill School site is limited to a maximum of 20 dwelling units.

Page 11 of 21 ends

Proposed
description of the potential impacts to residents of both the existing environment (e.g., noise from planes, commercial activity on the site and vehicles streets) and potential nuisances based upon the allowed uses in the zoning district. Each and every buyer, lessee, or renter shall sign the statement acknowledging that they have received, read, and understand the disclosure statement. A covenant shall also be included within all deeds, leases or contracts conveying any interest in a residential unit within the development that requires: (1) the disclosure and notification requirement stated herein; (2) an acknowledgment by all grantees or lessees that the property is located within an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area; and (3) acknowledgment that the covenant is binding for the benefit and in favor of the City of Newport Beach.

3. West Newport Mesa Area (HO-2). The following development standards shall only apply to projects with the West Newport Mesa Area:
a. West Newport Mesa Streetscape Master Plan. Any residential or mixed-use residential development shall implement applicable components of the adopted West Newport Mesa Streetscape Master Plan.

4. Coyote Canyon Area (HO-5). The following development standards shall only apply to projects with the Coyote Canyon Area:
a. Public Park. Any future residential development within this subarea shall include a public park that is no less than 3.5 acres, in aggregate. As part of the review for the overall project, the developer shall provide a detailed description of the public park, including timing, dimensions, and location within the project site.
b. Public Trails. Any future residential development shall include public trails for the entire subarea that accommodate multiple modes of transit (i.e., walking and bicycling) and connect to nearby community resources, as well as the existing trail system. As part of the review for the overall project, the developer shall provide a detailed description of the trail system, including timing, dimensions, alignment, and location within the project site.

D. General Development Standards. The following development standards shall apply to all projects within the Housing Opportunity zone, regardless of subarea:

1. Mixed-use developments. All mixed-use developments shall comply with Section

20.48.130 (Standards for Mixed-Use Projects). In addition, a minimum of 50% of the California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 12 of 21 ends

Proposed
floor area of mixed-use developments shall be dedicated to residential uses. For purposes of this section, floor area be defined as all enclosed floor space, but exclude parking garages/spaces, utility areas, and storage areas that are not directly accessible from the interior of a dwelling unit.

2. Landscaped Setbacks. All front and street side setbacks shall be landscaped, except for areas that provide vehicle and pedestrian access to the right-of-way.

3. Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements. Residential parking requirements for projects within the Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones shall be provided in accordance with Table 2-17 below. Parking for all other uses not included in this table shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.40 (Off-Street Parking Requirements) of the NBMC.

TABLE 2-17

RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING FOR HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY ZONES Land Use Subtype Parking Requirement
Residential Studio 1.1 spaces per dwelling unit
(Rental} 1 Bedroom 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
2 Bedrooms 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit
3 Bedrooms 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit
Visitor Parking 0.3 spaces per dwelling unit
Residential Studio 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit
(Ownership} 1 Bedroom 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit
2 Bedrooms 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit
3 Bedrooms 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit
Visitor Parking 0.3 spaces per dwelling unit
E. Review Process. Notwithstanding Sections 20.48.130(A) and 20.52.080, any residential or mixed-use development in the HO Overlay Zones that includes a minimum of 20% of the units reserved for very-low- and low-income residents shall not require a Site Development Review, but shall require an affordable housing implementation plan (AHIP) and shall meet all the following criteria:

1. All units designated as affordable to very-low and/or low-income residents shall be subject to a minimum 30-year affordability covenant;

2. Affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole, but may be smaller and have different interior finishes and features than market-rate units;
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 13 of 21 ends

Proposed

3. Affordable units shall be comparable in the facilities provided (e.g., laundry, recreation, etc.) and in the quality of construction and exterior design to the market rate units; and

4. Affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the residential development.

Subsection 20.48.130(8) shall be amended to include a reference to the HO Overlay Zoning Districts as follows:

B. Development Standards. In addition to the development standards provided in this section, development standards for mixed-use projects are provided in:

1. Table 2-10 (Development Standards for MU-V; MU-MM; MU-DW; and MUCV/1 Sth St.);

2. Table 2-11 (Development Standards for MU-W1 and MU-W2 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts);

3. Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones); and

4. Other sections in this Part 4 for specific uses that may be part of the proposed mixed-use project.

Part 8. Maps, Chapter 20.80 (Maps) is amended to include new Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts maps) as follows:

Sections:

20.80.01 O Area maps.

20.80.020 Bluff overlay.

Chapter 20.80
MAPS

20.80.025 Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts maps.

20.80.030 Height limit areas.

20.80.035 Parking Management Overlay District maps.

20.80.040 Setback maps.

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 14 of 21 ends

Proposed
Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts maps) is added in its entirety to include an indexing of maps as follows:

H0-1 -Airport Area Environs Area (PDF)
H0-2 - West Newport Mesa Area (PDF)
H0-3 - Dover-Westcliff Area (PDF)
H0-4 - Newport Center Area (PDF)
H0-5 - Coyote Canyon Area (PDF)
H0-6 - 5th Cycle Housing Element Sites (PDF)
The corresponding maps for each of the Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts, as indexed in Section 20.80.025 and linked as a PDF, are to be in a similar format to the following series of maps beginning on the next page:

California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 15 of 21 ends

Proposed
1/ ~-,__, I f'--z.____ /Y ">
~Legend
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay (Coastal Zone)
.--- Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay
,. Coastal Zone Boundary
'\, ',;,\\ A "---J· C., 60' maximum
' 0 35' maximum
\'\ ~"'
'
~ /4
:,.~::,..,_' '>..
,.:P
H0-1 Airport Area Environs Area
C,ty of t-l owporl ia<::ic::h
V IS Pi·~i,ion
Jun• "20, lOl•
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 16 of 21 ends

Proposed
Legend
1111 Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay (Coastal Zone)
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay
. \ 1~
/
I
~' ~ ·,.
}-~ ~ $]~
~
' - ~ --
•:'_···•·-
H0-2 West Newport Mesa Area
,,. ... ';sl--
I
Q y Q f N e w pQ rl C-11G1:h
VIS Pi"-.iP>Qn
J u11 1J 20, 1074
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 17 of 21 ends

Proposed
-~ ', -- J<<::, / 'y _, I / "-v tiff / ' ~,/ / " / / -----,I - - ' '/ . / ~ / ', "--., ",
Legend . O,erla y (Coastal Zoae)'X, ", ~
• Opportoel~ S,tes / " '· / '-
"°"""' • l', "' 'y
•
9 Opportoe,ty S,t,s / "-• , < ', 'A oosm / , y-·, Boundary , ~ ·"' ~'"' ll! - ~ ,I
• I
w· ,
!
:J
; , {7A~-', ')?;7~
1/jJ// I t,
, '
•, • \ .
• ~ - ~ -
~~~ ••.. -~
~[;;;j~{g§j~::::_:::-,,t,.,;::r~J;::_
Westcliff Area H0-3 Dover-
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 18 of 21 ends

Proposed
egend
ouslng Opportunity Sites Overlay {Coasta l Zone)
ousing Opportunity Sites ::
oastal Zo
asc\)~u
,,;, ·- - l)
u ·~-- J--..lh
;/~
' j ~ <?
£,
H0-4 Newport Center Area
C'lty of Newporl l •<1ch
G1s p;.,1!,i,Qn
J 11111, '20 , i 0 ?-4
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 19 of 21 ends

Proposed
Le~end ~ '(~ i tj I ( \ ~ ,,_ \1/_ ~~ ,,,A __
11111111 Coastal Zone Boundary ,' \ > / "-<,~
Housing Opportun ity Sites -;/ --====r==~~ :J}'-,>fJ§t
(l ( \.,.._
.'-...I. --------
----
. /
' ,..---. ~ / / ~
?\~\I~
',, / t_.Y\ "'-
- -~ \ ( -
-----
,::,):-----/
/I
!
!
~ ri •
H0- 5 Coyote Canyon Area
Coty Ql New po,1 i>eG~h
VIS Di,.i,ioQn
J1n 11, 20, ?0?-4
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 20 of 21 ends

Proposed
" . -"
..... :
a
f/J~
~,llll
-- • =,,., ~tY/l!Jm · ~ ~~r «;;__01; •
~\j. '~.:· ~ . ~ \ ~~:-);_~ I[// ~ ~~i»
a ,.J
,,
I',
.~· ;t,
I" f--i,
,.., ...

I'. '
Balboa Village
. .
'W'-
H0-6 Existing 5th Cycle Sites
C.1y g,f N1 wpo r1 e.,111:1ch
GI SO;...iJiq n
Jun@ '20, , o?~
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 2

Page 21 of 21 ends

!(
!(
!( !(

KLINE D R

CEIBA PL
PERLA

RAQUETA

CACAO ST

BIRC H ST

EGRET CT

GA NNET LN

CAPITAN C
T
NATA
OTERO

UPPER BAY DR
CANCHA

VALENC IA

SAL ERN O
B
A STIA

INDUS ST
SA
N

MA R CO
VISTA
NO
BLEZA

SILV ER LN

AZU RE AVE

ZENITH AVE

V IST A QU INTA
AMALFI

VISTA UMBRO
SA

CORINT HIA N WAY

REDLAND S D R

BRU INBARK LN

AUGUST LN

QU EDAD A BRINDISI

BAY FA RM PL

BOWSPRIT D R

ORCH ID HILL PL
OND A

PA PER LN

MILA NO DR

VISTA PARADA

NA PLES
PLA YA

V I STA D EL VELA

CORM O RANT CIR

HALF D OME PL

MESA DR
UPTOW

NNEWPORT DR

CAROB ST

RIVERSID E DR

PELIC AN CT

MA RTIN

CORT E HERM
OSA

MA RTINGALE WAY

SHEARWATER
PL

CORTE CALETA

SCOTT D R

BAYVIEW PL

ESTUA RY LN

ORCH ARD D R

PEGASUS ST

SPRUC E ST

COR T E PORTOFINO

NEWPORT PLAC E DR

DOVE ST

QU AIL ST

ORCH ARD D R

BAYVIEW WAY

CASSIA ST

CYPRESS
ST
ALTA
VISTA
DR

BAYPOINTEDR

MESA DR

ANNIVERSARY LN

TELLER AVE

UPPER NE W PORTPLAZADR

VISTA ROMA

VISTA ORNADA

CORTE MA RIN

CATALPA ST

BAYCRESTCT

DOVE ST

ORCH ID ST

SANTA ANA AVE

VISTA SU ERTE

MAC ARTHURCT

BAY VIEW AVE

ACACIA ST

GOLDEN C IR

QU AIL ST

CYPRESS ST

WESTERLY PL

SPRUC E AVE

BAYVIEW C IR

FA IRCH ILD RD

UNIVERSITY DR

VISTA DEL ORO

LA SALUD

BRISTOL ST N

BRISTOL ST

CAMPUS DR

LA VIDA

BRISTOL ST

BIRCH ST

BRISTOL ST N

CAMPUS DR

BIRCH ST

MESA DR

IRVINE AVE

VON KARMAN AVE

CAMPUS DR

BRISTOL ST

BACK BAY DR

JAMBOREE RD

EASTBLUFFDR

MACARTHUR BLVD

UNIVERSITY DR

JAMBOREE RD

MACARTHUR BLVD
Bayview Park
Eastbluff Park &
Boys and Girls Club
Bonita
Creek Park
Mesa
Birch
Park
Uptown
Park
A
A
B
B
HO-1 Airport Area Environs Area.mxd
0 1,250625
FeetI
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
October 04, 2024
HO-1 Airport Area Environs Area
A
B
60' maximum
35' maximum
Legend
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay (Coastal Zone)
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay
Coastal Zone Boundary
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 3

Page 1 of 4 ends

n
15TH ST

ORANGE AVE

HOLMWOOD DR

PARIS LN
NICELN

LA JOLLA DR
STARE
LN

BEACON ST
16TH ST W

MC NEIL LN

LILLE LN

RIVER AVE
ARIE
S
CT

SEASCAPE DR
MOJOCT
51ST ST
SERENA
CT

NEPTUNE AVE

T R IBUTECT
50TH ST

INTREPIDST

HAMPTON DR

ODYS SEYCT

WALLACE AVE
ROBO
N
CT

LIDO SANDS CT

SPINDRIFT WAY
49TH ST
REIMS
LN

LAND F ALLCT

KAM A LII CT

GRETELCT
16TH ST W
S
W
IFT CT

BARUNA CT

ORION WAY

BOLERO WAY
48TH ST

FARAD ST

HILARIA WAY

DANA RD

PATRICE RD

OHMS WAY

TICONDEROGA ST KIALOA
CT

BABCOCK ST
46TH ST

COLUMBIA ST

CLIFF DR
47TH ST
BRID

G EWATER WAY

CAGNEYLN

MEDICAL LN
ENC
ORE CT

HOAG RD S
IM
A
LOA CT

HOAG DR

FLAGSHIP RD

NEWTON WAY

BALBOA COVES

EBB TIDE CIR

WESTMINSTER AVE

LA JOLLA LN

SANTA ANA AVE

PLACENTIA AVE

SOMERTON
D R

NEWHALL ST

JAMES ST

SUNSET DR SHALIMAR DR

BROAD ST

HALYARD

AVON ST

POMONA AVE

PARK DR

HOSPITAL RD

MONROVIA AVE

HOAG RD W

INDUSTRIAL WAY
15TH ST W

CATALINA DR

WHITTIER AVE

LIDO SANDS DR

PRODUCTION PL
17TH ST 17TH ST

OLD NEWPORT BLVD

PLACENTIA AVE

NEWPORT BLVD
BALBOA
BLVD
NEW

PORTBLVD

COAST HWY W

SUPERIOR AVE

SUPERIOR AVE
Bolsa
Park
Sunset
View Park
Channel
Place Park
Cliff
Drive
Park
Sunset
Ridge Park
Coastline
Community
College
HO-2 West Newport Mesa Area.mxd
0 740370
FeetI
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
November 19, 2024
HO-2 West Newport Mesa Area
Legend
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay (Coastal Zone)
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay
Coastal Zone Boundary
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 3

Page 2 of 4 ends

n
n
n
n
n

FINLEY AVE

VILLA WAY

FREMONT ST

HOLMWOOD DR

MEDINA WAY

ALVARADO PL

CORONADO ST

WINSLOW LN

ISLAND AVE

MONTERO AVE
LINDO
AVE

ANADE AVE
06TH ST

LA JOLLA DR

BEACH DR

SHORT ST

LAKE AVE

MARCUS AVE

MC FADDENPL

WESTMINSTER AVE
14TH ST
15TH ST
09TH ST
10TH ST
11TH ST
12TH ST
13TH ST

KINGS RD

STARELN

OHMS WAY

BEACON ST

LAFAYETTE AVE

BOLSA AVE
17TH ST
16TH ST
18TH ST

VIA MALAGA
31ST ST

RAYMOND AVE

SANTA ANA AVE
15TH ST

CHANNEL PL

CLIFF DR

OCEAN FRONT ALLEY W

OCEAN FRONT W

BEACON ST

BUCKINGHAM LN

BEDFORD LN
17TH PL
22ND ST
16TH ST W

KENT LN
07TH ST

MC NEIL LN

CLUBHOUSE AVE

ALISO AVE

POWELL PL
32ND ST
08TH ST BAY AVE E

KINGS PL
19TH ST
21ST PL

CASTAWAYS LN

RIVO ALTO

STRADA YELLA

ZURICHCIR

DONALDPL
23RD ST

ALDEAN PL

GARY PL

MICHAEL PL

PAR K PL

VIACORDOVA
38TH ST

SPINDRIFT WAY

VISTA DR
REIMS
LN

VIA FERMO

BOLIVAR ST

BOLERO WAY

ORION WAY

ANZA ST
MARINO
DR

HILARIA WAY

DANA RD CAMBRIDGE CIR
33RD ST
34TH ST

P ATRICE RD

VIA FLORENCE
35TH ST

ORANGE AVE

VIA DIJON

COURT AVE
16TH ST

ARBOR DR

ANDOVER LN

VIA HAVRE
27TH ST
26TH ST
24TH ST
25TH ST

VIA SAN REMO
28TH ST

CENTRAL AVE

VIA RAVENNA

WAVERLY DR
36TH ST

STRADA QUITO

STRADA DIJON

VIA QUITO

OGLE CIR
29TH ST

CORNWALL LN

HARBOR ISLAND

STRADA PALERMO
RIALTO

VIA PALERMO

CAPE ANDOVER

MEDICAL LN

VIA ORVIETO

CAPEWOODBURY

VIA EBOLI

VIA NICE

CAGNEYLN

MARINERS DR

STRADA MENTONE

VILELLE PL

EL PASEO ST

VIA MENTONE

FLOWER ST

STRADA LORCA
21ST ST

VIA LORCA

DRAKE ST

VIA KORON

CRESTA DR

POMONA AVE
20TH ST

CHANNEL RD

CAPE DANBURY

STRADA FLORENCE

BAY AVE W

OCEAN FRONT ALLEY W

OCEAN FRONT W

VIA JUCAR

BAY AVE W

ABBIE WAY

LAUREL PL

VIA YELLA
30TH ST

STRADA ITHACASTRADA HAVRE

VIA FIRENZE

HOAG RD S

CASTAWAYS NORTH

VIA ITHACA

STRADA XANTHE

CLAY ST

VIA GENOA

VIA GRAZIANA

HOAG DR

RAMONA PL

RAMONA WAY

FLAGSHIP RD

VIA XANTHE

LA PERLE PL

VIA WAZIERS

ST ANDREWS RD

VIA VENEZIA

EBB TIDE CIR
LA JOLLA LN 15TH ST

HAVEN PL

RUTLAND
RD

STRADA UNDINE

ST JAMES RD

PEMBROKELN

VIA UNDINE
15TH ST W

PRODUCTION PL

STRADA TRIESTE

VIA TRIESTE

PLACENTIA AVE

ST JAMESPL
18TH ST

CIRCLE DR

BALBOA COVES

LENWOOD DR

ALISO AVE

RIVERSIDE AVE

SAN BERNARDINO AVE

FULLERTON AVE

EL MODENA AVE

REDLANDS A VE

TUSTIN AVE

SANTA ANA AVE

TUSTIN AVE

KNOX PL
16TH ST

KNOX ST

P ALMER ST

CLAY ST

BROAD ST

VIA OPORTO

LIDO PARK DR

LA PERLE LN

BUENAVISTABLVD

LINDA ISLE

HOSPITAL RD

SHIPYARD
W
AY

CRESTVIEW DR

BROADWAY

CORAL PL

HOAG RD W

ROCHESTER ST

INDUSTRIAL WAY

OCEAN VIEW AVE

PIRATE RD

RHINE THE

SEA GULL LN

SNUG HARBOR RD SIGNAL RD

ANCHORAGE WAY

NEWPORTPIER

A VON ST

MAGNOLIA ST
16TH PL

OGLE ST

CABRILLO ST

MARGARET DR

HOLLY LN

OLD NEWPORT BLVD

CATALINA DR
16TH ST

SHERINGTON PL

BAY SHORE DR

VIA LIDONORD
32ND ST
VIA
LIDO
SOU
D

VIA LIDO NORD

VIA LIDO S OUD

IRVINE AVE

WESTCLIFF DR

CLIFF DR

RIVERSIDE AVE

PLACENTIA AVE

VIA LIDO

DOVER DR

CLIFF DR

DOVER DR
17TH ST

BALBOA BLVD W

NEWPORT BLVD

SUPERIOR AVE
NEW

PORTBLVD

BALBOA BLVD E

COAST HWY E

NEWPORT BLVD

SUPERIOR AVE

COAST HWY W

COAST HWY W
Bob Henry
Park
Castaways
Park
Bolsa
Park
Sunset
View Park
Kings
Road Park
Veterans
Memorial
Park
Rhine
Wharf
Park
Gateway
Park
Lido
Park
John Wayne
Park
Mariners
Park
Cliff
Drive Park
Marina Park
Marina
Park
(Docks)
Lower
Castaways
Park
Mariners
Elementary
Newport
Heights
Elementary
Newport Elementary
Ensign
Intermediate
School
Newport
Harbor HS
HO-3 Dover-Westcliff Area.mxd
0 1,200600
FeetI
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
October 04, 2024
HO-3 Dover-Westcliff Area
Legend
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay (Coastal Zone)
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay
Coastal Zone Boundary
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 3

Page 3 of 4 ends

n
n
n
n
E
D
FD GC
C
A
B

SE A PINE LN

BALBOA AVE

FOURTH AVE

RUEVILLARS

ACACIA AVE

CELTIS PL

HIDALGO
ENCINA

BLUE KEY

VENTAJA

DESCANSO

ALBA ST

CERCIS PL

BAYSWATE R

BIXIA ST
FELIZ

ABALONE DR

COLONY PLZ

HILVANAR

BAY FRONT ALLE Y E

ALMOND PL

TIE RRA

AUGUSTA LN
BAY
COVE
LN

BAY FRONT S

MARITIME DR
BRITT
A NY
DARTMO
UTH
FO
RTUNA
BAJA

BE XLEY DR

CARLOTTA

CITRUS PL
SING

LETREEDR

SHOAL DR

OYSTER BAY DR

RUE DU PARC

NAUT ILUS LN
FIESTA

MARAPATA DR

PATOLITA DR

TRADEWINDS LN

RAMONADR
R

UE CHANTILLY

EVITA DR

SEAVISTA
DR

BACK BAY DR

LAVER WAY

BARRANCA

MONTECARLO

CHESHIRE CT

HAMPSHIRE LN

MALLORCADR
CAN
YON
CT

SAN SIMEON DR

SALT AIR CIR
TOYON
LN

LOCHMOOR LN

MAINSAIL DR

JUPITER HILLS DR

CATAMARAN DR

ALDE R PL

MAIDSTONE DR

K-THANG
A
DR

SE AFARING DR

RUEBIARRITZ

RUEVALBONNE

ZAHMA DR

ALI CAN
TE
VINTAG
E
DR
WINGED
FOO
TLN

VISTA UMBROSA

SHELLMAKER RD

CHATHAM CT

ASHF ORD LN

CANYON CRE ST DR

OAK TREEDR
SAN
BRUNO

OAKMONT LN

JADE AVE

MARINE AVE

TIDEPOOL DR

RAQUETA

CARTAGENA

POLARISDR
PO
SADA

CHERRYHILLS
LN
DEERW
O
OD
LN
TORREY

PINESLN

AVEN IDA CAM
PO

THUNDERB IRD DR

CAMPHOR ST

INLET DR
RUE
G

RANDDUCAL
BELCO
URT
DR

CREST CIR

MALABAR DR

ESTELLE LN

HOLIDAY RD

KEEL DR

STARBOARDWAY

CROW N DR
SEABRO
OK
COVE
SPRING
TIDEDR

AVENIDA

CERRITOS

OUTRIGGERDR

BE LLIS ST

ALEPPO ST

CRYSTAL AVE

WEYBRIDGE CT

SANTANA DR

WINDOVE R DR

VISTA LAREDO

LEESBURY CT

LAURENT

SANTA ROSA DR

SANDBAR DR
VISTA
FLO
RA

CORSICA
DR

HUNTINGTON
C
T

SANDCASTLEDR

SANDALWOOD LN

VISTA DEL VELA

JETTY DR

NE WPORT HILLS DR W
VISTA
ROMA

SE A COVE LN

GLENW OOD LN

BUTTONSHELL LN

KEWAMEE DR

BISON AVE

HAMPSHIRECIR

EBBT IDE RD

DIAMOND AVESAPPHIRE AVE ABALONE AVE

RUBY AVE

PROMONTORYDR
W

BEACHCOMBER DR

BARRIER REEF DR
BUN
GALOW
PL
PA
UMA
LN

PORT SEABOURNEWAY
W

AVECREST DR

COLONIAL DR

PORT SUT TON DR
VISTA
DO
RADO

CORAL AVE

GRAND CANAL

AMETHYST AVE

APOLE NA AVE ONYX AVE

HONORS DR

CYPRESSPOINTLN

SKYLARK LN

VALENCIA

EL DORADO LN

BOMBERO ST
G

LENEAGLES
DR

CATALPA ST

CAMPANILE

CURL DR

PORT SHE FFIELD PL

EVE NING STAR LN
E

DGEWOOD DR

CANYON ISLAND DR

VIST A DEL SOL

CORELLA

CANDLESTICK LN

PORT ASHLEY PL

BAY FRONT E

LONG BAY DR

PORT CARNEY PL

ALTA VISTA DR
LOGGIA

RUE VERTE

RUEGR AN

DVALLEE

HARBOR WOODS PL

PINEVALLEY LN
VISTA
HUERTA

VISTAMADERA

PORT W ESTBOURNE PL

PARK NEW PORT DR

INVERNESS LN

CROWN DR N

JASMINECREEK DR
SAILHO
USELN

EL PASEO DR

ATOLL DR

HARBOR POINTE

PORT EDWARD PL

VIST A DE L PLAYA

TURNBERRYDR
OLD

COURSEDR

PORTSIDE WAY

PORT STIRLING PL

VIST A HOGAR

BAYSIDECOV E E
M
ARSALA
DR

PORT MARGATE PL

SE ADRIFT DR
PINE

HURSTLN

VILAGGIO

ARCH BAY DR

SAN CLEMENT E DR

PORT BARMOUTH PL
NEW
PORTER
WAY

MARINERS
DR

RUEFONTAINEBLEAU

TROON DR

CHUBASCO DR
VISTA
G
RANDE
A ST

ARALIA ST

PORT CHARLES PL

SURFLINE WAY

BAYSIDECO
VEW

A VOCADO A VE
BELCO
URTDR
SANTA

CRUZ DR

VIST A ENT RADA
VISTA
TRUCHA
RIVOLI

RUE CANNES

OCEAN VISTA

SE TTING SUN DR
ALTA
VISTA
DR

SANTIAGO
DR
BAYW
OO
D
DR
SO
UTHERN
HILLS
DR

VIST A CAUDAL

PORT BISHOP PL

PORT STANHOPE PL

PORT TRINIT Y PL
PO

RTMANLEIGH CIR

SAN JOAQUIN HILLS PL
C

ROOKED STICK DR

PORTTIFFIN
PL

CORPORATE PLZ

CIVIC CENTER DR

VILLA POINT DR

MARGUERITE AVE
DO
M
ING
O
DR

CASSIA ST

SKYSAIL DR

GOLDE NROD AVE

SEACRESTDR

PORTMANLEIGHPL

PORT ABBEY PL

FORD RD

CENT ER DR

BAY HILL DR

HERMITAGELN

NORTH STAR LN

ISLAND VIEW DR

CLUBHOUSE DR

ALDERWOOD DR

ANACAPA
DR

SPANISH BAY DR

VIST A BONITA

ROYAL SAINTGEORGE RD

PORT LAURE NT PL

PORT RENW ICK PL

ROCKINGHAM DR

ALTURA DR

PE BBLE DR

LIGHTHO
USELN

PORT KIMBE RLY PL

SEAISLANDDR

TAHUNA TER

HART FORD DR

MUIRFIELD
BLUEW
ATER
DR

SABRINA T ER

A VOCADO A VE

DOLPHIN TER

SE RE NADE TER

CAROB ST

PORTCARLOW
PL
AMIGO
S
W
AY

PORT TAGGART PL

BURNING TREE RD

SE A LN
SANTA
M
ARIA
RD

WHITE SAILS WAY

PORT W HEE LE R PL

SOUTHAMPTON CT

NEWPORTHILLSDR E

ANTIGUA
W
AY
CO

UNTRYCLUBDR
BAMBOO
ST

BASSWOOD S T

HIGHBLUFFDR

SEARIDGEDR

GALATEATER

ARBUTUS ST

SAN NICOLASDR

BUCKEYEST

BAYADERETER
VISTA
CAJO
N

GALAXY DR

RE SIDE NCIA

SANTANE LLA TE R

PACIFIC VIE W DR

NORTHAMPTON CT

BLACKTHORN ST

WINDWARD LN

BONNIE DOONE T ER

BUNYA ST

LE EWARD LN
G

RANVILLE
DR

SANTIAGO DR

HILLSDALE DR

PROMON TORY DR E
CANYON
FAIRW
AYDR

GALAXY DR

P ARK AVE
M

ARINEAVE

LA FELICIDAD

VISTADEL ORO

IRVINE AVE

LASALUD
VISTA
DELORO

MARGUERITE AVE

JAMBOREERD

HARBOR VIEW DR

NEWPORTCENTERDRE

MAR VISTA DR
NEW
PORT

CENTERDR
SAN

MIGUELDR

BIG CANYON DR

BAYSIDE DR

SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD

BIG CANYON DR

BACK BAY DR

BIG CANYON DR
NEW

PORTCENTER
DR
W

CAMELBACK ST

SAN MIGUEL DR

SANTA BARBARA DR

BAYSIDE DR
BACK
BAYDR

BACKBAYDR

JAMBOREE RD

EASTBLUFFDR

JAMBOREE RD

MACARTHURBLVD

FORD RD

BISON AVE

COAST HWY E

BONITA CANYON DR

COAST HWY E

SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD

MACARTHUR BLVD

SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD

EASTBLUFF DR

MACARTHUR
BLVD

JAMBOREE RD

MACARTHUR BLVD
Bonita Canyon
Sports Park
North Star
Beach
Civic
Center Park
Harbor View
Nature Park
Eastbluff Park
& Boys and
Girls Club
San Joaquin
Hills Park & Lawn
Bowling Center
Newport
Aquatic
Center
Lincoln
Athletic
Center
Back Bay
View Park
Buffalo
Hills Park
Galaxy
View Park
Arroyo Park
Irvine
Terrace
Park
Myrtle Park
Big Canyon
Park
Dog Park
Corona Del
Mar HS
Lincoln
Elementary
Eastbluff
Elementary
School
Corona Del Mar
Middle School
165
195
190
185
180
175
170
160
155
150145
140
HO-4 Newport Center Area_Height_Exceptions.mxd
0 1,500750
FeetI
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
June 13, 2025
HO-4 Newport Center Area
Legend
Newport Center Sight Plane
Height Exception Area
Coastal Zone Boundary
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay (Coastal Zone)
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay
32 feet (flat) / 37 feet (sloped)
48 feet
70 feet
85 feet
110 feet
150 feet
270 feet
B
A
E
C
DG
D
DF
California Coastal Commission
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2
Exhibit 3

Page 4 of 4 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast District Office
301 E Ocean Blvd., Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802-4830
(562) 590-5071

1 F11a

ADDENDUM
DATE: April 16, 2026
TO: Coastal Commissioners and Interested Parties
FROM: South Coast District Staff
Subject: ADDENDUM TO ITEM F11a, LCPA APPLICTION NO. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 (City of Newport Beach) FOR THE COMMISSION MEETING ON April 17, 2026 This addendum is designed to achieve the following objectives. Section I updates the record by supplementing it with correspondence that the Commission received after the staff report was issued. Section II provides responses to concerns raised in the recent correspondence, which Commission staff proposes the Commission incorporate into its findings, and Section III addresses changes to the staff report I. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
Since the publication of the staff report on April 3, 2026, the Commission received approximately 15 letters from members of the public, including members of Protect our Coast Newport Beach and Members of Residents to Save Newport Beach Golf Course, opposing the proposed LCP amendment with regard to the potential loss of open space and recreational uses, safety risks and ecological concerns (development of housing units in a floodplain and under the flight path of John Wayne Airport proximity to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve) particularly as it applies to Housing Opportunity Sites 23, 24, 25, and 26 located at the Newport Beach Golf Course (hereafter referred to as the Golf Course Parcels). Staff also received letters opposing the project from Chris Pederson and Jim Mosher regarding the lack of affordable housing provided with the subject LCPA (both addressed specifically below); and one letter from the City of Newport Beach requesting revisions to Suggested Modification 6, which also pertains to the Golf Course parcels. All of the comment letters have been posted with Correspondence for this item. Thus, the following is added as a Response to Comments section of the staff report dated April 17, 2026 (as section IV. C of the staff report on page 25, thus renumbering the CEQA section as section D.

2 II. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Commission received multiple letters regarding the proposed amendment. Many of the comments raised similar or overlapping concerns related to the preservation of open space uses, adequate protection of biological resources, coastal hazards, and the scale and intensity of potential development. Accordingly, for clarity and efficiency, staff has organized and addressed these comments by issue area in the form of contentions below. Each contention reflects one or more recurring concerns raised in the correspondence, and staff’s responses address these issues collectively.

Response to Comments from the City of Newport Beach
On April 8, 2026, the City of Newport Beach submitted comments focused on Suggested Modification 6 related to Housing Opportunity sites at the Golf Course Parcels and proposed revised language to provide more flexibility with the 100-ft buffer recommended by staff. Specifically, the City contends that staff’s recommended buffer is unnecessarily restrictive and constrains the feasibility of housing development on the sites. According to the City, the adjacent Santa Ana Delhi Channel Project, since it is preliminary/speculative in nature, requires additional coordination with the County and adjacent property owners, and is subject to potential design changes that could include a joint maintenance road and multi-use trail.

As stated in the staff report, the Orange County Department of Public Works (OCPW) is currently seeking a CDP from the Commission for the Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project (SAD). This project primarily proposes to widen the existing channel to 100 ft in order to be compliant with regulations set forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The proposed project would also create expanded habitat comprised of freshwater marsh, riparian transitional habitat, and coastal salt marsh habitat- all of which has been required by USACE as mitigation for work that has been conducted on the channel since 1986. In order to establish the required habitat areas, the County needs to acquire portions of the Golf Course Parcels through an easement.

Upon receiving the easement, the CDP, and all other entitlements, the project would result in new habitat areas that would be established directly on the Golf Course Parcels. As noted in the staff report, the Commission’s Ecology Team has indicated that the habitat proposed in this project would constitute environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) that requires special protections under the certified LCP and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

Contrary to the City’s assertions in its comment letter, the SAD project is not a speculative project. As previously noted, the SAD channel widening is being required by USACE to increase flood capacity, create habitat, and slow creek flow velocity to prevent scouring of Upper Newport Bay, so the probability of the project being abandoned is very slim. Moreover, in recent conversations between Commission staff and OCPW, OCPW indicated that the project could begin as early as Spring 2027, depending on when all the requisite entitlements (including the CDP) are obtained.

OCPW has submitted a CDP application to the Commission’s South Coast District

3 office, and District staff is actively collaborating with County staff to finalize their application materials and schedule a Commission hearing once the project has been thoroughly analyzed.

Given that the SAD channel project is not speculative as implied in the City’s comment letter, it is imperative for the Commission to consider the potential new ESHA areas when considering long-term planning policies for residential development that could adversely impact biological resources. This consideration for sensitive biological resources is not only required pursuant to Section 30240 of the Coastal Act, but also in the certified LCP. Among the policies listed in Pages 18-20 of the staff report, LUP policy

4.1.1-4 requires the protection of ESHA from significant disruption of habitat values, LUP Policy 4.1.1-20 requires a minimum buffer of 50 ft. wherever possible, and LUP Policies 4.1.1-11 and 4.1.1-12 outline vegetation requirements for ESHA buffers.

Additionally, certified IP Chapter 21.30B.030(D) requires a minimum 50 ft. wide buffer for ESHA.

As detailed in the staff report, the proposed amendment does not establish sufficient standards to ensure the protection of biological resources and open space functions on these sites. In the absence of such standards, development could encroach into ESHA or reduce the effectiveness of a future habitat and recreational corridor. Thus, the recommended 50 ft-foot ESHA buffer required in Suggested Modification 6 is intended to ensure adequate protection of habitat function and long-tern ecological viability.

It should be acknowledged that the LUP and IP policies referenced above do contain language that allows for reductions to the minimum 50-ft. ESHA buffer requirement in limited circumstances where it can be demonstrated a 50-ft. ESHA buffer is infeasible due to site constrains and a narrower buffer would be equally protective of the biological integrity of ESHA.
1 However, in this case, the City’s anticipated development of up to 700 medium-density residential units on these sites would adversely impact biological resources (including the planned SAD-created ESHA) if an adequate ESHA buffer is not maintained. Moreover, the Commission’s Ecology team has continued to recommend that a minimum 100 ft. buffer (comprised of a 50 ft. ESHA buffer and a 50 ft. transitional buffer) should be maintained throughout the site in order to provide adequate protection for ESHA. Thus, staff continues to recommend that the 50-ft. required ESHA buffer in Suggested Modification 6 not allow for exceptions to reduce the buffer width.

In addition to a 50-ft. ESHA buffer, Commission staff is recommending an additional 50- ft. transitional buffer pursuant to Suggested Modification 6. As explained in the staff report, this buffer requirement is necessary to ensure that future development does not preclude or constrain and public access and recreation opportunities on sites that have base zoning designations of open space/Parks. In response to the City’s contention regarding flexible buffers, Commission staff evaluated the Golf Course sites and determined that a 50 ft. transitional buffer is the minimum buffer necessary to provide a

1 Note: both criteria must be met under the certified IP for an exception to apply.

4 meaningful public access/recreation component. Moreover, as explained in more detail below, the land area that would be impacted by Commission staff’s recommended buffers is relatively small compared to the area that would be available to accommodate multifamily residential development projects.

The City’s response letter also notes that proposed future improvements under the SAD project may include a maintenance road or multi-use trail and suggests that such features could help determine the appropriate buffer. However, the presence or potential infrastructure does not eliminate the need for biologically protective buffers. Buffers are required to protect habitat areas from indirect impacts such as noise, lighting, human activity, and runoff, and to maintain the long-term success of adjacent habitat areas. As such, infrastructure such as maintenance roads or trails do not, in and of themselves, provide adequate protection of biological resources. The recommended buffer and open space corridor requirements are therefore necessary to ensure that both habitat protection and public access objectives are achieved. However, the City does raise a valid point that Suggested Modification 6, as currently recommended, does not account for the possibility of a path for channel maintenance and/or public access within the 50-ft. ESHA buffer. Therefore, Commission staff is recommending modifications to Suggested Modification 6 to address the potential for such a path, as detailed in Section III (Changes to Staff Report) of this addendum.

With regard to site constraints, the City asserts that a uniform 100-foot buffer would substantially reduce the developable area of the sites and limit the feasibility of housing development. While the recommended buffer may constrain the area available for development, it does not prevent residential use on the subject sites.

Based on available site information, the proposed 100-foot buffer would preserve approximately 4.97 acres of the 13.9-acre golf course area (or as open space to accommodate biological resource protection and passive recreational use. This would leave approximately 8.9 acres (or 65% of the total site area) available for potential residential development, as shown in Figure 1 below, which is an exhibit prepared by the Commission’s mapping unit illustrating the buffer areas and resulting development footprint.

5 Figure 1. Illustration depicting a 50-foot buffer (in yellow) and 100-foot buffer (in black) for the Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project.

6 The proposed amendment does not approve any specific development or guarantee a particular density on any site. The amount and configuration of development will be determined through future coastal development permit review, where site-specific constraints, including ESHA protection, public access, and hazard considerations, must be addressed.

Response to Comments from Jim Mosher
The Commission received correspondence from Jim Mosher on April 10, 2026. The comment is included in the correspondence for this item. Mr. Mosher raises several concerns regarding the proposed amendment, including whether the use of Housing Opportunity Overlay districts is consistent with recent court decisions interpreting state housing law, where the amendment could result in excessive residential density or height increases that may affect coastal views, whether the proposed polices adequately protect visitor-serving and marine related priority uses, and whether the amendment provides sufficient clarity regarding implementation, including mapping and permitting processes. He also raises concerns regarding the potential use of administrative approvals, such as Directors Determination, to implement changes without a Local Coastal Program amendment.

Mr. Mosher raises concerns with the proposed LCP amendment’s compliance with state housing law, particularly regarding the use of housing opportunity overlays to meet affordable housing obligations. Mr. Mosher states that the City’s Housing Element is no longer compliant with state housing law and that the Housing Opportunity Overlay is similar to those invalidated in two recent cases where housing overlay districts have been ruled invalid. Mr. Mosher’s concerns are outside of the Commission’s scope of review for this matter. The Commission’s standard of review for the proposed amendment to the certified IP is whether the amendment, as modified, conforms with and is adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP, and the standard of review for the amendment to the certified LUP is whether the amendment, as modified, conforms with and is adequate to carry out the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. In any case, the City of Newport Beach has stated that it believes that its Housing Element complies with state housing law, The City’s 6
th Cycle Housing Element was deemed
certified and compliant with State law by Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 5, 2022, within the required deadline.

Regarding concerns related to density, height, and potential impact to coastal views, Mr.

Mosher notes that a portion of the City’s coastal zone is subject to the Shoreline Height Limitation, and that the amendment is not clear how the proposed HO Overlay development standards would be made consistent with the Shoreline Height Limit. Mr.

Mosher further notes that because the proposed density limits are described as averages over a site, even higher densities and heights could be allowed, which could adversely impact visual resources. In response to Mr. Mosher’s concerns, the Coastal Act requires that new development be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, consistent with section 30251. In addition, certified

7 IP Chapter 21.30.100 (Scenic and Visual Quality Protection) provides specific visual resource protection policies that all projects within the City’s LCP jurisdiction must meet in order to receive a CDP. As mentioned throughout the staff report, the proposed amendment does not, in and of itself, approve any specific residential development projects. All future development under the Housing Opportunity Overlay would be required to comply with applicable Coastal Act and certified LCP policies, including those governing scenic and visual resources and would be subject to coastal development permit review to ensure consistency with those standards. Moreover, Section 21.32.020B of the certified IP- which relates to Coastal Act Consistency policies related to density bonus projects- prohibits waivers or concessions related to the coastal resource protection development regulations, including Chapter 21.30.100.

With respect to the protection of visitor-serving, marine-related, and other priority coastal uses, Mr. Mosher raises concerns regarding whether such uses would be adequately protected in cases where they do not currently exist on sites with different base land use designations. As discussed in the staff report, Suggested Modifications 2, 5, and 7 require that residential development be permitted only in addition to, and not in place of, existing or planned priority uses. These modifications also require that where such uses are removed or reduced, they must be retained, replaced or provided through functionally equivalent uses that maintain comparable capacity and public availability. These requirements apply regardless of whether such uses are currently present on a site and are intended to ensure that land designated or appropriate for priority coastal uses is not lost .

Mr. Mosher also raises questions regarding the clarity of policy language and implementation mechanisms, including the identification of Housing Opportunity sites and the relationship between the LUP, IP, and Housing Element. The Commission review focuses on whether the certified LCP , as modified, provides sufficient standards to guide development and ensure consistency with the Coastal Act. The amendment, as modified, is implemented through the certified IP, which establishes the applicable zoning, development standards, and permitting governing development with the coastal zone.

Mr. Mosher also raises concerns regarding the clarity and content of proposed LUP policy 2.1.11, including provisions related to the reservation and prioritization of dwelling units within the Coastal Zone. In response to these concerns, the City has indicated that it supports the removal of the provisions reserving 25% of allocated dwelling units within the Coastal Zone and prioritizing those units following certification of the LCPA.

The City agrees that these provisions are not necessary to implement the Housing Opportunity Overlay and could create confusion regarding the application of development limits within the Coastal Zone. Accordingly, the suggested modifications have been revised to remove these changes to ensure clarity and consistency within the certified L U P.

8 With respect to concerns regarding the potential use of administrative approvals, such as Director’s Determinations, to effectuate changes without a Local Coastal Program amendment, any changes to land use designations, zoning, or permitted uses within the coastal zone must be consistent with the certified LCP and, where applicable, require approval of an LCP amendment by the Commission. The proposed amendment does not alter these requirements.

Finally, Mr. Mosher identifies several minor issues, including typographical errors and clarifications related to figures, tables, and cross-references within the staff report and proposed amendment. Staff has reviewed these comments and, where appropriate, has incorporated corrections and clarifications into this addendum and the revised findings.

Response to Comments from Chris Pedersen
The Commission received an email from Christopher Pederson on April 9, 2026, which raises concerns regarding the potential consistency of the suggested modifications with state housing law. Specifically, Mr. Pederson asserts that the suggested modifications may reduce the amount of housing that could be developed on Housing Opportunity Overlay sites and that the staff does not evaluate whether the modifications would affect the City’s ability to meet its obligations under the state housing law. Mr. Pederson further states that the Commission should not act on the amendment without the analysis demonstrating that the City can continue to comply with those obligations.

Public Resources Code Section 30007 provides that the Coastal Act does not exempt local governments from compliance with state housing law. At the same time, The Commission’s standard of review for amendment to a certified IP is whether the amendment, as modified, conforms with and is adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP , and the standard of review for an amendment to a certified LUP is whether the amendment, as modified, conforms with and is adequate to carry out the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. These policies include, among others, the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas, public access and visitor-serving and coastal dependent uses.

The City’s adopted 6
th Cycle Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in October 2022, and the City retains responsibility for maintaining compliance with applicable state housing law requirements. Under state housing law, local governments are required to identify and zone adequate sites to accommodate their assigned housing needs, and implementation of those requirements remains the responsibility of the city.

Though the Commission’s standard of review of the LCP amendment does not include an analysis on a local government’s ability to comply with state housing law, the City has not raised concerns about the City’s ability to comply with state housing law if the Commission’s suggested modifications are adopted. The City has raised concerns that Suggested Modification 6 would limit HO-1 area’s ability to serve as a housing opportunity because of the reduction of developable area on two of the parcels that

9 comprise that overlay area. However, the City has not provided any quantitative evidence that this affects their ability to meet their RNHA obligations. As explained above, the buffers are necessary to preserve biological resources and still allows for 65% of the parcels to be developed. As explained in the staff report, several of the sites that are included in the proposed overlay have current base designations that relate to visitor-serving commercial uses, marine commercial uses, and parks and recreation uses. Pages 18-20 of the staff report detail several relevant certified LUP policies and Coastal Act Chapter 3 policies that require prioritization and protection of such uses. While the Commission understands and is supportive of the statewide need for more housing, the certified LCP and the Coastal Act have clearly mandated the need to protect visitor serving, coastal-dependent marine, and recreational uses. Thus, in evaluating the proposed LUP/IP Amendment, Commission staff determined that the suggested modifications are necessary to ensure that residential development within the coastal zone is sited and designed to avoid the displacement of high priority uses as designated in the certified LCP and the Coastal Act. The modifications are not intended to preclude residential development from occurring on sites but rather establish standards to ensure that such development occurs in a manner that adequately preserves priority uses in the Coastal Zone. The amendment does not approve any specific development project or authorize a specific number of units an any site. The ultimate amount and location of development will be determined through future project- level review and implementation by the City.

The Commission’s action on this amendment does not determine or alter the City’s obligations under state housing law. The City retains responsibility for complying with applicable housing law requirements, including Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations.

Response to other Comments
Open Space and Recreation
Several letters of correspondence opposing the project expressed concerns that the proposed Housing Opportunity Overlay would result in the loss of open space and recreational uses, particularly on sites currently designated for parks, recreation, or open space, including the Newport Beach Golf Course. Commenters stated that these areas provide important recreational opportunities and contribute to community character and environmental quality.

As explained in the staff report, the proposed amendment, as modified, does not require or mandate the conversion of such uses to residential development. Instead, Suggested Modification 6 and 7 ensure where residential development is proposed on sites designated for parks, recreation, or open space, such development must be sited and designed to retain, replace, or provide functionally equivalent recreational and open space uses that maintain comparable public access and availability.

10 In addition, Suggested Modification 6 requires the provision of a contiguous open space corridor and public recreational amenities on sites adjacent to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel, ensuring that open space functions are preserved and enhanced.

Therefore, the amendment, as modified, does not result in the loss of open space or recreational opportunities, but instead ensures their continued provision consistent with the Coastal Act and certified LCP.

Biological Resources and ESHA
The Commission received correspondence expressing concern that residential development on sites adjacent to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel could adversely impact sensitive habitat areas, including the Upper Newport Bay ecological reserve, through encroachment, runoff, or habitat degradation.

The Coastal Act requires the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and the establishment of appropriate buffers to prevent adverse impacts.

Suggested Modification 6 was specifically developed to address these concerns by requiring a minimum of 100-foot buffer adjacent to the channel, consisting of a 50-foot ESHA buffer and an additional 50-foot transitional buffer. These requirements are intended to ensure the long-term protection of habitat functions and biological resources.

In addition, all development under the HO Overlay remains subject to the City’s certified LCP policies and regulations addressing ESHA, water quality, and habitat protection, and must be reviewed and conditioned through the coastal development permit process to avoid adverse impacts.

Therefore, as modified, the amendment ensures the protection of biological resources and ESHA consistent with Coastal Act Section 30240.

Coastal Act Priority Uses
The Commission received correspondence expressing concern that the proposed amendment would allow residential development to displace visitor-serving, marine related, or other priority coastal uses in conflict with Coast Act policies.

The Coastal Act prioritizes visitor-serving and coastal-dependent uses over residential development. As submitted, the amendment could allow residential use in sites designated for such priority uses without adequate safeguards. To address these concerns, Suggested Modifications 2, 5, and 7 require that residential development be permitted only in addition to, and not in place of, existing or planned priority uses. These modifications further require that any reduction or removal of such uses be offset through the provision of on-site or functionally equivalent uses that maintain comparable capacity and public availability. In addition, Suggested Modification 7 prohibits the conversion of hotels, motels, or other overnight visitor accommodations to residential use.

11 Therefore, as modified, the amendment ensures the residential development does not displace Coastal Act priority uses and remains consistent with applicable policies.

Scale and Intensity of Development
The Commission received correspondence expressing concern regarding the potential scale and intensity of development that could occur under the proposed overlay, including increased traffic, congestion and strain on infrastructure. Commenters reference the potential for several hundred residential units on certain sites.

The proposed amendment does not approve any specific development project or authorize a specific number of residential units on any site. Rather, it establishes a framework under which residential development may be considered, subject to all applicable Coastal Act and LCP requirements.

The amount, location, and design of any development would be determined through future project-specific coastal development permit review, during which site constraints, environmental considerations, and applicable development standards would be applied.

Therefore, the amendment does not result in the approval of any specific development intensity and ensures the future development is appropriately constrained and reviewed.

Coastal Hazards and Public Safety
Several correspondence letters expressed concern that the subject sites are located within areas subject to flood hazards, airport-related safety constraints, and other environmental risks, and questioned whether residential development would be appropriate in these locations.

The Coastal Act requires that development be sited and designed to minimize risks to life and property and to ensure stability and structural integrity in areas subject to hazards. The proposed amendment does not exempt development from these requirements. All development under the HO Overlay would be required to comply with the applicable hazard-related policies of the Coastal Act and the City’s certified LCP, including those addressing flooding, drainage, and public safety. In addition to its biological resource functions, the required 100-foot buffer would also provide secondary hazard-avoidance benefits by maintaining open space adjacent to the drainage channel.

Preserving this area as undeveloped open space improves on-site stormwater management capacity and reduces the potential for flood-related impacts to future development areas. These issues would be evaluated through the coastal development permit process, and development would be conditioned or denied as necessary to ensure consistency with these requirements.

Therefore, as modified, the amendment ensures that coastal hazards and public safety concerns have been appropriately addressed.

12 III. CHANGES TO STAFF REPORT
The following modifications to the staff report dated April 17, 2026, are made to address minor typographical errors and clarify text. Language to be added is shown in bold italicized and double underlined text, and language to be deleted is identified by strikethrough.
a) Exhibit 4 (Resolution 2025-32) shall be added to the list of project exhibits as Exhibit 4 and is included at the end of this addendum. This exhibit details Amending Resolution 2025-32, which the City of Newport Beach adopted on June 10, 2025 to amend the height limits of HO-4.

b) Modify line 5 of paragraph 2 on page 2 as follows:
…1,88,174 dwelling units.

c) Modify Section I.B. (Public Participation) of the staff report on Page 6 as follows:

On July 23, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the proposed amendments to the certified LCP. City staff summarized the purpose of the Housing Opportunity Overlay and explained how it would implement the City’s Housing Element while maintaining consistency with Coastal Act policies. Public comments reiterated many of the issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing. Jim Mosher again emphasized the need to retain existing visitor-serving uses and requested clarification on how such uses would be protected within the overlay. Other commenters expressed concern about potential impacts to the Santa Ana Heights open-space area, including changes to land currently utilized as a golf course and public-access amenities. Following deliberation, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-52 (Exhibit 1), approving the LCP amendment and authorizing its submittal to the Coastal Commission for certification.

On June 10, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing and adopted an amending resolution (Resolution No. 2025-32), which authorized City staff to increase the proposed height limits to the Newport Center subarea (HO- 4) of the proposed HO Overlay amendment (which comprise of 5 parcels in the Coastal Zone) and submit the proposed changes to the Coastal Commission to review as part of the subject LCP Amendment application. d) Modify LCP amendment application number on page 9 as follows:

The Commission hereby denies certification of Implementation Plan Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-1-2.

e) Modify Suggested Modification 1 on page 10 as follows:

13 Accommodate housing opportunities through the adoption of housing opportunity overlay coastal zoning districts or other land use regulatory policy. The following areas are intended to be consistent with the Housing Element’s focus areas.

Properties within each overlay coastal zoning district should include, but are not limited to, sites identified in the Housing Element; however, not all sites must be included, and other sites may be identified in the future through rezoning unless precluded by state law. The City will reserve 25% of allocated dwelling units within the Coastal Zone until such a time as the City’s Local Coastal Program has been amended to allow for housing consistent with the implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Following the City’s Local Coastal Program Amendment, priority for the reserved units will be given to sites located within the Coastal Zone. The goal is to ensure an adequate number of sites Citywide to accommodate the City’s allocation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment:

f) Modify table 21.28-1 on page 12 as follows:

Height Per Base Zone unless
otherwise identified
on the map
65 ft. 65 ft.(5) Per Base Zone(6)- (8) unless
otherwise identified on
map

g) Add footnote to table 21.28-1 on page 12 as follows:
(8) “Base Zone” includes all height limitations by the Sight Plane Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1371 and Ordinance No. 1596).
h) Modify Suggested Modification 6 beginning on the fourth complete paragraph on page 14 as follows:

Subsection 21.28.070(C)(2) shall be modified as follows:

d. Housing Opportunity Sites 23, 24, 25 and 26. A residential or mixed-use development encompassing Housing Opportunity Sites 23, 24, 25, and 26 shall include a free to access public park or /public recreational opportunity, which shall comply with Subsection 21.28.070(D)(4) and that conforms to all the following:

1. A minimum 50 foot. ESHA buffer measured from the outermost extent of the riparian or wetland vegetation, whichever extends furthest from the channel shall be provided. For a minimum 10-year period, the buffer shall be measured from the outermost extent of the vegetation established as part of the Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project proposed by the Orange County Flood Control District. The 50-foot buffer shall be consistent with 21.30B.30 (D); however, the exceptions criteria for smaller ESHA buffers shall not apply. Further, a path sited, designed, constructed

14 and operated in a manner that minimizes impacts to ESHA and other coastal resources may be permitted within the 50 foot ESHA buffer where needed to maintain the channel and/or provide for public access and recreation.

2. An additional 50 ft.foot buffer measured from the outermost extent of the ESHA buffer shall also be provided consistent with 21.30B.30 (E). This transitional buffer may be used to accommodate a free, low-impact public recreational opportunity. At a minimum, such public recreational opportunity shall include a contiguous open space corridor along the entire length of the Santa Ana Delhi Channel located adjacent to the subject properties that is of sufficient width to accommodate a 100-ft.foot biological buffer, separately and contiguously, to protect habitat in and along the channel. Such recreational opportunity shall also provide public access and recreational open space that will accommodate passive and active public recreational opportunities including, but not limited to continuous pedestrian/cycling trail, benches, drinking fountains and/or water fill stations, picnic tables, shade structures and fitness/exercise equipment.

3. In the event the Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project does not occur there shall be a minimum 100 ft. foot wide corridor along the channel that extends from the top of the channel bank to be used for the free, low- impact coastal access and public recreational opportunity described in subsection B. above.

i) Modify line 11 of paragraph 1 on page 17 as follows:
…across 228 Housing Elements sites

j) Modify the first full paragraph under the ESHA/Habitat Creation Section on page 23 of the staff report to allow more flexibility in the final restoration plan that is still sufficiently protective of the buffer required by Suggested Modification 6 as follows:

The Orange County Department of Public Works is currently seeking authorization from the Commission for the Santa Ana Delhi Channel Improvement Project, which includes restoration and/or creation of riparian, freshwater marsh and saltmarsh habitat which has been determined by the Commission’s Ecology staff as potential ESHA. Although the Commission has not yet acted upon this application, if the project is approved, additional ESHA will be created immediately adjacent to Parcels 23-26, which would require ESHA

15 buffers and additional habitat protections under Certified LUP Policies 4.1.1-10,

4.1.1-11, and 4.1.1- 12. In addition, the resulting ESHA has the potential to be adversely impacted by the construction of residential units on these parcels. The currently proposed HO Overlay amendment does not account for this potential for new ESHA creation. If not addressed through modifications, a future residential development project could adversely impact riparian ESHA by encroaching too close to the sensitive habitat.
k) Add the following sentence to the end of the second full paragraph on page 24 as follows:

These provisions require a minimum 100-foot buffer area, consisting of a 50-foot ESHA buffer and an additional 50-ft transitional buffer, and the provision of a free low-impact public recreational opportunity, including a contiguous open space corridor with public access amenities. This requirement ensures the protection of sensitive habitat areas while providing expanded public access and recreational opportunities along the channel corridor. In addition, Suggested Modification 6 allows for a path to be constructed within the 50-foot ESHA buffer where needed to maintain the channel and/or provide for public access and recreation, which may be allowed in limited circumstances where maintenance access may be necessary to prevent degradation of the habitat and recreation area.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
301 E. OCEAN BLVD., SUITE 300
LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4830
(562) 590-5071
F11a
Resolution 2025-32 (City of Newport Beach)
EXHIBIT 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 32

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING

SUBMITTAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM

AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL

COMMISSION TO AMEND PENDING SECTION

21. 28. 070 ( HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ( HO) OVERLAY
COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS) IN TITLE 21 ( LOCAL

COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) OF

THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED

TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
PA2024- 0205)
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach (" City") Charter vests the City Councilwith the authorityto makeand enforceall laws, rules, and regulationswith respect to municipalaffairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California;
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65580 et seq. (" State Housing Element Law") requires each city and county adopt a housing element that identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs within their jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, andprograms, andquantifiedobjectivesto furtherthedevelopment, improvement, and preservation of housing;
WHEREAS, Section 30500 of the California Public Resources Code requires each county and city to prepare a Local Coastal Program ("LCP") for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission effectively certified the City's Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan on January 13, 2017, and the City added Title 21 ( Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) to the Newport Beach Municipal Code (" NBMC") whereby the City assumed coastal development permit issuing authority on January 30, 2017;
Resolution No. 2025- 32

Page 2 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2024-52 and 2024-58 on July 23, 2024, authorizing submittal of the Local Coastal Program Amendment ("LCPA") to the California Coastal Commission (" CCC") amending the City' s Coastal Land Use Plan and Title 21 ( Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (" NBMC") to establish the Housing Opportunity ( HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts and their corresponding development standards applicable to properties located within the Coastal Zone and initiating a narrowly focused amendment to the 6t" Cycle Housing Element (" Housing Element") to remove reference to Charter Section 423 to implement the Housing Element;
WHEREAS, the City filed the LCPA application with the CCC on August 16, 2024, and received a letter from CCC staff on January 7, 2025, confirming the City' s application is complete and pending a hearing date;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2024-16 and 2024-17 on September 24, 2024, adding Section 20. 28.050 ( Housing Opportunity ( HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.48.185 (Multi - Unit Objective Design Standards) to the NBMC creating Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts and creating multi -unit objective design standards respectively;
WHEREAS, the new sections implement Policy Actions 1A through 1G and 3A in the Housing Element;
WHEREAS, Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC allows for new housing opportunities within five focus areas consisting of the Airport Area EnvironsArea (HO-1), West Newport Mesa Area ( HO- 2), Dover- Westcliff Area ( HO- 3), Newport Center Area ( HO- 4), and Coyote Canyon Area ( HO- 5) (" Focus Areas") that correspond with the Focus Areas in the Housing Element to ensure that the City accommodates its Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation;
WHEREAS, properties identified within the Focus Areas are eligible for specified development standards conducive to residential development at the prescribed average density of 20 to 60 dwelling units per acre that include, but are not limited to, minimum lot area, setbacks, height, open space, landscaping, and parking; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024- 85 on November 19, 2024, initiating amendments to Section 20.28.050 and the pending amendments to Section 21.28.070 of the NBMC to adjust certain development standards, including but not limited to, building height limits;
Resolution No. 2025- 32

Page 3 ends

WHEREAS, an amendment to Table 2- 16 in Section 20.28.050 and pending Table 21.28- 1 in Section 21.28. 070 of the NBMC are necessary to adjust the height limitations of certain properties within the Newport Center Area (HO-4) to accommodate potential residentialdevelopmentwith the intended prescribeddensity range, and to identifya certainnumberof units beingallocatedfrom the respectivedevelopmentlimits for a selected group of City -owned properties located within the Airport Area Environs Area ( HO- 1) and Newport Center Area ( HO- 4) (" Amendment"); WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2025, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California to consider the Amendment. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordancewith California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapters 20. 62 ( Public Hearings) and 21. 62 ( Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2025-004 by a unanimous vote of ( 5 ayes and 1 recusal) recommendingthe City Councilapprovethe Amendmentincludingthe additionof Site ID Nos. 146 and 147 with a maximum height limit of 50 feet for flat roofs and 55 feet for sloped roofs and Site ID No. 141 with a maximum height limit of 48 feet; WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code (" CPUC") Section 21676( b) requires the City to refer the Amendment to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission ALUC") to review for consistency with the 2008 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (" AELUP");
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2025, the ALUC conducted a public hearing on the Amendment and continued the hearing to its March 20, 2025, meeting by a unanimous vote ( 5 ayes, 0 nays);
WHEREAS, at the continued hearing on March 20, 2025, the ALUC determined the Amendment is inconsistent with the AELUP ( 5 ayes, 1 nay); WHEREAS, the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2025-13 on April 15, 2025, pursuant to Sections 21670 and 21676 of the CPUC, notifying the ALUC and State Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program of the City' s intent to override ALUC's inconsistency finding and on April 16, 2025, the City issued a Notice of Intent to Override ALUC' s determination and received two comments in response; and Resolution No. 2025- 32

Page 4 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 10, 2025, by the City Council in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California to consider the Amendment. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was giveninaccordancewiththe RalphM. BrownAct, CPUCSection21676(b), and Chapters

20.62 ( Public Hearings) and 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows:

Section 1: The City Council finds the Amendment is a legislative act. Neither Title 21 nor California Government Code Section 65000 et seq., sets forth any required findings for either approval or denial of the Amendment.

Section 2: Notwithstanding the above, the City Council does hereby make the findings attached hereto as Exhibit " A" and incorporated herein by reference and authorizes staff to submit this Amendment to update pending Table 21. 28- 1 and correspondingHousingOpportunityOverlayDistrictMapin Section21.80.035 of Title 21 proposed by the LCPA, as set forth in Exhibit " B," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval.

Section 3: The City Council finds all potential environmental effects for the Amendment have been adequately addressed in the previously certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report (" PEIR") ( SCH No. 2023060699) which was done in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA") as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (" CEQA Guidelines"), and City Council Policy K-3 Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act) related to the 6t" Cycle Housing Element Implementation involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Title 20 ( Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 ( Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. Furthermore, the Amendment does not constitute substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project shall be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previouslyaddressedin the PEIR, nor has any new informationregardingthe potential for new or more severe significant environmental impacts been identified as detailed in the CEQA Consistency Memorandum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit " C" and incorporated by reference. Therefore, in accordance with Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required to adopt the Amendment.

Resolution No. 2025- 32

Page 5 of 5 ends

Section 4: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.

Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.

ADOPTED this 10th day of June, 2025.

ATTEST:
r
VK. v' V/ 1li
tiD
Leilani I. Br
wnCityClerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY TTORNEY' S OFFICE
C.

Aardn C. Harp
City Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit " A" — Findings for Approval
Exhibit " B" — Amendment to Chapter 21.28 ( Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts ( MHP, PM, B, C, H, & HO) of Title 21 ( Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan)
Exhibit " C" — CEQA Consistency Memorandum
EXHIBIT " A"
Findings for Approval
General Finding:

An amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Program is a legislative act. Neither Title 21 Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) nor California Government Code Section 65000 et seq., set forth any required findings for approval of such amendments.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following amendments to the Local Coastal Program will create internal consistency with the certified 6thCycle Housing Element:

Findings and Facts in Support of Finding:

The Housing Element includes Section 4 ( Housing Plan), which sets forth programs and strategies to facilitate and encourage the development of the City's obligation to meet regional housing demand. Appendix B of the Housing Element is the Sites Analysis and identifies several sites to be rezoned to allow for potential redevelopment with housing projects. A number of these sites are within the City' s Coastal Zone. As Title 20 has been amended to add the new HO Overlay Zones with associated development standards, similarly, the amendment to Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan to add the new Overlay Coastal Zones for properties within the Coastal Zone has been prepared and submitted to the California Coastal Commission for consideration.

2. The Amendment specific to Title 21 ( Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC, attached hereto as Exhibit " B," and incorporated herein by reference, will create consistency in implementation between Titles 20 and 21 of the NBMC and will help to fulfill the Housing Plan, as the proposed Amendment will facilitate the development of housing consistent with the Housing Element.

EXHIBIT " B"
Amendment to Chapter 21.28 ( Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts MHP, PM, B, C, H, & HO) of Title 21 ( Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) Table 21.28- 1 of pending Section 21.28.070 ( Housing Opportunity ( HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts) of Chapter 21.28 of Title 21 ( Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the of the Newport Beach Municipal Code would be amended as follows, currently shown in redline -strikeout format for ease of reference only, and subject to California Coastal Commission review and approval:

TABLE 21. 28- 1

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY ZONES Development Housing Opportunity Subareas
Feature HO- 1 HO- 2 HO- 3 HO- 4
Lot Per Base Zone
Size/ Dimension
Lot area Minimum: Minimum:
required per 2, 178 ( 20 du/ ac) 2, 178 ( 20 du/ ac)
unit ( sq. ft.)' Maximum: Maximum:
871 ( 50 du/ ac) 871 ( 50 du/ ac)
Setbacks
Front 0 ft.( 2) 10 ft.( 2) 10 ft.( 2)(3) O(t)
Rear 0 20 ft. 20 ft. 0
Side 0(4)
Street Side 0(2) 10 ft.( 2) 10 ft.( 2) 0 ft.( 2)
Height Per Base Zone
unless
otherwise
identified on the
65 ft. 65 ft.( 5) Per Base Zone - unless otherwise
Identified on map (
s)
Building
Separation
loft
Floor Area
Ratio ( FAR)
No restriction( 6)
Common Open
Space(')
Minimum 75 square feet/ dwelling unit. ( The minimum dimension [ length and width] shall be 15 feet.)
Private Open
Space
5% of the gross floor area for each unit. ( The minimum dimension [ length and width] shall be 6 feet.)
Fencing See Section 21. 30.040 ( Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls).

Landscaping SeeSection 21.30.075 (Landscaping) and 21.30.085 (Water Efficient Landscaping).

Lighting See Section 21. 30. 070 ( Outdoor Lighting).

Parking See Subsection ( D)(2) below and Chapter 21.40 ( Off -Street Parking).

In mixed - use developments, the FAR for nonresidential is still applicable. 7) For purposes of this section, common and private open space in HO-1 may include enclosed shared amenities such as a clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court, weightlifting facility, children' s playground equipment, sauna, jacuzzi, day care facility, or any other recreational amenities/ facilities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director.
8) " Base Zone" includes all height limitations established by the Sight Plane Ordinance Ordinance No. 1371 and Ordinance No. 1596).

The following map is updated to pending Section 21.80.032 ( Housing Opportunity Overlay District maps) of Chapter 20. 80 ( Maps) of the NBMC:

Le end -, rz9
Newport Center Sight Plane
Height Exception Area
Coastal Zone Boundary )
i Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay ( Coastal Zone)
Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay
ao
a
O32
feet ( flat) / 37 feet ( sloped)
48 feet
O70 feet
Oi
85 feet
110 feet
O
150 feet
O
270 feet
46 00,0 NBGSHO- 4 Newport Center AreaNEWPORT
BEACH
City of Newport Beach
r Division
June 13, 2025
Ater Area Heiqht Ezcepti— s— d
EXHIBIT " C"
CEQA Consistency Memorandum
Available separately due to bulk at:
https:// newportbeachca. gov/ home/ showdocument? id= 76683& t= 638833463869042483 STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2025- 32 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 101hday of June, 2025; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Mayor Joe Stapleton, Mayor Pro Tem Lauren Kleiman, Councilmember Michelle Barto, Councilmember, Noah Blom, Councilmember Robyn Grant, Councilmember Sara J.

Weber
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Erik Weigand
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 11thday of June, 2025.

Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
p
1-4L1FO

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast District Office
301 E Ocean Blvd., Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302
(562) 590-5071
F11a
LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 (City of
Newport Beach) April 13, 2025

CORRESPONDENCE
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Outlook
FW: Opposition to Housing Layer and rezoning
FromSouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Date Tue 4/7/2026 1:22 PM
To Cortez, Dulce@Coastal <[email protected]>

From: Andrea <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 11:56 AM
To: SouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Housing Layer and rezoning

To the California Coastal Commission,

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed approval of the Housing Layer and the rezoning of the Newport Beach Golf Course from its current Recreational Open Space designation to High-Density Housing.

The Newport Beach Golf Course is an invaluable community and environmental asset. Its current zoning as Recreational Open Space safeguards not only the character of the surrounding area but also the ecological balance, open vistas, and natural habitats that are vital to our coastal environment. Rezoning this land for high-density housing would irreversibly damage the integrity of the coastline, increase traffic congestion, strain public services, and diminish the recreational opportunities that residents and visitors currently enjoy.

High-density development in this sensitive coastal area directly contradicts the principles of the California Coastal Act, which prioritizes the protection of coastal resources, scenic beauty, and public access to open spaces. Approving such a drastic change would set a harmful precedent for the erosion of recreational spaces in favor of urban sprawl, undermining the very mission of the California Coastal Commission.

A petition to block Surf Park development of middle NBGC parcel was recently signed by 6100 Newport Beach voters snd NB reversed approval to avoid a public vote. Housing on golf course will also be opposed y by Newport voters.

The John Wayne Airport Land Use Commission rejected development on golf course in high noise and crash zone directly under the flight path
NB Council over rode ALUC to approve tge project but then reversed approval after the public petition required a public vote.

I urge the Commission to reject the proposed Housing Layer and rezoning request in order to protect the natural and community resources entrusted to your stewardship.

Andrea Kane
20231 Spruce Ave
Newport Beach 92660
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Outlook
FW: Housing Layer and the rezoning of the Newport Beach Golf Course from its current Recreational Open Space designation to High-Density Housing.

FromSouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Date Thu 4/9/2026 10:14 AM
To Cortez, Dulce@Coastal <[email protected]>

From: BJ Sihilling <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 9:14 PM
To: SouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Layer and the rezoning of the Newport Beach Golf Course from its current Recreational Open Space designation to High-Density Housing.

For the California Coastal Commission,

I would like to submit a quote from our neighbor, Jim Auster, who stated our position succinctly:

"To the California Coastal Commission,
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed approval of the Housing Layer and the rezoning of the Newport Beach Golf Course from its current Recreational Open Space designation to High-Density Housing.

The John Wayne Airport Land Use Commission rejected development on golf course in high noise and crash zone directly under the flight path.

NB Council over rode ALUC to approve tge project but then reversed approval after the public petition required a public vote.

I urge the Commission to reject the proposed Housing Layer and rezoning request in order to protect the natural and community resources entrusted to your stewardship.

Respectfully,
Jim Auster
9706187692"
With the above information in mind, we strongly urge you not to approve this. There is a great deal of housing now going up around our community on the opposite side of Bristol Street. To allow these units to be built on our side, next to our residential area would mean drastic changes for all residents here. It is not unreasonable for us to want our community to stay residential.

The added traffic alone will be a major complicating factor to our way of life. The John Wayne Airport land use commission rejected development on the golf course In the high noise and cross zone directly under the flight path. The Newport Beach city Council reversed their approval after our public petition required a public vote. We raised 6100 voters for the petition and will do so again if we need to in opposition to this project. The loss of our golf course impacts all of those who play golf in our area, including school, children who receive money from the fundraisers they hold there. The environmental impact from having so many more residents would be huge in this area so close to the Back Bay Environmental preserve.

Please do not approve this. please reject this
proposed Housing Layer and rezoning request in order to protect the natural and community resources entrusted to your stewardship.

Please uphold the principles of the California Coastal Act, which prioritizes the protection of coastal resources, scenic beauty, and public access to open spaces. Approving such drastic changes would, indeed set a harmful precedent and does contradict the principles of the California Coastal Act.

Most Sincerely,
Barbara and William Goring
Outlook
Public Comment on April 2026 Agenda Item Friday 11a - City of Newport Beach LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 (Housing Overlay)
FromChristopher Pederson <[email protected]>
Date Thu 4/9/2026 8:31 PM
To SouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Cc Schwing, Karl@Coastal <[email protected]>; Spencer, Amrita@Coastal <[email protected]>; Revell, Mandy@Coastal <[email protected]>; Cortez, Dulce@Coastal <[email protected]>; Warren, Louise@Coastal <[email protected]>; Reed, Jessica@Coastal <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Chair Harmon and Commissioners:

The proposed suggested modifications to the City of Newport Beach housing overlay LCP amendment appear to significantly reduce the amount of housing that could be provided on sites subject to the suggested modifications. Unfortunately, the staff report does not evaluate how the suggested modifications will affect Newport Beach’s ability to comply with the city’s obligations under state housing law nor do the suggested modifications identify other areas within the city’s coastal zone where additional housing could be provided to offset the effects of the suggested modifications.

Although the Commission has the authority to adopt suggested modifications to ensure the LCP amendment complies with Coastal Act requirements, the Commission may not do so in a way that conflicts with state housing law requirements. The Coastal Act expressly provides that it does not exempt local governments from meeting state law requirements with respect to “any” obligation related to housing. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30007.)
Here, it is unclear whether the proposed suggested modifications would prevent the city from meeting its obligations under state housing law. The Commission should not act on the proposed LCP amendment until staff provides an analysis demonstrating that the proposed suggested modifications will not prevent the city from meeting its obligations under state housing law or provides additional suggested modifications that would allow sufficient additional housing in the city’s coastal zone to allow the city to comply with state housing law.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,
Christopher Pederson
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Outlook
FW: Public Comment on April 2026 Agenda Item Friday 11a - City of Newport Beach LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 (Housing Overlay)
FromSouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Date Fri 4/10/2026 8:57 PM
To Cortez, Dulce@Coastal <[email protected]>
Cc Spencer, Amrita@Coastal <[email protected]>; Dobson, Amber@Coastal <[email protected]>
FYI

From: Diane Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 4:58 PM
To: SouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on April 2026 Agenda Item Friday 11a - City of Newport Beach LCP Amendment No. LCP- 5-NPB-24-0032-2 (Housing Overlay)

I want to urge the Commission tp not approve any overlays or rezoning of the Newport Beach Golf course. It has been historically zoned as Recreational Open Space to provide a low occupancy crash buffer for the airport and the parcel ias an unoccupied overflow for the Delhi flood channel. The golf course is a beautiful little valley surrounded by housing and small businesses. It is the only affordable pubic course in Newport Beach and to have it rezoned and high density housing units built on site would certainly not be beneficial to the general public.

I am a long time resident of what was Santa Ana Heights.. We were annexed by Newport to give them leverage in limiting the airport activity to insure the quality of life under the flight path.. Now that they have kept the airport small, they are proposing changes for the golf course and surrounding area without the thought of the quality of life in our neighborhood. The amount of traffic that 600+ units would create and add to that the thousands of residential units planned for the area across the 73 freeway between the airport and Jamboree Road will create horrible traffic numbers on Irvine avenue.

Please don’t allow the overlay to occur..

Thank you, Diane Moore

1 April 8, 2026
California Coastal Commission
301 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 300
Long Beach. CA 90802
Executive [email protected]

Subject: City of Newport Beach LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 (Housing Overlay)

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

Thank you for your continued review and engagement regarding the City of Newport Beach LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 (Housing Overlay). As a built-out city in the coastal zone, we believe this amendment harmonizes Coastal Act priorities to protect visitor-serving, marine-related, and public serving uses with the State’s mandates for identifying new housing opportunity sites.

We are submitting comments for Suggested Modification 6 for your consideration that affect Housing Opportunity Sites 23, 24, 25 and 26. This revised language is intended to provide the level of certainty sought by the Commission and staff for habitat protection, while avoiding constraints that could unnecessarily hinder the feasibility of housing development on the sites based on the speculative nature of the adjacent Santa Ana Delhi Channel Project. It is our understanding that the channel project is currently under preliminary review with Commission staff, requires additional coordination with the County and adjacent property owners, and is subject to potential design changes that could include a joint maintenance road and multi-use and revised language trail.

As reflected in the attached revision, we have anchored the proposed language to the City’s already certified Implementation Plan (IP), specifically referencing Section 21.30B.030(D)(2)(a) (Vegetation for ESHA Buffers). This approach ensures consistency with established, certified standards that have been central to prior discussions and also cited previous correspondences with Coastal staff. By relying on this existing framework, the revised language provides a clear, predictable regulatory path without introducing new or untested requirements.

Importantly, the proposed revision preserves the availability of ESHA buffer exceptions under NBMC Section 21.30B.030.D. Given the uncertainty surrounding the timing, scope, and ultimate implementation of the County’s channel project, maintaining these exceptions is critical. Eliminating or restricting them at this stage would introduce significant risk to the feasibility of potential housing development based on assumptions that may not materialize.

2 With respect to the proposed 100-foot buffer beyond the County’s planned improvements along the entire edge of the affected sites, we want to highlight the substantial impact such a requirement would have on feasibility. Imposing a uniform buffer of this size would:

• Significantly reduce the development area of the sites beyond the anticipated County easements needed to accommodate the channel project;
• Constrain site planning flexibility needed to accommodate required circulation, infrastructure, and building placement.
• Undermine the project’s ability to deliver housing at a scale necessary to remain consistent with Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements.

In effect, a 100-foot blanket buffer particularly one tied to a potential future condition would materially limit the site’s capacity to function as a viable housing opportunity.

At the same time, we recognize and support the Commission’s goal of ensuring meaningful public access and/or recreational opportunities. The revised language strengthens this outcome by explicitly incorporating a functional equivalency requirement. This ensures that any alternative approach to buffer configuration will still deliver comparable or enhanced public access and recreational benefits in a clear and enforceable manner. Additionally, the simplified buffer framework included in the revision improves clarity while maintaining environmental protections.

In summary, the attached revision:
• Provides regulatory certainty by relying on the City’s certified Implementation Plan; • Preserves necessary flexibility through existing ESHA buffer exceptions; • Avoids imposing constraints tied to uncertain/evolving future infrastructure projects; • Enhances assurance of meaningful, public access and recreational outcomes through functional equivalency, and which at minimum, include a no-cost, continuous pedestrian/cycling trail, benches, drinking fountains and/or water fill stations, picnic tables, shade structures and fitness/exercise equipment.

We respectfully request that the Commission consider and adopt the revised language as presented. We believe it strikes an appropriate and balanced approach that harmonizes the Coastal Act’s objectives of habitat protection and open space preservation while maintaining the feasibility of delivering much- needed housing in the coastal zone

Thank you for your time and consideration. We are available to discuss this further at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Don Schmitz, AICP
President, Schmitz and Associates

Cc: Jaime Murillo, City of Newport Beach Community Development Director Ben Zdeba, City of Newport Beach Deputy Community Development Director

Attachment: Coastal Commission LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 Revisions to Suggested Mod #6

3 Outlook
Fwd: California Coastal Commission, Save NBGC
FromJim Auster <[email protected]>
Date Sun 4/12/2026 9:50 AM
To [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc Jurjis, Seimone@City of Newport Beach <[email protected]>; Cortez, Dulce@Coastal <[email protected]>; ExecutiveStaff@Coastal <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and NB Council members,
Before CCC meeting on 4/17, please consider withdrawing CCC application or removing NBGC from the application .

Jim Auster
20401 Bayview Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
Begin forwarded message:

From: Jim Auster <[email protected]>
Date: April 12, 2026 at 10:35:56 MDT
To: Linda Giedt <[email protected]>, "M. Smith" <[email protected]>, Steve Carfano Carfano <[email protected]>, Benny Hallock <[email protected]>, merrilee bliss <[email protected]>, Robert Rosenberg <[email protected]>, JOSEPH SALVO <[email protected]>
Subject: California Coastal Commission, Save NBGC
Newport Beach City Council applied to California Coastal Commission for approval of housing overlay that rezones NBGC from recreational open space to high density residential. NB claims development of the golf course is needed and necessary to meet CA Element Housing mandate requiting 4800 units. NB Development Office application pipeline already has 2000 units in Airport Area, 5000 units total, see link below.. Public vote is scheduled in Nov. to limit housing to less than 3000 units. There is no need for any housing or any other development on NBGC open space recreation zone, in Coastal protection zone, in JWA crash zone, in JWA high 65db zone, in flood and tsunami zone, in high traffic zone, adjoining Back Bay wildlife zone, in violation of SAH Specific Plan, etc. Normally legitimate city Council decisions are by law exempt from personal liability claims but council and NB tax payers are not exempt from enormous potential liability for Council's reckless unjustifiable overruling of Airport Land Use Commission's rejection of development in 65db zone and crash zone directly under JWA flight path.

Council members justified their approval of Surf Park as a private property owner's right for highest best and most profitable land use but that was not justified and Surf Park approval has been reversed by public petition. Owners purchased the land from Irvine Ranch for a low price to build the golf course and have had a big return on their investment because golf is the only safe low density highest best appropriate and beneficial use directly under JWA flight path.

If CCC follows their staff recommendation to approve housing in this location I will ask commissioners if there is any purpose of the California Coastal Commission? Element Housing law exempts all regulations, zoning, existing land uses, environmental impacts, etc, but does not exempt requirement CCC approval of housing overlay . Except for a legal challenge, this may be our last chance to block administrative approval.

I will attend CCC meeting in Gonzoles on Friday. It is past 4/10 deadline to submit public comments but please send any comments, information, exhibits, photos, etc you would like me to add to the presentation.
how many housingunits are already in
planning approval process in Newport
Beachtto meet Element housing mandate
google.com
On Apr 3, 2026, at 16:45, Linda Giedt <[email protected]> wrote:

Along with the Bristol housing projects underway now, this was just approved by the Planning Commission last night. 100 units at Quail and Birch. They will knock down the existing 7 story high rise there. No low income housing.

Wow, the added traffic in the Airport area. The 73 to the 405 is already a parking lot.

There are more housing projects still waiting to be approved on the other side of Bristol.

Linda
<image.png>
<100-condo development in Newport Beach near John Wayne Airport OK'd - Los Angeles Times.pdf> April 7, 2026

To the California Coastal Commission,

There are alternative opportunities for housing development in areas already designated for urban or residential use that would not compromise the environmental and social value of Newport Beach Golf Course. Preserving this open space is essential to maintaining the quality of life, ecological health, and recreational opportunities that define our region. Newport Beach claim the Housing Overlay is needed to meet Element Housing required number of units is incorrect, more than enough housing applications are already being processed to meet Newport Beach Element mandate without building it on NBGC within Coastal protection boundary.

A petition to block Surf Park development of middle NBGC parcel was recently signed by 6100 Newport Beach voters and NB reversed approval to avoid a public vote. Housing on golf course will also be opposed y by Newport voters.

Another petition with required 6100 signatures was approved for a community vote to limit housing to the minimum required Element number under 3000 units. NBGC is not needed for housing.

The John Wayne Airport Land Use Commission rejected development of Surf Park on golf course in high noise and crash zone directly under the flight path. NB Council over rode ALUC to approve the project but then reversed approval after 6100 signature public petition required a public vote. ALUC rejected NB revision of noise contour to allow housing in 65 db zone but NB overrode ALUC. If Overlay is approved ALUC will also reject housing directly under flight path in crash zone that will make NB taxpayer potentiall liable for enormous crash and noise impacts to housing residents.

Housing on this site requires sewage pumping up to Mesa Drive and risks sewage pollution of Back Bay with a power outage. It is also in the tsunami and flood protection zone from historical flooding of Delhi Channel.

Santa Ana Specific Plan enacted when Santa Ana Heights was annexed by NB requites golf course to be permanent, see letter to Nb copied below. The only highest safe and best use of this land is to leace it as it is now, golf course low density recreational with no impact to the environment, airport, our community, and the Back Bay.

I urge the Commission to reject the proposed Housing Layer and rezoning request in order to protect the natural and community resources entrusted to your stewardship.

Respectfully,
Jim Auster
9706187692

RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE
March 16, 2026
Mayor Lauren Kleiman & Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]
Dear Mayor Kleiman & City Council Members,
As you are aware, Santa Ana Heights (SAH) was annexed into the city in two phases, in 2002 the area east of Irvine Ave and 2008 the area west of Irvine Ave. The annexation agreement was memorialized on September 10, 2002 and remains in full force.

SAH was content as a county island and did not seek annexation – the City approached us.

We were concerned city government would add another layer of regulation and bureaucracy to our lives while disregarding the unique character of SAH. Our fears have been confirmed.

Residents worked with the City and County for over fifteen years to develop an annexation agreement to maintain the unique characteristics of the area. The Heights includes a winery, equestrian property, traditional residential tracts, estate lots, mansions, 18-hole Newport Beach Golf Course and driving range.

These were hard-fought negotiations that encompassed many complex issues across multiple governmental jurisdictions including the City, County, a redevelopment agency, city, Coastal Commission, Mesa Water District, JWA Settlement Agreement, property tax transfers, and a utility undergrounding district.

As previously noted, the 2002 City/County Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement remains a legally controlling document. It specifically requires the City to seek the County’s consent for General Plan Amendments – including the City’s housing zoning overlay on the golf course. ALUC found the housing overlay INCONSISTENT with the Airport Environs Land Use Element (AELUP) on a 5-1 vote. This is the only attempt the City made to seek County approval, and it failed. As such, the City ignored other considerations of the Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement as it relates to the proposed development site south of Mesa Drive.

The unique characteristics of the Santa Ana Heights are codified in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (NB Municipal Code Chapter 21.90, specifically Section 21.90.020 SP-7(OSR) stating “Land Use and development standards for Santa Ana Heights shall be in accordance with Exhibit 21.90-1, “Land Use Map – Specific Plan District No. 7” and the provisions of this section
The plain language of the codified specific plan and enabling map DOES NOT allow any non-golf course uses like wave pools, Costco, apartments, commercial buildings or anything else – no matter how giddy the property owner, politicians and staff are to kill the golf course.

The city council’s October 29, 2025, Snug Harbor project approval – effectively killing the Newport Beach Golf Course and replacing it with a 15-acre, 10-million-gallon heated wave pool – sought to destroy the unique characteristic of SAH; ignored the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, zoning, and Annexation Agreement. In addition, you failed to acknowledge the long history of the underlying restrictive leases with the County and property owner for the long-term use as a golf course and related uses.

We were forced to circulate a successful citywide referendum petition triggering an election for the council’s unanimous Snug Harbor wave pool approval. Over 9600 signatures were collected in just 21 days. We are reminded of the perils of local government.
2To your credit, facing the wrath of the community at the ballot box, the Council rescinded the General Plan Amendment approval of 40,000 square feet of commercial buildings on a site zoned for open space and recreation, whose sole purpose and intent is explicitly “to insure the long-term use and viability of the Newport Beach Golf Course” – not concrete.

In 1973 the Irvine Company leased the site to the Lane Family who graded the community golf course that remains today. It is a very challenging parcel for development due to its topography, proximity to JWA, water table, Delhi Channel, and restrictions of the FEMA Zone A flood hazard area. The Irvine Company understood these development barriers in 1973. Nothing has changed in 53 years – except additional binding restrictions of the SAH Annexation Agreement, SAH Specific Plan, zoning code, and Charter Section 423.

The front nine is owned in fee by Newport Golf Club LLC, comprised of long-time Newport residents. They want the highest and best use on a degraded parcel that is restricted for development. As you know, the back nine is owned by the County of Orange (JWA) and serves as the FAA Runway Protection Zone requiring open space and prohibiting permanent structures – in perpetuity.

We respect the private property rights of the respective families and their heirs. We also respect the decades of their investment in our community, both financial and philanthropic. They are an important part of the fabric that makes Newport Beach a vibrant community.

As elected officials you are often asked to balance the needs of the residents and development community. This is one of those moments.

We encourage you to keep an open mind and create a vehicle that preserves the unique character of Santa Ana Heights, while complying with the requisite Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement and Specific Plan, zoning code, Charter Section 423 and if necessary calling for a citywide vote for large commercial projects, and respect private property rights and honor the City’s commitment to Santa Ana Heights and the residents of Newport Beach.

Sincerely,

RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE

Date of comment: April 10, 2025 Date of hearing: April 17, 20265 Agenda Item: F11a-4-2026 My position: Both items need additional modifications To: Dulce Cortez California Coastal Commission 301 E. Ocean Blvd, Suite 300 Long Beach, CA, 90802-4325 Re: City of Newport Beach LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 Dear Ms. Cortez, It is unfortunate staff’s recommendation is coming so close to the deadline for a Commission decision.I

find

difficult

comment

this

item

any

concise

way,

but

here

attempt:

Synopsis The Commission is being asked to certify an amended LCP authorizing the City to add housing to

its

coastal

zone,

potentially

disrupting

higher

priority

uses,

quantities

and

types

not

required

its

state

housing

obligations,

using

land

use

mechanism

that

California

courts

have

found

inconsistent

with

state

housing

law.

Approval,

even

modified,

will

likely

lead

unnecessary

and

unrequired

development

while

leaving

for

the

future

the

City's

true

need,

which

meet

its

state

requirement

allow

affordable

housing,

which

will,

that

future,

presumably

have

added

top

whatever

approved

here.

1. Newport Beach’s RHNA Obligation and its Housing Element The City’s citywide RHNA obligation is to allow for 4,845 new housing units in the 6th Cycle, of which

3,436

must

affordable

households

with

various

moderate

lower

incomes.

According to Table B-1 on page B-9 of Appendix B of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City anticipates no difficulty reaching its quota for above moderate housing production even without

any

rezoning,

but

expects

shortfall

2,707

units

the

affordable

categories.

The Housing Element proposes to meet this affordable housing shortfall by authorizing 8,174 new

base

units

through

“Housing

Opportunity

Overlays”

added

selected

parcels

five

vaguely-defined

“focus

areas,”

all

but

one

which

(Coyote

Canyon)

include

portions

the

coast

zone.

However, even though Policy Action 1K (Inclusionary Housing Policy) on page 4-10 of the Housing Element’s Housing Plan calls for adoption of an inclusionary ordinance, nothing has been done, nor is contemplated, in that regard. Indeed, the Council has reduced inclusionary requirements

the

one

small

non-coastal

area

the

city

that

historically

had

requirement.

result,

there

requirement

for

any

the

8,174

new

base

units

used

meet
the City’s affordable housing obligation , which, if not fulfilled, will, per Government Code Section 65584.09, carry over into, and be added to, any new obligations in the 7th Cycle. All 8,174 new units, including all authorized in the coastal zone, could, and a large portion likely will,

used

entitle

new

luxury

housing

not

required

state

housing

law,

leaving

the

2,707

Jim Mosher re: LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 Page 2 of 9 unit citywide affordable housing requirement largely unfilled and needing to be entitled in the future,

above

and

beyond

the

8,174.

2. Courts Have Disallowed Use of the Housing Overlays the City Proposes An additional reason the City’s proposal should be approached is with caution is that the scheme

using

overlay

districts

meet

affordable

housing

obligations

was

based

erroneous

advice
1 from

the

state

Department

Housing

and

Community

Development.

While
thought consistent with state housing law when the City’s Housing Element was certified as compliant by them in October 2022, it no longer is. In particular, in New Commune DTLA v. City of Redondo Beach (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 111, an opinion published on October 10, 2025, and which the California Supreme Court declined to review

appeal

January

28,

2026,

the

California

Court

Appeal

found

that

the

use

voluntary

overlay

districts

the

type

proposed

here

generally

not

compliant

with

state

housing

law.

Indeed,

comply

with

requirements

meet

RHNA

requirements

allow

development

affordable

housing,

the

court

found

least

50%

the

requirement

must

met

actually

rezoning

selected

properties

require

that

when

and

they

redevelop,

least

50%

the

floor

area

devoted

housing.

This

follows

the

earlier

ruling

Martinez

City

of
Clovis (2023) 90 Cal. App. 5th 193, which the California Supreme Court also declined to review, that housing overlays are not an adequate mechanism to address the carry-over of unmet affordable

housing

obligations,

which

Newport

Beach

will

almost

certainly

face

when

the

6th

Cycle

ends

October

15,

2029,

and

the

7th

Cycle

begins.

It seems problematic to add a scheme to the LCP that will need to be completely revised in

the

near

future.

How

can

the

Commission

sure

the

presently-requested

entitlements

will

unwound

when

new

ones

consistent

with

state

housing

law

are

added?

3. Problems with Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments Regarding the requested amendments to the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan as shown in Exhibit “B” to the staff report’s Exhibit 1 (City Council Resolution No. 2024-52) with the suggested modifications found on pages 10 and 11 of the staff report: a. Existing Policy 2.1.10-1, regarding consistency with the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan Map, is proposed to be amended to say it is “modified by all Policies in the [new] 2.1.11 series.” This does not provide any clear guidance for interpretation of the map because the

new

2.1.11 policy

series

sets

limits

how

many

housing

units

can

added

named

areas,

but

provides

indication

what

the

geographic

boundaries

those

areas

are

–

only

reference

the

Housing

Element,

which

not

only

not

certified

the

CCC,

but

also

provides

clear

boundaries.

For

example,

the

521

units

allowed

the

proposed

CLUP

Policy

2.1.11-1

the

“Dover/Westcliff”

area

are

authorized

the

proposed

implementation

for

use

some

parcels

far

afield

from

“Dover”

“Westcliff,”

that

have

been

assigned

that

CLUP

area

seemingly

arbitrary

way.

Without

clear

geographic

boundaries

the

CLUP

areas,

are

those

assignments

consistent

with

the

1 See page 15 of their May 2020 “Site Inventory Guidebook.” Jim Mosher re: LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 Page 3 of 9 CLUP? While the “correct” assignment of those parcels might be resolved by reference to

the

Housing

Element,

but

proposed

CLUP

Policy

2.1.11-1

says

other

parcels

can

added

through

rezoning.

the

intent

the

CLUP

that

parcel

in,

say,

Balboa

Village

Balboa

Island

that

wanted

added

the

overlay

implementation

subject

the

CLUP’s

““Dover/Westcliff”

housing

limit

its

“Newport

Center”

limit?

seems

impossible

tell

and

reference

the

Housing

Element

unavailing

the

parcel

not

the

Housing

Element.

b. The staff report (on page 10) recommends Suggested Modification 1 to proposed new CLUP

Policy

2.1.11-1,

deleting

the

“West

Newport

Mesa”

area

because

all

the

coastal

zone

properties

are

Deferred

Certification

Area.
2 I

agree

with

that

modification,

but

even

with

it,

the

policy

seems

glaringly

defective

me:
i. First, the opening paragraph contains two sentences that say “ The City will reserve

25%

allocated

dwelling

units

within

the

Coastal

Zone

until

such

time

the

City's

Local

Coastal

Program

has

been

amended

allow

for

housing

consistent

with

the

implementation

the

6th

Cycle

Housing

Element.

Following

the

City'

Local

Coastal

Program

Amendment,

priority

for

the

reserved

units

will

given

sites

located

within

the

Coastal

Zone
.”

This seems to be forward-looking language saving some units for implementation in

the

coastal

zone,

pending

Coastal

Commission

approval.

Shouldn’t

this

deleted

upon

certification?

not,

why

would

the

Commission

want

give

priority

approving

housing

the

coastal

zone

over

non-coastal

zone

sites?
ii. At least as importantly, assuming the CCC wants to certify overlay districts despite

the

courts

having

found

them

improper

mechanism

meet

RHNA

quotas,

shouldn’t

the

numeric

limits

for

development

the

three

(after

the

recommended

modification)

areas

reduced,

contemplated

the

forward-looking

language,

something

25%

the

citywide

limits?

For example, since the citywide limit is irrelevant to the CLUP, shouldn’t the limit for

housing

the

“Airport

Environs”

reduced

the

CLUP

from

“
2,

577

total

dwelling

units

within

the

entire

area,

inclusive

those

properties

the

Coastal

Zone
”

“2, 577 644 total dwelling units within the entire area, inclusive of those

properties

the
Coastal Zone ” and so on for the other areas (644 being 25%

2,577)?

Otherwise,

proposed,

the

policy

would

allow

the

City’s

entire

RHNA

target

for

each

area

entitled

the

coastal

zone.

Why

would

the

CCC

approve

that?

iii. An additional problem with this proposed policy, even as amended, is allowing densities

50 du/ac

all

areas.

the

Commission

knows,

preserve

the

city’s

character,

part

the

City’s

coastal

zone

subject

Shoreline

Height

2 Regarding that Deferred Certification Area, the Commission may or may not be aware that the owner of one of the

parcels,

the

Newport

Mesa

Unified

School

District

contemplating

accepting

proposal

add

169

units

housing,

which

20%

would

below

market

rate

and

prioritized

for

District

employees.

See

the

NMUSD

Board’s
3/10/2026 Item 21c and presentation. Those units, if built, would count toward the City’s RHNA

obligations,

but

their

approval

entirely

the

CCC.

Jim Mosher re: LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 Page 4 of 9 Limitation (CLUP Policy 4.4.2-1). As a matter of policy, it is unclear how a CLUP authorization

for

50 du/ac

could

made

consistent

with

the

shoreline

height

limit
,

and

seems

that

under

state

housing

law

property

owners

subject

the

overlay

could

seek,

and

the

City

might

have

grant,

exceptions

make

their

housing

projects

feasible,

defeating

the

intent

the

height

limitation.

Although

has

apparently

been

withdrawn

for

the

moment,

the

City

has

already

received
just such an application, PA2025-0050 for the 1.45 acre harbor-front parcel at 1101 Bayside Dr, seeking to provide 144 units in an eight-story building, despite the

parcel

being

subject

the

Shoreline

Height

Limitation

and

designated

the

CLUP

for

Recreational

and

Marine

Commercial

(CM)

use.

Similarly,

although

not
in the Shoreline Height Limitation area, the City has an application for the proposed coastal zone overlay site at 2300 University Dr to waive the base height

limit

32/37

feet

and

build

housing

75 feet,

indicating

pressure

vastly

exceed

base

heights

will

exist.

c. Proposed new Policy 2.1.11-2 aggravates the last-named concern by stating that the density

limits

are

averages

over

site,

even

higher

densities

(and

heights)

would

seem

allowed.

the

unlikely

event

that

affordable

units

are

offered,

market

rate

bonus

units

would

add

even

density

and

height,

inconsistent

with

existing

CLUP

Policy

4.4.2-1

for

areas

subject

it.

Unrelated to that concern, CCC staff is recommending Suggested Modification 2, to “harmonize”

added

housing

with

visitor-serving,

marine-related,

public-serving

uses.

There

are

least

two

problems

with

the

suggested

modification:
i. The modification introduces the term “functionally equivalent” whose meaning is neither obvious nor defined in the CLUP Glossary. Since whether a replacement use is “functionally equivalent” is likely to be a point of contention, I think the criteria

for

making

that

decision

need

clearly

defined.
ii. The modification does not address the issue of uses not always following a properties

base

CLUP

designation

or,

alternatively,

property

reserved

for

priority

uses

through

their

base

designation

not

currently

having

such

uses.

For

example,

the

proposed

housing

overlay

site

1101

Bayside

Dr,

mentioned

above,

one

the

few

reserved

for

Marine

Commercial

use.

does

not

currently

have

such

uses,

would

that

rare

designation

ignored?

Conversely,
one of the more prominent Marine Commercial uses, the West Marine emporium, is located at 3433 Via Lido, which is proposed to be Housing Opportunity Overlay Site

No.

334,

with

General

Commercial

(CG)

base

CLUP

designation.

Since

not

land

with

one

the

listed

designations,

there

policy

prevent

this

essential

high-priority

marine-related

use

from

being

replaced

with

lower-priority

housing?
d. Most of proposed new Policy 2.1.11-3 asks the Commission to certify exactly the features

that

have

caused

California

courts

find

“housing

overlays”

inconsistent

with

the

requirements

state

housing

law

for

meeting

affordable

housing

requirements.

Why

would

the

CCC

certify

language

the

courts

have

said

unacceptable?

Jim Mosher re: LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 Page 5 of 9

4. Problems with Implementation Plan Amendments

a. The City’s proposed new Section 21.28.010.F refers to the overlay locations being “
identified

Part

8 of

this

title

(Maps)
.”

This

least

partially

inconsistent

with

staff’s
Suggested Modification 4, which implies the overlay sites will be identified on the Section 21.14.010 Coastal Zoning Map. b. Suggested Modification 3 appropriately deletes the “West Newport Mesa Area” from proposed

new

Subsection

21.28.070.A.

i. However, it leaves intact the description of the “Newport Center Area.” Is the word

“generally”

(and

the

paragraph

that

follows)

sufficient

include

the

many

housing

opportunity

sites

that

are

the

coastal

zone

but

far

outside

the

bounds

described?
ii. It also leaves intact footnote (5) to IP Table 21.28-1, referencing the Shoreline Height

Limit

Area.

But,

noted

above,

how

will

that

enforced

applicant

seeks

exception

utilize

the

50 du/ac

authorization?
iii. Additionally in the “Height” row of the “HO-4” column of the modified Table

21.28-1

proposed

for

certification

says

“Per

Base

Zone

(6),”

but

footnote

(6)

not

height.

See

also

Comment

5.c,

below.
iv. A very small point, but in the “Lot area required per unit (sq. ft.)” row of that table, there

are

two

boxes

with

what

appear

identical

specifications.

Why

are

they

two

separate

boxes,

and

not

combined

one?

c. By not requiring the addition of housing upon redevelopment, proposed new Subsection

21.28.070.B

repeats

what

California

courts

have

found

the

problematic

aspects

housing

overlays

purporting

consistent

with

state

housing

law.
d. Suggested Modification 4 recommends the addition of an “HO” symbol to be used on the Section

21.14.010

Coastal

Zoning

Map.

While

think

this

good

idea:
i. No sample of what the certified new Coastal Zoning Map would look like is provided.
ii. As noted above, the City’s proposed new Section 21.28.010.F implies the HO sites

will

only

identified

Part

8 maps.
iii. In the proposed revision to IP Table 21.14-1, staff recommends that in the “Coastal

Land

Use

Plan

Designations

Implemented

Zoning

Districts”

column,

the

districts

say

“Various.”

Since

the

only

thing

implemented

the

districts

“RM

Multiple-Unit

Residential”

shouldn’t

say

that?
e. A minor point, but in Suggested Modification 5: i. Hasn’t the word “and” been added to the existing clause “4.” If so, shouldn't “and” be

bold?

Jim Mosher re: LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 Page 6 of 9 ii. Similarly, isn’t the intent to delete the word “and” from the end of the existing clause

“3”

(which

not

shown)?
f. With regard to Suggested Modification 6: i. Within the context of the IP, how is the identification of “Housing Opportunity Sites

23,

24,

25 and

26”

supposed

established?

not

see

those

numeric

designations

any

the

materials

submitted

for

certification.

Should

the

proposed

Section

21. 80.032

maps

amended

include

numeric

designation

each

opportunity

site?
ii. I am not sure I understand how the proposed buffers of a maximum of 100 foot width

“functionally

equivalent”

the

larger

open

space

currently

available.

That,

again,

emphasizes

the

need

precisely

define

the

phrase.
g. Regarding Suggested Modification 7, this has the same problem noted under comment

3.c.2,

above.

i. The restriction of the protection of high priority uses to parcels with certain base designations

fails

protect

existing

such

uses

parcels

without

those

base

designations.

also

fails

protect

parcels

with

high

priority

designations

that

not

currently

have

high

priority

uses

them,

leading

loss

acreage

intended

preserved

for

them.
ii. Again, a clear definition of “functionally equivalent” needs to be added both to the CLUP Glossary and IP Section 21.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases). iii. Since at least two of the Housing Opportunity Overlay Sites are hotels, the “ No hotel,

motel,

other

overnight

visitor

accommodations

shall

converted

replaced

with

residential

use
”

restriction

important.

hope

CCC

staff

does

not
need to be reminded of the episode (see City Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 5 from May 12, 2022, in which coastal zone hotel rooms on “CV Commercial Visitor-Serving” property were converted to residences by virtue of a City “Directors Determination,” without amending the LCP. Because it was outside the appeal area, CCC staff could do nothing but strenuously object. It is perhaps ominous

that

the

same

property,

900

and

1000

Newport

Center

here

proposed

certified

Housing

Opportunity

Overlay

Site.

5. Miscellaneous Comments
a. Similar to the last-stated concern about hotel rooms outside the appeal area being converted

“Directors

Determinations"

(supposedly

authorized

existing

IP
Subsection 21.12.020.A), the proposed amendments are a bit vague as to how parcels can be added to the Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts. Proposed new CLUP Policy

2.1.11-1

suggests

the

process

would

involve

rezoning,

which

would

require

CCC

action.

However,

example

already

exists

parcels

outside

the

coastal

zone

being

added

Jim Mosher re: LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 Page 7 of 9 through a Directors Determination, without any rezoning, and presumably without revising the overlay maps (see June 6, 2025, Action Letter). b. I am not sure CCC staff is aware that in recommending certification (with modifications) it is

recommending

certification

changes

established

height

limits

within

the

coastal

zone,

per

the

reference

under

“Height”

proposed

Table

21.28-1

“Per

Base

Zone

unless

otherwise

identified

the

map.”

The

map

seems

the

“HO-1”

proposed

new

Section

21.80.032,

allowing

heights

35 to

60 feet

property

with

CLUP

designation

(Parks

and

Recreation)

and

formerly

limited

the

City’s

Zoning

Code

18 feet.

not

see

any

analysis

possible

Coastal

Act

implications

this

change.

And,

noted

comment

3.b.iii,

above,

the

City

has

applications

exceed

base

height

limits

HO-1

property

not

indicated

having

special

height

authorization

the

map.
c. More disturbingly, the City’s Title 20 HO-4 map (linked to from NBMC Section 20.80.025) contains call-outs for height exceptions, at least four of which affect coastal zone sites, yet

the

Title

21 HO-4

map

being

proposed

for

certification

contains

such

exceptions.

Which

prevails?

d. In line 5 of paragraph 2 of the summary on page 1 of the staff report, the number “8,174” has

been

inadvertently

transposed

“1,874.”
e. Some of the information in that sentence is repeated in the paragraph at the top of page 17,

where

the

number

becomes

“1,875”

and

the

reference

“228

sites”

has

become

garbled

“228

Housing

Elements.”
f. In any event, it is not clear what the source is of these statements regarding the City’s overall

overlay

efforts

that

“Collectively,

these

actions

are

intended

provide

capacity

for

8,175

dwelling

units

citywide,

including

2,707

units

affordable

very-low,

low-,

and

moderate-income

households,

across

228

Housing

Elements.

those

sites,

26 parcels

(appx

11%)

are

located

within

the

coastal

zone,

with

assumed

collective

capacity

approximately

1,441

dwelling

units.”
i. I am not aware of any comprehensive and reliable list of the proposed Housing Opportunity

Overlay

sites,

which

one

the

problems

with

trying

understand

the

program.
ii. Appendix B of the Housing Element lists many. It appears to list 222 parcels assigned to Overlay Districts with a total buildable area of about 470 acres. But it gives

indication

which

parcels

are

the

coastal

zone

and

which

not.

And

some

sites

have

been

added

since.

better

source

might

Table

the

City’s
2025 Annual Progress Report Excel workbook submitted to the state in March. It lists 225 parcels with a total area of 685 acres of which 24 with a combined area of

68 acres

are

flagged

“Pending

Coastal

Commission”

(approval).

However,

that

does

not

include

the

4.03-acre

919

Bayside

parcel

the

7.05-acre

1 Park

Newport

parcel

depicted

the

proposed

HO-4

(Newport

Center

Area)

map,

which

might

bring

the

coastal

zone

totals

79 acres

over

the

26 sites

mentioned

the

staff

report

(although

not

the

coastal

zone,

also

missing

from

Table

Jim Mosher re: LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 Page 8 of 9 are two parcels comprising 1.77 acres of the Regal Edwards Cinema site at 300 Newport

Center

Drive

and

1.18-acre

parcel

4667

MacArthur

Blvd).

iii. While the number of coastal zone parcels (“sites”) may be correct, it is especially unclear

where

the

“
with

assumed

collective

capacity

approximately

1,441

dwelling

units
”

statement

comes

from.

The

housing

element

assumes

each

the

coastal

zone

parcels

has

capacity

develop

50 du/ac,

and

79 acres

50 du/ac

3,950

units.

Table

the

2025

Annual

Progress

Report,

with

its

two

missing

coastal

zone

parcels,

but

which

believe

corrects

for

existing

units

opportunity

sites,

well

recent

approvals

less

than

full

capacity,

shows

“realistic”

net

increase

coastal

zone

housing

2,781

units.
iv. That said, Assessors Parcel Numbers may not be the best way of identifying sites,

since

some

parcels

have

than

APN

and

some

APN’s

contain

than

one

overlay

site

covering

less

than

the

full

parcel.

The

Newport

Beach

Country

Club

example

this,

with

the

same

128.5-acre

parcel

identified

both

APN

441

011

51 and

441

011

52,

and

containing

within

two

separate

and

unrelated

0.5-acre

Housing

Opportunity

Sites

identified

the

Housing

Element

Numbers

353

and

354.
v. In short, a definitive and reliable list of opportunity sites seems lacking, with the maps

providing

only

tenuous

guidance

given

their

marginally

legible

scale

and

lack

many

property

lines,

including

most

internal

ones,

and

all

site

numbers.

g. Two additional puzzles are: i. No opportunity sites at all have been identified in the Newport Coast portion of the

city,

even

though

comprises

large

part

the

land

area.

not

know

why

that

is,

since

would

assume

there

would

opportunities

densify

housing

areas

where

already

exists

rather

than

sacrificing

existing

commercial,

recreational,

and

visitor-

and

marine-serving

property

ii. In all overlay districts other than HO-3 (Dover/Westcliff) the Housing Element offers

overlay

status

all

the

housing

opportunity

sites

that

were

identified

the
City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element. In the proposed IP HO-3 map only three tiny 5th Cycle parcels (one in the northern part of Mariners Mile and two barely visible south

Lido

Village)

are

authorized

make

use

the

overlay.

have

idea

why

how

they

were

selected,

since

there

are

many

other

similarly-situated

5th

Cycle

parcels

neighboring

them.

would

seem

that

them

were

allowed

participate

the

overlay,

there

would

opportunities

for

lot

consolidation.

That

would

allow

housing

densify

areas

where

already

exists

rather

than

sacrificing

existing

commercial,

recreational

and

visitor-

and

marine-serving

property
.

would

think

that

would

option

much

preferred

the

Coastal

Commission.
h. It is not entirely clear why the staff report includes Exhibit 2 (which seems to be a copy of Newport Beach City Council Ordinance No. 2024-16, as introduced). This is an ordinance adopting changes to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Jim Mosher re: LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 Page 9 of 9 Code. Is Exhibit 2 intended to illustrate the statement near the top of page 17 about

City’s

“broader

Housing

Element

implementation

program

that

includes

complementary

amendments

the

General

Plan

Land

Use

Element

and

Newport

Beach

Municipal

Code

(NBMC)

Title

20 (Planning

and
Zone Zoning)”? If so, why is
an

unsigned

"proposed"

version

provided

instead

the

signed,

adopted

one

linked

to
above? While the text of Title 20 frequently parallels that of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan), and while actions in the coastal zone have to be consistent

with

both,

not

the

same,

nor

its

adoption

contingent

CCC

certification.

fact,

the

final

version

Exhibit

2 was

adopted

September

24,

2024,

and

has

been

effect

since

October

25 of

that

year.

Should

the

Commission

find

the

text

being

considered

the

present

meeting,

modified,

consistent

with

the

Coastal

Act,

understanding

that

the

City

will

introduce

and

adopt

new

and

separate

resolution

(different

from

Exhibit

adding

that

text

the

CLUP

and

new

ordinance

adding

the

IP,

subject

subsequent

concurrence

the

CCC

Executive

Director.

My apologies for the length of the comments, but this strikes me as an important issue that deserves

additional

review

before

being

certified.

Given

the

deadline,

it’s

possible

the

best

course

would

deny

certification

and

start

over

with

new

proposal

closely

tailored

the

City’s

affordable

housing

requirements

and

compliant

with

the

court

decisions.

Yours sincerely, Jim Mosher 2210 Private Road Newport Beach, CA. 92660 April 7, 2026

To the California Coastal Commission,

Another petition with required 6100 signatures was approved for a community vote to limit housing to the minimum required Element number under 3000 units. NBGC is not needed for housing.

SAH was content as a county island and did not seek annexation – the City approached us.

We were concerned city government would add another layer of regulation and bureaucracy to our lives while disregarding the unique character of SAH. Our fears have been confirmed.

As elected officials you are often asked to balance the needs of the residents and development community. This is one of those moments.

Sincerely,

RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE

Sent to NBGC neighboring community and NB City Council 4/12 Newport Beach City Council applied to California Coastal Commission for approval of housing overlay that rezones NBGC from recreational open space to high density residential. NB claims development of the golf course is needed and necessary to meet CA Element Housing mandate requiting 4800 units. NB Development Office application pipeline already has 2000 units in Airport Area, 5000 units total, see link below.. Public vote is scheduled in Nov. to limit housing to less than 3000 units. There is no need for any housing or any other development on NBGC open space recreation zone, in Coastal protection zone, in JWA crash zone, in JWA high 65db zone, in flood and tsunami zone, in high traffic zone, adjoining Back Bay wildlife zone, in violation of SAH Specific Plan, etc. Normally legitimate city Council decisions are by law exempt from personal liability claims but council and NB tax payers are not exempt from enormous potential liability for Council's reckless unjustifiable overruling of Airport Land Use Commission's rejection of development in 65db zone and crash zone directly under JWA flight path.

If CCC follows their staff recommendation to approve housing in this location I will ask commissioners if there is any purpose of the California Coastal Commission?
Element Housing law exempts all regulations, zoning, existing land uses, environmental impacts, etc, but does not exempt requirement CCC approval of housing overlay . Except for a legal challenge, this may be our last chance to block administrative approval.

Sent 4/13 to Seimone Jurgis, Newport Beach Director of Community Development, Assistant City Manager

Dear Seimone
Please send information on the number of housing unit applications being processed by Community Development in Airport Area and citywide, and if number may now exceed number required for NB to comply with Element mandate. If so will Council withdraw CCC housing overlay application based on now baseless claim that housing on NBGC open space is essential to meet Element mandate numbers. If enough housing on other sites is already in the pipeline, especially considering reversal of Surf Park approval and petition for vote to reduce housing numbers, Element mandate is moot, application is inaccurate and obsolete, and there is no public support to proceed with CCC application for housing on NBGC. If not withdrawn but approved by CCC housing overlay will be challenged in court.

Jim Auster
20401 Bayview Ave
9706187692

https://www.google.com/search?q=nnumber+of+housing+units+in+pipeline+in+nweport +beach+to+meet+Housing+Element+mandate+for+6th+cycle&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF- 8&hl=en-us&client=safari

As of October 2025, Newport Beach has over 5,000 housing units in preliminary applications, exceeding its 6th Cycle RHNA mandate to plan for 4,845 new units by 2029.

The city is currently in a 2021–2029 planning cycle, with adopted plans focusing on six key areas to meet this quota through 2025.

City of Newport Beach (.gov) +3
• Total Mandate (6th Cycle): 4,845 units, of which 1,456 are for very low-income and 930 for low-income households.
• Pipeline Status: More than 5,000 units are currently in preliminary application stages, with a significant number being apartment developments. • Buffer Strategy: The city has approved plans for up to 8,174 units (via rezoning/density), intended to serve as a buffer to meet mandates in case projects are canceled.
• Future Developments: A proposed "Responsible Housing Initiative" for the November 2026 ballot aims to cap new housing at 2,900 units, relying on those already in the pipeline to meet the state mandate.

Outlook
FW: 4/17 vote to rezone NBGC to high density housing
FromSouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Date Thu 4/9/2026 2:33 PM
To Cortez, Dulce@Coastal <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 2:31 PM
To: SouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Subject: 4/17 vote to rezone NBGC to high density housing [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Hello,
I am opposed to the rezoning of the NBGC from its current status as recreational open space. As a resident of this neighborhood for 30 years I have seen many changes such as MOBs and executive suites, etc. come in to the neighborhood. The golf course is a buffer from the noise and congestion that has grown over time. The area including the adjacent Delhi channel is critical to many waterfowl as well as Osprey and other raptors , reptiles and mammals who use the area for nesting, denning and hunting.

If any housing, let alone high density multi family housing goes in here the area will be negatively impacted.

This is a stones throw from where the Delhi channel empties into the Upper Newport Bay Preserve so the damage could be even more damaging to the area.

My hope would be to keep the open space designation so that this area could enhance the quality of life for all. Rather than decimate it.

Thank you for your time,
Matt Clark
949 422-4942
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Outlook
FW: Public Comment on April 2026 Agenda Item Friday 11a - City of Newport Beach LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 (Housing Overlay)
FromSouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Date Fri 4/10/2026 9:00 PM
To Cortez, Dulce@Coastal <[email protected]>
Cc Spencer, Amrita@Coastal <[email protected]>; Dobson, Amber@Coastal <[email protected]>
FYI

From: Protect Our Coast Newport Beach <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 4:35 PM
To: SouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>; Huckelbridge, Kate@Coastal <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on April 2026 Agenda Item Friday 11a - City of Newport Beach LCP Amendment No. LCP- 5-NPB-24-0032-2 (Housing Overlay)

Re: Newport Beach LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-NPB-24-0032-2 (Housing Opportunity Overlay)
Hearing Date: April 11th 2026
Dear Chair Harmon and Commissioners,
We appreciate the effort by both the City and Coastal Commission staff to address the State’s housing requirements within the coastal zone. Increasing housing opportunities—particularly for lower- and moderate-income households—is an important statewide priority. However, the Coastal Act establishes equally important and legally binding protections for public access, lower-cost recreation, coastal-dependent uses, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas.

The proposed Housing Opportunity Overlay, as currently structured, appears to shift that balance by allowing residential development in areas traditionally reserved for priority coastal uses, without clear, enforceable safeguards to ensure those uses are preserved. The following comments are intended to identify specific areas where the amendment may not fully conform to Coastal Act requirements and to request clarification and revisions necessary to ensure consistency with those standards.
________________________________________
Requested Action
The Commission should deny the LCP amendment as currently conditioned unless the issues identified below are fully resolved.
________________________________________
Threshold Issue – Legal Standard
The staff report emphasizes that the purpose of the amendment is to:
“facilitate residential development… to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)” (pp. 5, 17)
At the same time, the report correctly states:
“The standard of review… is whether the LCP, as amended, conforms with and is adequate to carry out the provisions of the Coastal Act.” (p. 5)
These two statements must be reconciled. While housing obligations are important, they do not displace the Coastal Act’s Chapter 3 requirements. The Commission’s obligation remains to ensure that any LCP amendment fully conforms with policies governing priority uses, public access, lower-cost recreation, environmentally sensitive habitat, and coastal hazards.

Addendum Request:

Please identify any specific statute or adopted Coastal Commission policy that authorizes the displacement of coastal priority uses or modifies Chapter 3 standards in order to accommodate housing. If no such authority exists, the amendment must be evaluated strictly on its consistency with the Coastal Act.
________________________________________
Priority Use Conflict (Coastal Act §§30222, 30213)
The staff report acknowledges that the Housing Opportunity Overlay applies to sites currently designated for a wide range of coastal priority uses, stating:
“HO Overlay sites are currently designated for commercial, visitor-serving commercial, marine- related, parks, recreation, or open space uses.” (p. 1) The report further recognizes the inherent risk:
“Residential development… could result in the displacement or reduction of Coastal Act priority uses.” (p. 21)
The proposed safeguard—requiring “functional equivalent uses”—is not defined in measurable or enforceable terms. It does not ensure that displaced uses are replaced at the same location, at the same scale, or at the same level of public accessibility.

Addendum Request:

Please define “functional equivalent” using objective, enforceable criteria, and explain how allowing residential development on these sites complies with the Coastal Act’s requirement that visitor-serving and coastal-dependent uses have priority over residential development. ________________________________________
Loss of Lower-Cost Coastal Access (Coastal Act §30213)
The Coastal Act requires that:
“Lower-cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected and encouraged…” (p. 18) However, the staff report acknowledges that residential development under the amendment:
“could result in the displacement… of visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities.” (p. 21) The proposed replacement standard—“comparable visitor peak use intensity and public availability”—does not address affordability. As a result, lower-cost uses could be replaced with higher-cost alternatives, undermining a core Coastal Act requirement.

Addendum Request:

Please explain how the amendment ensures that lower-cost access opportunities are preserved, rather than replaced with higher-cost or less accessible uses. ________________________________________
Public Access and Recreation Impacts (Coastal Act §§30210, 30223) The Coastal Act requires the provision of:
“Maximum public access and recreational opportunities…” (p. 18) The staff report confirms that certain Housing Opportunity sites include existing recreational lands, including portions of the Newport Beach Golf Course:
“four parcels… are designated as PR (Parks and Recreation)… Newport Beach Golf Course.” (p. 22)
Allowing residential use on these sites raises serious concerns about the loss or reduction of recreational opportunities.

Addendum Request:

Please provide a quantitative analysis comparing existing recreational acreage and capacity to post-development conditions, and demonstrate how the amendment results in no loss—and preferably an increase—in public access and recreational opportunities. ________________________________________
ESHA and Habitat Protection (Coastal Act §30240)
The staff report notes that:
“ESHA will be created immediately adjacent to Parcels 23–26…” (p. 23) It also acknowledges that development could:
“adversely impact riparian ESHA by encroaching too close…” (p. 23) Despite this, the amendment allows residential development in proximity to these sensitive areas without clearly defined avoidance or buffer standards at the LCP level.

Addendum Request:

Please identify ESHA boundaries and required buffers at the program level, and explain why avoidance of these areas is not required prior to allowing residential zoning. ________________________________________
Reliance on Future Discretion (LCP Certification Issue) The amendment repeatedly relies on future project-level review, stating that development must:
“comply with applicable coastal resource protection standards” (p. 16) However, LCPs must be clear and enforceable at the time of certification. Key terms such as “functional equivalent,” “comparable,” and “lower-cost” remain undefined.

Addendum Request:

Please provide objective definitions and explain how the amendment meets the requirement that an LCP be self-executing and enforceable.
________________________________________
De Facto Rezoning
Although the staff report states that the amendment:
“would not rezone the subject parcels…” (p. 17)
allowing residential use where it was not previously permitted constitutes a functional change in land use.

Addendum Request:

Please analyze the amendment as a land use conversion and reevaluate its consistency with Coastal Act priority use policies under that framework. ________________________________________
Failure to Analyze Alternatives
The staff report concludes that:
“no feasible alternatives… are available” (p. 26)
However, there is no clear analysis of whether housing could be accommodated outside the coastal zone or on sites that do not currently serve priority coastal functions.

Addendum Request:

Please identify feasible inland or non-priority-use alternatives and explain why they were not selected.
________________________________________
Structural Defects – RHNA Misalignment and Overconcentration The amendment appears to authorize significantly more housing capacity than is necessary to meet RHNA requirements, particularly within the coastal zone. At the same time, there is no mechanism ensuring that this additional capacity results in the delivery of required affordable housing.

Additionally, the structure of the amendment allows entire “focus area” allocations to be concentrated within the coastal zone, rather than distributed more evenly between coastal and inland areas.

Addendum Requests:
• Please explain why coastal zone capacity exceeds what is necessary to meet RHNA requirements.
• Please clarify whether limits should be placed on the number of units that may be located within the coastal zone portions of each focus area.
• Please identify mechanisms that ensure affordable housing obligations are actually met. ________________________________________
Legal Instability of Overlay Approach
Recent case law raises questions about whether overlay zoning alone is sufficient to meet RHNA obligations, particularly with respect to affordable housing. If additional rezoning is required in the future, previously approved coastal entitlements may be revisited or expanded.

Addendum Request:

Please explain how potential future rezoning requirements would interact with Coastal Act compliance and previously approved development rights.
________________________________________
Height Limit Conflict
The amendment allows relatively high residential densities while also maintaining a 35-foot shoreline height limit. This creates a foreseeable conflict, as applicants may argue that the allowed density cannot be achieved within the height limit.

Addendum Request:

Please demonstrate how the proposed densities can be achieved within existing height limits, and clarify whether any mechanism exists to prevent requests for height increases based on feasibility claims.
________________________________________
Mismatch Between Land Use Designations and Actual Uses
The amendment protects coastal-related uses based on zoning designations rather than actual existing uses. This could result in the loss of functioning marine or visitor-serving businesses located on commercially designated parcels, while protecting sites that are designated for coastal uses but not actively used as such.

Addendum Request:

Please explain how existing coastal-dependent and visitor-serving uses will be protected regardless of underlying zoning designation.
________________________________________
Sea Level Rise and Coastal Hazards (Coastal Act §30253) The amendment increases residential density in coastal areas without evaluating long-term exposure to sea level rise, flooding, or other coastal hazards. This is particularly relevant for sites near coastal waters and the Santa Ana Delhi Channel.

Coastal Act §30253 requires that development minimize risks to life and property and ensure long-term stability.

Addendum Request:

Please identify which Housing Opportunity sites are vulnerable to sea level rise or flooding, and explain how increased residential density in these areas complies with Coastal Act hazard avoidance requirements.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The issue before the Commission is not whether housing should be accommodated in the coastal zone—it should and must be. The issue is how that housing is accommodated, and whether it is done in a manner that remains faithful to the Coastal Act’s core mandates. The proposed amendment allows housing to displace priority coastal uses based on vague and unenforceable standards, rather than ensuring those uses are preserved as required by law.

The Commission can and should require a framework that accommodates housing without sacrificing the coastal resources the Act is designed to protect.

Housing can and should be built—but not by trading away the public’s coast one site at a time.

Thank you for your careful consideration and for all you do to protect our coast.

Submitted on behalf of the Steering Committee of Protect our Coast Newport Beach

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Outlook
FW: Housing Layer of the Newport Beach Golf Course-04.09.26 FromSouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Date Thu 4/9/2026 11:15 AM
To Cortez, Dulce@Coastal <[email protected]>

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 11:07 AM
To: SouthCoast@Coastal <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Layer of the Newport Beach Golf Course-04.09.26

To the California Coastal Commission,

We are writing to strongly oppose the proposed approval of the Housing Layer and the rezoning of the Newport Beach Golf Course from its current Recreational Open Space designation to High-Density Housing.

The John Wayne Airport Land Use Commission rejected development on golf course in high noise and crash zone directly under the flight path and NB Council over rode ALUC to approve the project but then reversed approval after the public petition required a public vote.

We urge the Commission to reject the proposed Housing Layer and rezoning request in order to protect the natural and community resources entrusted to your stewardship.

Best Regards,

Shella & Joseph Salvo
20352 SW Cypress Street
626-755-5425

Newport Beach LCP Implementation Plan

Page 21 ends

Newport Beach City CouncilMay 26, 2026

Newport Beach City Council
May 26, 2026