Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout35 - Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)Q �EwPpRT CITY OF s NEWPORT BEACH `q44:09 City Council Staff Report August 26, 2025 Agenda Item No. 35 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director - 949-644-3232, sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Jerry Arregui, Assistant Planner - 949-644-3249, jarregui@newportbeachca.gov TITLE: Resolution No. 2025-55: Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025- 0049) ABSTRACT: For the City Council's consideration is an appeal of the Planning Commission's July 3, 2025, approval of a major site development review for a 27-unit townhome project on an undeveloped and unaddressed property located near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection. An appeal was filed on July 17, 2025, by the Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm on behalf of Save Our Sports Park. While the Planning Commission approved both a major site development review and vesting tentative tract map to implement the project, the appeal was filed within the 14-day appeal period, as provided in Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), but after the 10-day appeal period provided in Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the NBMC. As a result, only the appeal of the Major Site Development Review is valid. RECOMMENDATIONS: a) Conduct a de novo public hearing; b) Find that this project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because the project is consistent with the previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023060699) and statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66; and c) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-55, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Denying an Appeal and Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a Major Site Development Review to Construct 27 Residential Condominiums Located on an Unaddressed Parcel Abutting 1650 Ford Road (PA2025-0049). 35-1 Resolution No. 2025-55: Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049) August 26, 2025 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The project site is located near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection. As shown in Figure 1, the proposed townhome community would be situated northeast of a City of Newport Beach -owned trail and the parking lot for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and northwest of the Harbor View community, which is comprised primarily of single-family residences. While the townhome development would occur within currently undeveloped land, the proposal also includes improvements to the AT&T facility located at 1650 Ford Road. Newport Bluffs Apartments rt - Undeveloped Property T s -. — - wrirnc.rvrorv��n - Fg AT&T Facility P�. Project Site Harbor View Community k t, A ��� Bonita Canyon.. Sports Park Y `' .. 11K s.. Figure 1, Oblique image of the project site and the surrounding neighborhood The undeveloped property is designated Public Facilities (PF) in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is zoned Public Facilities (PF). The site is also identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 and is within the recently established and amended HO-4 (Newport Center Area) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. The Housing Opportunity overlays were created to meet the State of California's housing production mandates under Housing Element law. Upon completion, the project will contribute 27 new housing units toward the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Protect Description The proposed 27-unit residential townhome development includes two-, three-, and four - bedroom units ranging from 1,916 to 2,989 square feet each, with attached two -car garages. Dwelling unit types are summarized in Table 1 below. 35-2 Resolution No. 2025-55: Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049) August 26, 2025 Page 3 Table 1, Dwellina Unit Summary Floor Plan Gross Floor Area (Sq. Ft) Bedrooms Garage Spaces No. Units Plan 1 1,916 2 2 8 Plan 2 2,325 3 2 8 Plan 3 2,916 4 2 5 Plan 4 2,989 4 2 6 Units would be distributed within four detached, four-story buildings with a maximum structure height of 47 feet and 11 inches above the established grade. Along with the private garages, the project will provide 10 uncovered guest parking spaces, and two uncovered delivery spaces for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces. Vehicular access would be provided from Ford Road, through a shared driveway with the adjacent AT&T facility located at 1650 Ford Road. Offsite improvements include the installation of a gate restricting access to the neighboring AT&T property and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications monopole onto the neighboring AT&T property. Although the project originally included a request to exceed the base height limit of the site, Ordinance No. 2025-10 has subsequently become effective thereby increasing height limits for this and other properties in the HO-4 Subarea. With the current height limit of 48 feet in place, the project fully complies with the zoning standards provided in Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts). A full project description and project plans are provided as Attachment B and C, respectively. The following approvals are required to implement the proposed project: 1. A Major Site Development Review (SDR) to authorize construction of a residential development proposing five or more units with a tract map. Additionally, approval of an SDR is required to allow three deviations from multi -unit objective design standards; and 2. A Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) to adjust the easterly property line between the undeveloped property and the AT&T facility, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes within the undeveloped property, and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units for condominium purposes. Planning Commission Hearing and Decision On July 3, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing to consider the project. The Planning Commission received 94 comment letters in advance of the hearing and 17 oral comments during the hearing. Commenters in support of the project noted that the project would create needed housing in Newport Beach and contribute to addressing the state housing crisis. Those in opposition expressed concerns surrounding a lack of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, the potential for traffic spill over, inadequate vehicular access, and inadequate public noticing. 35-3 Resolution No. 2025-55: Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049) August 26, 2025 Page 4 Following receipt of public comments and deliberation, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2025-012 by a unanimous vote to approve the project. The staff report, resolution and meeting minutes are provided as Attachment D, E and F, respectively. An appeal was filed on July 17, 2025, by the Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm on behalf of Save Our Sports Park (Appellant). The appeal cited the following factors of concern (as summarized): • Unsupported deviations from multi -unit objective design standards; • Incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; • Contesting the appeal period for a Lot Line Adjustment; • Questioning the findings made to approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map; and • Inadequate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act . The complete appeal application is provided as Attachment G. The SDR review is governed by Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC, which provides a 14-day appeal period; however, the VTTM is governed by Title 19 (Subdivisions), which provides a 10-day appeal period. The City sent a letter dated July 21, 2025, via U.S. Mail, provided as Attachment H, and an email to the Appellant confirming the appeal of the SDR and rejecting the appeal of the VTTM, as the Appellant filed their appeal after the action on the VTTM became final. Therefore, the only item for the City Council's consideration is an appeal of the SDR. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030(C)(3) (Conduct of Hearing) of the NBMC, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the prior decision of the Planning Commission to approve the SDR has no force or effect. The City Council is not bound by the Planning Commission's prior decision on the SDR or limited to the issues raised by the appeal. Response to Appeal The analysis below addresses the concerns expressed by the Appellant. Additionally, the applicant included a response to the appeal, which is provided as Attachment I. 1) Deviation of Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards The Appellant asserts that the project's deviation of three Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards (ODS) as provided in Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC is not supported by sufficient analysis and evidence. Staff Response: The purpose of the ODS is to ensure the highest possible design quality and to provide a baseline standard for new multi -unit developments throughout the city. 35-4 Resolution No. 2025-55: Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049) August 26, 2025 Page 5 ODS are applicable to any residential project with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project complies with 49 of the 52 applicable standards in the ODS and is requesting relief from the following: 1. Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length: Building length shall be limited to 150 feet. 2. Horizontal Modulation —Minimum Depth: All building recesses or projections shall be a minimum of 2 feet in depth. 3. Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Number: There shall be a maximum limit of two recesses or projections per fagade. As detailed in the Planning Commission staff report, and the draft resolution for the City Council, staff believes there are sufficient facts to support the deviations of these three standards. The project would more than comply with the intent of the ODS by providing high quality coastal contemporary architecture which includes varied rooflines, material variation, upper floor setbacks, fagade glazing and fagade articulation and modulation. While the project required deviation from the maximum number and minimum depth of horizontal modulation, the project's design results in a more aesthetically pleasing and articulated building, which furthers the intent of the ODS. The project previously required a deviation from the Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone (LPZ) ODS. However, the project has been designed to now comply with that standard, reducing the number of ODS deviations requested. A thorough analysis of ODS compliance is included in Exhibit B of the proposed resolution. Neighborhood Compatibility The Appellant asserts that the project's scale, mass and architectural character are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Response: The HO Overlay Zoning District requires a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and allows up to a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre. The fewest number of dwelling units required to meet the minimum density would be a 24-unit project while the maximum number of units allowed would be 58. The proposed 27 units are on the lower end of the range of allowable units and appropriate for the project site. The project site is within the vicinity of other residential communities, including the Newport Bluffs apartment community approximately 185 feet to the north across Bonita Canyon Drive and the Harbor View community, approximately 230 feet to the south across Ford Road. The Newport Bluffs apartment community is developed with three- story structures, built to a height of approximately 32 feet, and has a maximum height 35-5 Resolution No. 2025-55: Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049) August 26, 2025 Page 6 limit of 50 feet. The Harbor View community consists of single -story to two-story residences with a maximum allowed height of 32 feet. Additionally, the adjacent AT&T Facility to the east is approximately 35 feet in height. The project complies with the 48- foot height limit of the HO-4 Subarea and is well -buffered from these nearby developments through significant setbacks, landscaping and roadways. The intervening roads, large street trees, and distance provide a harmonious transition from neighboring developments to the project. The project was designed with contemporary coastal architecture with an articulated fagade, which includes varied rooflines, balconies, fagade projections and recessions, large windows, and material variation. Additionally, the project includes two color schemes: a coastal palette with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral earthy palette with beige, brown, light green and light white. The project was inspired by and intentionally designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Harbor View community. Staff's analysis found that the project meets the required zoning standards and includes the appropriate physical distance, buffering, and high -quality architectural design to provide a harmonious transition from the project to the adjacent developments. Despite its height being greater than that of the Newport Bluff and Harbor View communities, the project's design, setbacks and visual treatments aim to align with the character of nearby residential uses. A thorough analysis of neighborhood compatibility is included in Exhibit B of the proposed resolution. Lot Line Adjustment and Vesting Tentative Tract Map The Planning Commission's approval of the VTTM, which included a lot line adjustment, was deemed final on July 14, 2025. Because the appeal was received after this date, the appeal of the VTTM was not granted and only the SDR is within the scope of the Council's review. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The Appellant asserts that the project improperly relied on an outdated environmental document and that new information regarding environmental factors requires additional environmental review under CEQA. Staff Response: On July 23, 2024 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50, certifying Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023060699 (PEIR), approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. The PEIR and MMRP can be viewed at- https://www.newportbeachca.gov/CEQA. The purpose of the PEIR was to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of implementing the Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning District, which would allow higher- 35-6 Resolution No. 2025-55: Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049) August 26, 2025 Page 7 density housing projects within specific sites identified within Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis) of the Housing Element. Specifically, the PEIR would: • Analyze and disclose the cumulative environmental effects of the zoning amendments; • Identify mitigation measures to potentially reduce or eliminate significant adverse impacts (e.g., air quality, water quality, biological resources, etc.); • Provide a legal and informational foundation for decision -makers and the public before the zoning is adopted or amended; and • Streamline future housing development by covering broad environmental issues at the program level, reducing the need for project -specific EIRs unless new significant impacts are identified. The project included a CEQA consistency memorandum prepared by T&B Planning Inc., dated June 2025. The purpose of this memorandum was to demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the PEIR and that no additional environmental impacts would result from the project. As part of the memorandum, the applicant provided several environmental analyses of the property and project including: • Air Quality and Green House Gas Emission Analysis dated June 11, 2025 • Biological Resources Assessment dated June 25, 2025 • Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment dated June 13, 2025 • Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan dated June 17, 2025 • Preliminary Hydrology Report dated June 16, 2025 • Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis dated May 28, 2025 • Sewer and Water Demand Study dated May 14, 2025 • PEIR Mitigating Measure and Reporting Program Applicability Assessment The CEQA Consistency Memorandum and the environmental analysis documents were peer -reviewed by the City's CEQA consultant Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Both the consistency analysis and peer review concluded that the project would not create any new significant impacts or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR, therefore no further environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183. Additional information relating to the Appellants' claim of sensitive habitat is provided in the City's response letter provided in Attachment H. The CEQA Consistency Memorandum, originally included as Exhibit A in the Planning Commission's resolution, is now incorporated as Exhibit C in the proposed resolution. Additionally, the City Attorney's Office submitted a supplemental memorandum to the Planning Commission addressing the applicability of Assembly Bill 130, which would 35-7 Resolution No. 2025-55: Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049) August 26, 2025 Page 8 statutorily exempt the project from CEQA. This supplemental memorandum is included as Attachment J. FISCAL IMPACT: The project is subject to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees) of the NBMC requiring an in -lieu fee assessed at a rate of $38,400 per unit. The project will also be subject to development impact fees of $8.90 per square foot, along with any other typical City fees for new developments. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183, which provide an exemption for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. The City's Housing Implementation Program Final Program EIR (State Clearinghouse SCH Number 2023060699) was certified by the City Council on July 23, 2024. The project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines because, inasmuch as the property involved is within the HO-4 Subarea, the project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations; and would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial more adverse impact than addressed in the PEIR. Furthermore, as documented in the July 3, 2025, memorandum prepared by the City Attorney's Office (Attachment J), the project is statutorily exempt pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 as the project is within an incorporated municipality or urban area with a site size of 20 acres or less, meets certain infill criteria including at least 75% of the perimeter be adjoined with urban uses, is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, meets the minimum density requirement for the site's location, and does not require the demolition of historic resources. NOTICING: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways), including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Resolution No. 2025-55 Attachment B — Project Description Attachment C — Project Plans Attachment D — July 3, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report 35-8 Resolution No. 2025-55: Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049) August 26, 2025 Page 9 Attachment E — Resolution No. PC2025-012 Attachment F — July 3, 2025, Planning Commission Minutes Attachment G — Appeal Application Attachment H — City Appeal Response Letter Attachment I — Applicant Appeal Response Letter Attachment J — City Attorney's Office Supplemental Memorandum Attachment K — Public Comments 35-9 Attachment A Draft Resolution and Findings 35-10 RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMISSION TO APPROVE A MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT 27 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED ON AN UNADDRESSED PARCEL ABUTTING 1650 FORD ROAD (PA2025-0049) WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach ("City") is governed, in part, by the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"), and Council Policies; WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with respect to all 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, an application was filed by Ford Road Ventures LLC ("Applicant"), on behalf of the property owner Pacific Bell Telephone Company ("Owner') concerning property located at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02), and an undeveloped and unaddressed property abutting 1650 Ford Road (458-361-10), and legally described as Lot A and Lot B, respectively, of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2019-001 ("Properties"), - WHEREAS, the undeveloped and unaddressed property is located near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection, northeast of the parking lot for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and west of the AT&T Facility located at 1650 Ford Road ("Project Site"), - WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to develop a 27-unit, for sale, residential townhome complex distributed within four, detached, four-story buildings with a maximum structure height of 47 feet and 11 inches, a two -car garage for each unit, 10 uncovered guest parking spaces, and two uncovered delivery spaces for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces ("Project"); 35-11 Resolution No. 2025- Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, the Project includes an outdoor picnic area and outdoor firepit area as resident -serving amenities and improvements to the neighboring AT&T Facility property including the installation of a gate to restrict access to its parking lot, repaving the parking lot, new landscaping, repainting the building, and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications monopole; WHEREAS, lastly, the Project will subdivide the undeveloped and unaddressed Project Site and reconfigure the lot line between the Project Site and the AT&T Facility property ("Project"), - WHEREAS, the following approvals are required from the City to implement the Project: a. A Major Site Development Review ("SDR") pursuant to Table 5-2 (Review Authority for Site Development Review) of Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) and Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC because the Project proposes five or more units with a tract map and to allow for deviations from multi -unit objective design standards; and b. A Vesting Tentative Tract Map ("VTTM") pursuant to Chapter 19.20 (Vesting Tentative Maps) of the NBMC to adjust the easterly property line between the undeveloped Project Site and the AT&T Facility, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes within the undeveloped Project Site, and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units for condominium purposes; WHEREAS, on September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2024-16 and 2024-17, approving amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC to establish the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts in Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) ("Housing Overlay") and to create multi -unit objective design standards in Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC; WHEREAS, the new sections serve to implement Policy Actions 1A through 1G and 3A in the 6ch Cycle Housing Element ("Housing Element") of the General Plan including the Project Site which is identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141; 35-12 Resolution No. 2025- Page 3 of 10 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50 on July 23, 2024 certifying Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023060699 ("PEIR"), approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC which are available at: Housing Implementation Program EIR. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, approving amendments to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC to adjust the height limitation for certain properties within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District to accommodate potential residential development with the intendent prescribed density range, - WHEREAS, specifically, these amendments allowed for the base height limit of the Project Site to be increased from 37 feet to 48 feet; WHEREAS, independent of Ordinance No. 2025-10, pursuant to Section 20.30.060(C) (Height Limits and Exceptions — Increase in Height Limit) of the NBMC, the Project has the flexibility to increase the allowed base height limit of 37 feet up to 55 feet through the approval of an SDR; WHEREAS, although the Project is designed within the now allowed 48-foot height limit, additional facts in support of findings that support the Project height, though not required, are included in Findings D through G in Exhibit "B"; WHEREAS, the Project Site is located within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District ("HO-4 Subarea"), - WHEREAS, the Project Site is designated as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District; WHEREAS, the Project Site is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required; 35-13 Resolution No. 2025- Page 4 of 10 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 3, 2025, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing; WHEREAS, at the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2025-012 by a unanimous vote (6 ayes, 0 nays), approving the Project; WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by the law firm of Mitchell M. Tsai on August 17, 2025, alleging the Project failed to comply with the Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards and was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the lot line adjustment should be subject to a 14-day appeal period, and the Project violated California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); WHEREAS, the appeal of the SDR was timely because it was made within the 14-day appeal period pursuant to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC, however, the appeal of the VTTM was not timely because it was made past the 10-day appeal period pursuant to Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the NBMC; WHEREAS, due to the timing of the appeal, the VTTM is final and not subject to appeal, and the only item before the City Council is an appeal of the SDR; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on August 26, 2025, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by, the City Council at this hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows.. 35-14 Resolution No. 2025- Page 5 of 10 Section 1: The City Council does hereby find that the Project is not subject to further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Section 15183 (Project Consistent With a Community Plan or Zoning) of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code ("PRU) because, the Property is within the HO-4 Subarea which was fully analyzed in the PEIR, the Project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations and would not result in new significant impacts or substantially increased adverse impacts. A detailed consistency analysis has been prepared by T & B Planning Inc., dated June 2025, which was peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., and found to be consistent based as detailed in Exhibit "C," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by the City's General Plan Housing Implementation Program as analyzed by the PEIR, and the required determinations can be made, as detailed in Exhibit "C." Therefore, in accordance with Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required to approve the Project. The City Council determines: a. The Project is consistent with the development density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre established by existing zoning and general plan policies for which the PEIR was certified; b. There are no significant environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project or the parcels on which the Project would be located; c. There are no significant environmental effects of the Project that were not analyzed as significant effects in the PEIR; d. There are no potentially significant off -site impacts or cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the PEIR; and e. There are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the PEIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior PEIR. Section 2: The City Council finds that the Project meets the criteria prescribed by Section 21080.66 of the PRC and no additional environmental review is required to approve the Project. The City Council determines: 35-15 Resolution No. 2025- Page 6 of 10 a. The Project site is 1.16 acres, which is less than the 20-acre threshold; b. The Project site is surrounded by urban uses consisting of residential, parks and recreation, and public open space; c. The Project site was included in Appendix B of the City's adopted and certified 6ch Cycle Housing Element (Housing Element) as a housing opportunity site (Site ID No. 141) that could accommodate residential redevelopment. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 4.4 (Rezoning to Accommodate Housing Opportunities) supports residential uses at this site. Furthermore, the site was rezoned by way of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts and is included within the Newport Center Area (HO-4) Subarea; d. The Project would have a density of approximately 23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) which meets the minimum density of 20 du/ac for the site; e. The Project is in compliance with the environmental standards outlined in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6); and f. The Project is in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 as Native American tribe consultation was conducted during the preparation of the PEIR. Section 3: Appellant argues that new information regarding environmental factors requires further environmental review for the Project under CEQA. Specifically, appellant states that 1) reliance on an earlier environmental report would not comply with CEQA because CEQA "generally favors informed decision making and weighing of environmental factors prior to approving development"; 2) several key facts warrant additional environmental review under CEQA; and 3) the Project would likely directly impact an endangered species that is present on the Project site. These assertions are unsupported by the CEQA framework as well as the case law interpreting CEQA as described below. 35-16 Resolution No. 2025- Page 7 of 10 PRC Section 21166 and Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that subsequent environmental documents are only necessary if significant new information emerges after EIR certification. California courts have consistently articulated the legislative intent to ensure that a certified EIR provides a reasonable measure of finality unless the statutory conditions for further review are met. For example, in Moss v. County of Humboldt, (2008) 162 Cal. App. 4th 1041, the court emphasized that Section 21166 is intended to balance the burdens of environmental review with the need for finality, requiring substantial evidence of significant changes or new information to justify additional review. Similarly, San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego, (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 924, the court stated that there is a strong presumption against requiring further environmental review once an EIR has been certified, absent the statutory triggers. Therefore, cases analyzing subsequent projects disfavor undertaking additional environmental review, where impacts have already been analyzed through a previously certified environmental impact report. With respect to the specific facts that warrant additional environmental review where an EIR has already been certified, the decision in Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore, (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 1116, underscores that new information must be genuinely new and significant to mandate further review. In Save Livermore Downtown, the court held that specific contaminants previously considered in a Supplemental EIR were not deemed new information warranting additional environmental analysis. (Id. at 1134.) Similarly in Save Our Access v. City of San Diego, (2023) 92 Cal. App. 5th 819, the court held that the new information contemplated under 14 CCR Section 15162 must be of substantial importance, showing significant environmental effects not previously analyzed or substantially more severe effects than previously disclosed. The appeal cites as new information that several community members and neighbors have recently observed and documented birds nesting in mature trees on the Project site, and, therefore, the Project failed to consider the Project's impacts on migratory and nesting birds. Additionally, the appeal states that the Project will likely have a direct impact on an endangered species based on the Southern Tarplant observed growing on the Project site. The CEQA Consistency Memo included a Biological Resources Study, which discusses how the Project will comply with Standard Condition BIO-1 within the Housing Element EIR as it related to nesting birds. Additionally, the CEQA Consistency Memorandum relied upon a recent (June 25, 2025) site -specific Biological Resource Assessment Memorandum of the Property, which concluded that the site lacks riparian or wetland habitats. A condition of approval to address this concern has been incorporated as a condition of approval for the Project. 35-17 Resolution No. 2025- Page 8 of 10 With regard to the Southern Tarplant, there is no evidence that it exists at the site. The Biological Resources Study specifically indicated that this endangered plant was not present at the site based on their conducted field surveys in 2019 and 2025. Based on the foregoing, all environmental impacts associated with the Project have been fully analyzed and the Planning Commission's decision should be upheld on CEQA grounds. Section 4: Appellant alleges the Project failed to comply with the Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards and was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore, (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5t" 1116 is dispositive to this argument and fully supports the Planning Commission's findings. Save Livermore Downtown, held that a court reviewing a city's findings merely decides whether city officials considered applicable policies and the extent to which the proposed project conforms with those policies, whether city officials made appropriate findings on this issue, and whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at 1130.) In that case, appellants challenged a housing development project arguing that it did not comply with the downtown specific plan. (Id. at 1124.) The court reasoned that it is the province of city officials to examine the specifics of a proposed development project to determine whether it would be in harmony with the city's policies, and it is, emphatically, not the court's role to "micromanage" these development decisions. (Id. at 1124.) Applying Save Livermore Downtown to the present circumstances, the Applicant seeks an SDR, for the overall Project design as well as to approve three deviations as authorized by Section 20.48.185(C) of the NBMC. The SDR for the Project itself is supported by 15 pages of facts in support of findings, including findings specific to the three deviations. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission's decision is fully supported by the findings and the Planning Commission's decision should be upheld. Section 5: The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. Section 6: The City Council finds that the Major Site Development Review permit for the 27-unit residential project is validly approved under existing law. The Project is consistent with the certified Housing Element, is not subject to additional environmental review, and does not trigger Charter Section 423 thresholds. 35-18 Resolution No. 2025- Page 9 of 10 Section 7: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Major Site Development Review filed as PA2025-0049, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The City Council's decision is made in accordance with Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) of the NBMC which is supported by the facts and findings in Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. Section 8: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 9: 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. 35-19 Resolution No. 2025- Page 10 of 10 Section 10: 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 26th day of August, 2025. Joe Stapleton Mayor ATTEST: Molly Perry Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Aaron Harp City Att ney Attachment(s): Exhibit "A" — Conditions of Approval Exhibit "B" — Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit "C" — CEQA Consistency Memorandum Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., Dated June, 2025 Exhibit "D" — Objective Design Standard Checklist 35-20 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) Planning Division 1. The Project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, landscape plan, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). Minor changes to the approved development may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project). By way of example, a change to the number of stories of a unit (e.g., three-story product, etc.), floor plan redesign, and change to offered square footage ranges would be considered minor changes provided the project was within the allowed height limit, and in compliance with the Objective Design Standards and density range under the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. 2. Any substantial modification to the approved Site Development Review plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require an amendment to this Site Development Review application or the processing of a new application. 3. The Project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals approved by the City of Newport Beach ("City") and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval 4. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be caused the revocation of this approval. 5. This Major Site Development Review shall expire and become void unless exercised within seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-_ to coincide with the expiration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 as provided in Condition No. 16. 6. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits. 7. The proposed residential development shall consist of 27 townhome, condominium units. The number of condominium units may be reduced by the Applicant provided the total number of units meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement under the HO Overlay Zoning District. 35-21 8. The maximum height of the residential structures shall be 48 feet as measured from the established grade. No building or any portion of structure, architectural feature or mechanical equipment shall exceed 48 feet. 9. The on -site residential amenities including the outdoor picnic area and firepit lounge area as illustrated on the approved plans shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the Project. The exact mix of amenities may be modified from the original approved plans subject to the approval by the Community Development Director. The Project shall maintain at least 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit on the Project Site as required by the HO-4 subarea. The square footage of on -site resident -serving amenities shall not be reduced so that the development no longer provides 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit 10. The residential structure shall be attenuated to provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less pursuant to Section 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards) of the NBMC. Use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double paned windows, advance insulation systems, or other noise mitigation measures, as deemed appropriate by the City shall be incorporated in the design of the new residential structure to provide adequate noise attenuation. 11. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, and Chapter 15.42, Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Fair Share Traffic Fees and Transportation Corridor Agency fees shall be paid for the Project at the fee assessed at the time of payment. 12. The Applicant is responsible for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In compliance with the MBTA, grading, brush removal, building demolition, tree trimming, and similar construction activities shall occur between August 16 and January 31, outside of the peak nesting period. If such activities must occur inside the peak nesting season from February 1 to August 15, compliance with the following is required to prevent the taking of Native Birds pursuant to MBTA: A. The construction area shall be inspected for active nests. If birds are observed flying from a nest or sitting on a nest, it can be assumed that the nest is active. Construction activity within 300 feet of an active nest shall be delayed until the nest is no longer active. Continue to observe the nest until the chicks have left the nest and activity is no longer observed. When the nest is no longer active, construction activity can continue in the nest area. B. It is a violation of state and federal law to kill or harm a native bird. To ensure compliance, consider hiring a biologist to assist with the survey for nesting birds, and to determine when it is safe to commence construction activities. If an active 35-22 nest is found, 2 or 1 short follow-up surveys will be necessary to check on the nest and determine when the nest is no longer active. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable school fees for the Project. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable property development tax as required pursuant to NBMC Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax) for the Project. 15. A preliminary application for residential development, filed as PA2025-0056, was deemed submitted on April 7, 2025 for this Project. The preliminary application prevents the Project from being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in Government Code Section 65589.5(o). The Applicant shall provide an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. Therefore, the Project will be subject to an in -lieu park fee of $38, 400 per unit which is the fee that was in effect at the time the preliminary application was deemed submitted. 16. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the developer shall pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIFs) in accordance with the adopted fee schedule. 17. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 shall expire seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012. Pursuant to Section 19.16.010(A) (Expiration of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, an approved tentative tract map expires 24 months after the date of its approval or conditional approval. Under Section 19.16.020(A) (Extension of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, the subdivider shall have the right to request an extension of the map for up to five years. The subdivider has submitted an application for an extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 and has requested that the extension be granted after the Planning Commission adopts Resolution No PC2025-012; thus, providing for an initial term of the vesting tentative tract map of 24 months, followed by extension of five years, for a total term of seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an access easement on the adjacent property (APN No. 458-361-02) shall be recorded to provide the Project access to Ford Road. 35-23 19. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.49.1210 (Removal of Telecom Facilities), the Applicant shall inform the Community Development Director by certified mail no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinued use of a telecom facility. 20. Any future proposed wireless telecommunication facilities, including but not limited to the relocation of the existing wireless telecommunications monopole, shall conform with Chapter 20.49 (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities) of the NBMC. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought -tolerant planting and water -efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 22. The Project shall include landscaping around the perimeter of the Project Site to adequately screen drive aisles, parking areas, and create a visual buffer between the public right-of-way and the Project. These plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 23. The covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall require that garages be used for vehicles and shall prohibit storage of personal items that would otherwise impede parking of vehicles within the required garage spaces. The CC&Rs shall prohibit residents from parking in guest parking spaces within the development and shall prohibit any parking within the parking lot in the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. 24. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained by the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 25. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 26. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. 27. Prior to the issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval. 35-24 28. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control), under Sections 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) and 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards), and other applicable noise control requirements of the NBMC. 29. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. 30. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. Upon approval of the plan, the Applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. 31. The exterior of the development shall be always maintained free of litter and graffiti. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris, and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 32. All trash bins shall be stored within each residential unit and screened from the view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The Applicant shall ensure that the trash receptacles are maintained to control odors. The Applicant shall ensure that the trash bins are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of periodic steam cleaning of the trash bin, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash bins shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 33. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 34. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures within the General Plan Housing Implementation Program ("GPHIP') Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR') Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP') as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Memorandum prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., dated June, 2025. 35. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current property owner or leasing agent. 35-25 36. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of Ford Road Townhomes including, but not limited to, Major Site Development Review (PA2025-0049). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit, or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Buildinq Division 37. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City -adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required before the issuance of a building permit. 38. Exterior wall and opening protection shall comply with Chapter 705 of California Building Code (CBC). 39. The applicant shall employ the following best available control measures ("BACMs") to reduce construction -related air quality impacts: Dust Control • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway. �usty Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other material. 35-26 • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Emissions • Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off -road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment Off -Site Impacts • Encourage carpooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Fill Placement • The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. • Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve a 10% soil moisture content in the top 6-inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 40. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the city with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 41. Before the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices 35-27 (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 42. A list of "good housekeeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of waste or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Real Property Administrator 43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall enter into a license agreement, easement or similar agreement approved by the City Attorney with the City for points of access across the City property. 44. Points of access to the City property shall not be used for code required path of travel or accessible route. 45. The City reserves the right to redevelop City property and remove one or more points of access to City property. 46. Bonds are required prior to construction if any work is to occur on City Property. 47. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall update plans to ensure runoff remains onsite or connects to a drain in the public right-of-way, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Public Works Department 48. Warranty Bond for a minimum of 10% of the engineers cost estimate (final percentage to be determined by the Public Works Director) shall be released 1- year after the improvements have been accepted. 49. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 50. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work activities within the public right-of-way. 35-28 51. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final construction management plan (CMP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer. 52. Parking layout shall comply with the City Parking Lot Standard 805. Dead-end drive aisle in public areas shall provide a dedicated turn around space and minimum 5-foot drive aisle extension. 53. The Applicant shall reconstruct all existing broken and/or otherwise damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Ford Road frontages per City Standards. 54. All deliveries and move-ins/move-out shall be accommodated on -site and prohibited from parking or stopping within the public right-of-way. 55. The on -site sewer and water system is planned to be a public system. Final Design of the water and sewer services is subject to further review by the Public Works Department during plan check. The public sewer and water system shall be designed according to the City of Newport Beach standards. All applicable sewer and water easements shall be dedicated to the City as part of the Tract Map. 56. The Project storm drain system shall be privately owned and maintained. The storm drain system shall be prohibited from discharging to the adjacent City lots and shall be redesigned accordingly. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final hydrology and hydraulic report shall be reviewed and approved. Any required improvements to downstream City infrastructure to accommodate the proposed project shall be designed and constructed by the proposed project. 57. The parking layout and gate operation within Lot 5 shall be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works Department. 58. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirements per City Standard 105. Fire Department 59. Onsite fire hydrants shall be required and a fire underground plan submittal complying with the 2022 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 24 shall be a required as a deferred submittal. 60. Residential fire sprinklers complying with the 2022 NFPA Standard 13R shall be required. 61. Waterflow monitoring systems complying with the 2022 NFPA Standard 72 shall be required. 35-29 62. Fire master plan complying with the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) Guideline D.08 shall be required as a deferred submittal. 63. Fire rescue opening and laddering pads complying with NBFD Guideline C.05 shall be required. 35-30 EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS Major Site Development Review In accordance with Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews — Findings and Decisions) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject Zoning District Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Site is located within the HO-4 Subarea and is identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141. Pursuant to Section 20.28.050 (B) (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts — Uses Allowed) in addition to the uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted in the base zoning district, multi -unit residential development that meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement shall be permitted within the HO Overlay Zoning District. 2. Pursuant to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, the HO-4 Subarea requires a density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Based on the proposed 1.16-acre lot, the Project results in a density of 23.27 units per acre and meets the density requirement of the HO-4 Subarea. 3. The HO-4 subarea requires a zero -foot front, side, streetside and rear setback. However, footnote No. 3 of Table 2-16 requires that any portion of a building that is over 20 feet in height, which includes the Project's third and fourth floors, shall provide a 20-foot setback from the street right-of-way. The Project is bounded to the north by Bonita Canyon Drive and to the south by Ford Road. Though only the upper floors require a 20-foot setback from the street right-of- way, the Project provides varying streetside setbacks of 20 to 45-feet from the entire height of the two buildings nearest to Bonita Canyon Drive and additional setbacks for the fourth -floor covered patios. The portion of Ford Road directly adjacent to the Project Site is dedicated as open space and not public right-of- way; therefore, the upper floor setback would not apply at this location. The Project also provides varying setbacks for applicable setback areas including, a 6 to 56-foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west, and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project complies with setback requirements. 35-31 4. Table 2-16 establishes a maximum height for the HO-4 subarea consistent with the base zone of the Property, which in this case, is 48 feet. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. The Project proposes a height of 47-feet, 11 inches to the highest ridge as measured from the established grade as indicated on the VTTM pursuant to Section 20.30.050 (B)(1) (Grade Establishment — Subdivisions) of the NBMC. Independent of Ordinance No. 2025-10, pursuant to Section 20.30.060(C) (Height Limits and Exceptions — Increase in Height Limit) of the NBMC, the Project has the flexibility to increase the allowed base height limit of 37 feet up to 55 feet through the approval of an SDR. Though the Project is designed within the allowed 48-foot height limit, additional facts in support of findings to support the height increase, though not required, are included in Findings D through G in Exhibit "B." 5. Table 2-17 (Residential Off -Street Parking Requirements for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) of the NBMC requires 1.8 spaces per unit that includes two bedrooms, 2.0 spaces per unit that includes three or more bedrooms and 0.3 spaces per unit for visitor parking. The Project proposes 27 dwelling units, eight with two bedrooms and 19 with three or more bedrooms, resulting in a requirement of 61 spaces. The Project provides a two -car garage for each unit, 10 guest parking spaces and two delivery spaces for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces. The Project therefore complies with the minimum parking requirement. 6. Pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC, multi -unit objective design standards are applicable to any residential project with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. These standards ensure the highest possible design quality and provide a baseline standard for new multi -unit developments throughout the City. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated by reference, the Project deviates from the following three objective design standards: (1) 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length); (2) 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation — Minimum Depth); and (3) 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Number) of the NBMC. The Project otherwise complies with the design standards and, in come some cases, exceeds the intent of the standards. Section 20.40.185(C) of the NBMC allows for deviations from any objective design standards through the approval 35-32 of a SDR if the Applicant can demonstrate that strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the objective design standards and that the project possesses compensating design and development features that meet or exceed the intent of the objective design standards. The facts in support of the required findings are included in Findings H through I. 7. The HO-4 subarea requires a minimum building separation of 10 feet. The Project proposes varying building separations of 22 feet to 33 feet. The Project therefore complies with the minimum building separation requirement. 8. The HO-4 subarea requires that at least 75 square feet of common space to be provided per dwelling unit throughout the Project Site with a minimum length and width of 15 feet. The Project is therefore required to provide a minimum of 2,025 square feet of common open space. Section 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defines common open space as the land area within a residential development that is not individually owned or dedicated for public use and that is designed, intended, and reserved exclusively for the shared enjoyment or use by all the residents and their guests including but not limited to areas of scenic or natural beauty, barbecue areas, landscaped areas, turf areas, and habitat areas. The Project provides a total of 2,857 square feet of common open area within an outdoor picnic area and firepit lounge area. The Project therefore complies with the minimum common open space requirement. 9. The HO-4 subarea requires that at least 5% of the proposed gross floor area per unit be dedicated to private open space. Qualifying areas of private open space shall have a dimension of at least 6 feet in length and width. Section 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defined private open spaces as outdoor or unenclosed areas directly adjoining and accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive private enjoyment and use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests including but not limited to a balcony, deck, porch or terrace. The Zoning Code requires between 96 to 150 square feet of private open space per unit. The Project provides between 139 to 156 square feet of qualifying private open space per unit in the form of balconies and covered decks and therefore complies with the minimum private open space requirement. The Project provides additional private open space for certain units in the form of additional balconies. While these areas do not count as qualifying private open space, as they do not meet the minimum width requirement, the balconies provide additional private open space areas for residents and furthers the intent of this requirement. 35-33 Finding: B. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the following applicable criteria. - Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design, iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces,- V. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials, and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project Site is categorized as Public Facilities (PF) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. However, as indicated in Land Use Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities) residential use of any property including within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category. In this case, the HO-4 subarea would allow residential development on the Project Site in addition to the uses allowed in the underlying PF land use category and zoning district. 2. The Project is consistent with the following General Plan Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Circulation Element policies that establish fundamental criteria for the formation and implementation of new residential development, including, but not limited to the following: a. Housing Element Policy 3.2. Encourage housing developments to offer a wide spectrum of housing choices, designs, and configurations. See finding LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices below. 35-34 b. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.3 (Range of Residential Choices). Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element. The Project proposes a 27-unit residential condominium complex consisting of for -sale, attached single -unit dwellings offered in four distinct floor plan configurations ranging from two to four bedrooms and 1,916 to 2,989 square feet. This Project would diversify the City's housing stock, accommodate a variety of household sizes, respond to market demand, and support the City's efforts to increase the supply of housing throughout the City. c. Land Use Element Policy LU3.2 (Growth and Change). Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The Project is proposed on an undeveloped and underutilized property within an area of the City that is considerably developed. The Project will add 27 attached single -unit dwellings to the City's housing stock which furthers the City's efforts of increasing and diversifying the housing stock. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department reviewed the Project's projected traffic generation analysis and found that Ford Road would adequately serve the project. The Project is projected to produce 182 average daily trips, which does not exceed the 300 average daily trip threshold, and therefore, no additional traffic analysis is required. Additionally, the Public Works Department reviewed the submitted sewer and water demand study and found that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project, as adequate infrastructure is available and has sufficient capacity. d. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities). Residential use of any property included within an 35-35 established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category or density limit established through Policy LU 4.1, Table LU 1 and Table LU 2, or any other conflict in the Land Use Element. A general plan amendment is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity zoning overlay district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay districts specified in Policy LU 4.4 is an average over the entire property or project site. For example, a portion of a development site may be developed at a higher density than specified by Policy 4.4 provided other portions of the site are developed at lower densities such that the average does not exceed the maximum. Density calculations and total units identified in LU 4.4 do not include units identified as pipeline units or units permitted pursuant to State density bonus law. The Project is located within Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 and is located within the HO-4 Subarea. The Project proposes 27 residential condominiums on a 1.16-acre property which yields a density of 23.27 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the allowed density of the HO-4 Subarea. e. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.6 (Character and Quality of Residential Properties). Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized. While Policy LU 5.1.6 is intended for single-family detached and two -unit projects, the Project includes large setback areas that are thoroughly landscaped with drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species. While the HO-4 Subarea does not require any base floor setbacks along the front, side or rear property lines, the Project provides varying setbacks including a 20 to 45-foot streetside setback on the north, a 6 to 56-foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west, and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the Project Site. This setback design allows the Project to better reflect the character of a single-family neighborhood. Trash containers will be located within each dwelling unit's garage and screened from the public right-of-way. The visibility of driveway and parking paving has been minimized through use of landscaping to prevent an unpleasant visual experience to the surrounding neighborhood. f. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.9 (Character and Quality of Multi - Family Residential) Require that multi -family dwellings be designed to convey a high -quality architectural character in accordance with the following principles: 35-36 Building Elevations Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal fagades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume Provide street- and path -facing elevations with high -quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes. Ground Floor Treatment Set ground -floor residential uses back from the sidewalk or from the right-of-way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping. Raise ground -floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking space. Encourage stoops and porches for ground -floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways. Roof Design Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parkin Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units' architecture. Open Space and Amenity Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached to the resolution as Exhibit "D" and incorporated by reference, the Project complies with the majority (49 of 52) of the applicable objective design standards and in some cases exceeds the intent of the 35-37 standards. However, the Applicant requests minor deviations of three objective design standards. The Objective Design Standards were developed to implement Land Use Policy LU5.1.9, therefore compliance with these standards with negligible deviation ensures that the Project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU5.1.9. g. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.1 (Compatible Development). Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors Although the Project Site has an irregular shape, the Project design compactly arranges the four separate buildings to maximize site efficiency and preserve larger than required setbacks. The Bonita Canyon Sports Park unique parcel shape extends in front of the northwest portion of the Project Site, further setting back the proposed development up to 50 feet from the Bonita Canyon right-of-way in that location. The Project site design includes interior drive aisles and resident amenity areas which are screened from public view. The Project's large setbacks, landscaped edge conditions, and location of drive aisles and residential amenities reduce the visual impact of the Project and ensures compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. h. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.2 (Form and Environment). Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. The contemporary coastal architectural style of the Project has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Harbor View community. Architectural articulations and high -quality materials including brick and wood siding are utilized to blend in with the character of the surrounding community. Additionally, the Project includes two color schemes: a coastal color scheme with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white. These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes throughout the City. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.3 (Ambient Lighting). Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto 35-38 adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan which shows that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. Land Use Policy LU 6.15.23 (Sustainable Development Practices). Require that development achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs -generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR, Title 24, Parts 6 — California Energy Code) and the Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11 - CALGreen). Additionally, the Project would implement water -efficient landscaping, water quality best management practices and low impact development practices. The Project is within proximity to Newport Center commercial and office developments and would provide housing near this employment center. The Project includes pedestrian linkage to the Ford Road public sidewalk and Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail which provide pedestrian and bicyclist connections to nearby destinations such as Newport Center, approximately two miles away, and the Newport Hills Shopping Center, one mile away. The Project is also located in close proximity to the existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes provided along Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Drive. k. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.3 (New Development Maintained Responsibility). Ensure minimization of traffic congestion impacts and parking impacts and ensure proper roadway maintenance through review and approval of Construction Management Plans associated with new development proposals in residential neighborhoods. 35-39 The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. This ensures that any traffic congestion impacts associated with the construction process is minimized to the greatest extent possible. I. Circulation Element Policy CE 7.1.7 (Project Site Design Supporting Alternate Modes). Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. See finding LU 6.15.23 Sustainable Development Practices above. 3. Facts 1 through 9 in support of Finding A are hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The Project Site is not located within a Specific Plan Area. 5. The Project includes various intentional architectural design features including recessed balconies, varied rooflines, and material changes with a neutral, earthy and coastal color pallet. These design features result in well -articulated facades which reduce the visual bulk of the Project and allow each unit to appear as distinct homes rather than a single, unarticulated, building. Additionally, the Project is integrated with the Bonita Canyon Sports Park through the use of landscaping and pedestrian walkways. 6. The Project will utilize an existing curb cut for vehicular access from Ford Road. The curb opening will be shared between the Project Site and the adjacent AT&T facility property; however, a distinct drive aisle will be constructed for the Project. Offsite improvements include the installation of a gate restricting access to the AT&T facility parking lot. 7. The Project landscaping complies with Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscaping) and Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping) of the NBMC. Additionally, the Project complies with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance ("WELO") which requires the installation and maintenance of drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species. The Project's varied setbacks, 6 to 56 feet, allows for substantial perimeter landscaping, with enhanced treatments along Bonita Canyon Drive to improve the view for motorists and residents to the north, and along Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail to enhance the pedestrians and park user experience. Landscaping is also integrated throughout the Project Site, including around the picnic and firepit areas to enhance the residential experience. 8. Pursuant to Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection) of the NBMC, projects shall preserve significant visual resources from public views and corridors including identified in Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views) of the Natural Resources Element of the 35-40 General Plan. The Project Site is not within the vicinity of any Public Viewpoints, nor any Coastal View Roads as identified in Figure NR3. The nearest designated public viewpoint is located at Big Canyon Park, over a mile west of the Project Site. The nearest designated coastal view road is MacArthur Boulevard, south of the San Joaquin Hills Road, over a mile south of the Project Site. Due to the distance and urbanized nature of the Project area, the Project is not anticipated to impact any public views. Finding: C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor will it endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of person residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project has been designed to minimize aesthetic impacts to the surrounding neighborhood to the greatest extent possible by providing an architecturally pleasing contemporary coastal architectural style design with articulation and high -quality materials. 2. The Project has been designed to have adequate, efficient, and safe pedestrian and vehicular access to and from the Project Site within driveways, parking, and loading areas. The Project includes the drive aisles that are located within the Project Site, behind the proposed buildings, which will significantly buffer any vehicle noise produced. The Project is also designed to accommodate and provide safe access for emergency vehicles and refuse collection vehicles through the Ford Road access point. 3. The Project Site is adjacent to Bonita Canyon Drive, a four -lane primary arterial road with a central median and Ford Road, a two-lane connector road with a central median. These two roads create large buffers between the Project and the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the north and south. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department reviewed the Project's traffic generation analysis prepared by Pirzadeh & Associates Inc, dated May 13, 2025, which projected 182 average daily trips. The Public Works Department found that found that Ford Road would adequately serve the Project, and no additional traffic analysis is required. 5. The Project requires 61 onsite parking spaces; however, the Project provides 66 onsite parking spaces, including a two -car garage for each unit, 10 guest parking spaces and two delivery spaces. The additional parking and individual 35-41 unit garage parking will mitigate the use of street parking on Ford Road or the adjacent parking lot within the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. 6. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan which shows that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. 7. The Project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, along with all City ordinances and all conditions of approval which are attached to the resolution as Exhibit "A." Height Increase The HO-4 subarea limits heights to that of the base zoning district. The underlying zoning district is Public Facilities (PF) which is regulated by the Nonresidential, Nonshoreline Height Limit Area. In this height limit area, the base height limit for structures with flat roofs is 32 feet and the base height limit for structures with sloped roofs is 37 feet. However, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the findings in support of the SDR to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height pursuant to Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews — Findings and Decision) are set forth herein: Finding: D. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Examples of project amenities include, but are not limited to: i. Additional landscaped open space; ii. Increased setback and open areas; iii. Enhancement and protection of public views; 35-42 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The HO-4 subarea is not subject to any minimum setback requirement for portions of a building that are below 20-feet in height, which is the Project's first and second floors. However, the Project voluntarily integrates varying setbacks of 6 to 56 feet at the first floor with additional setbacks on the higher levels. These setbacks help create more open areas throughout the Project Site than would otherwise be required by the NBMC. 2. The HO-4 subarea is not subject to any maximum lot coverage requirement. However, the compact site design of the Project is accommodated through the taller builder design which results in a lot coverage of approximately 45%. In comparison, properties located within the Multiple Residential (RM-6000) Zoning District are allowed a maximum lot coverage of 60%. The Project provides additional open area through its compact design and less horizontal massing to reduce the site coverage compared to what is allowed a RM-6000 District, accomplished with the additional height of each building. 3. Fact 9 in Support of Finding A is hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The provided setbacks, open areas, and lower lot coverage offer amenities beyond those otherwise required by the HO-4 subarea and contributes to a more visually appealing project for the neighborhood. Finding: E. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes, - Facts in Support of Finding: Facts 5 in support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Architectural articulations and varied materials including high -end stone, brick and wood siding are provided to mirror the high -quality design of the neighborhood. 3. The Project is subject to comply with the City's Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards which ensure a high -quality design. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist which is attached to the resolution as Exhibit "D" and incorporated by reference, the Project deviates from three objective design standards but otherwise complies with the design standards and, in some cases, exceeds the intent of the standards. The facts in support of findings are included under Findings H and I. 35-43 Finding: F. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project is surrounded by the Newport Bluff apartment complex to the north across Bonita Canyon Drive, a parking lot within the Bonita Canyon Sports Park to the west, the Harbor View community to the south across Ford Road and the AT&T facility to the east. 2. The Project is separated from the Newport Bluffs apartment complex by Bonita Canyon Drive, a four -lane primary arterial road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height, and approximately 185 feet from the Project's nouhmost structures. The Project has been conditioned to include perimeter landscaping along Bonita Canyon Drive, including trees, which will further buffer and soften the fagade of the Project and ensure scale compatibility is maintained. 3. The Project is separated from the Port Street neighborhood by Ford Road, a two- lane connector road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 45 to 60 feet in height. The nearest single unit dwelling within the Port Street neighborhood is approximately 230 feet from the Project's southmost structure. Homes within the Harbor View community consist of single -story to two-story structures and have an allowed maximum height of up to 32 feet. The adjacent AT&T building is approximately 35 feet in height. The changing scale of structures, intervening road with large street trees and distance provides a harmonious transition from the two-story Harbor View community to the Project. 4. The Project's westmost structure is separated from the usable area of the Bonita Canyon Sport Park by approximately 185 feet. Intervening uses include the large parking lot and landscape buffer with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height. In addition to the visual screen provided by the landscaping the setbacks and landscaping within the park adjacent to the Project site, the Project provides upper floor setbacks, balconies, covered decks, and varied rooflines which prevent the appearance of an overly bulky building oriented towards the parking lot and park beyond. 5. The Project height is otherwise allowed pursuant to Ordinance No. 2025-10 as adopted by the City Council on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to 35-44 Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC to allow for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. These amendments become effective on July 26, 2025. Finding: G. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. Fact in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, the HO-4 Subarea does not have a floor area ratio (FAR) limitation. Muli-Unit Objective Design Standards Deviation In accordance with Section 20.48.185(A) (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards — Purpose) of the NBMC, the Project is seeking deviation from the following Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards: a) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length) b) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation — Minimum Depth) c) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Number) Approval of a SDR to allow deviation of multi -unit objective design standards is allowed only after making all the following findings: Finding: H. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section. Facts in Support of Finding: Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length) of the NBMC limits building length to 150 feet. The Project proposes two eight -unit buildings with a length of 155-feet. The intent of the building length requirement is to prevent lengthy unarticulated building masses. The Project addresses this by incorporating varied rooflines, balconies, fagade projections and recessions, and material variation which creates the appearance of distinct units and breaks up the building's overall length and massing. The building provides more than the 35-45 required articulation and upper floor setbacks which ensures the building length is less visually obtrusive. 2. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation —Minimum Depth) of the NBMC requires all building recesses or projections to be a minimum of 2 feet in depth. The Project proposes a variety of different recesses and projections including upper floor setbacks, balconies and covered patios which range from 6 inches to 12 feet. The intent of this requirement is to allow for sufficient depth of recesses and projections so that building lengths are sufficiently modulated. While some of the Project's recesses and projections are less than two feet in depth, the Project provides large upper floor setbacks, balconies, and patios between 5 and 12 feet. The Project provides additional depth for other recesses and projections features which ensures building length is less visually obtrusive. 3. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation - Maximum Number) of the NBMC require a maximum of two recesses or projections per fagade. The Project includes more than two recesses and projections in both of the largest buildings within the development. Due to their length, the additional recesses and projections allow for sufficient modulation to each unit. The intent of this requirement is to avoid lengthy and plain building faces. Limiting the design to only two recesses or projections would result in less modulation, less visual interest, and a building less reminiscent of townhomes. The Project is furthering the intent of this requirement by sufficiently modulating the eight-plex building, which results in a less visually obtrusive building length. Finding: The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. All facts in support of Finding H are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Facts 3 and 9 in support of Finding A are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. Section 20.48.185(D)(1)(a) (Muli-Unit Objective Design Standards — General Standards) of the NBMC requires that development with more than eight buildings to provide a minimum of two distinct color schemes. The Project includes only four buildings, however, the Project voluntarily provides two distinct color schemes. These include a coastal color scheme with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white. These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes throughout the City. 35-46 Additional Findings 1. The Project Site is designated as a Housing Opportunity Site under the City of Newport Beach's certified 6th Cycle Housing Element, approved by the City Council and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Pursuant to that approval, a residential overlay was placed on the site, allowing for the development of the proposed 27 residential units. This overlay designation is supported by the certified PEIR, approving the MMRP, and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. 2. The Project Site is located within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. The Project Site is designated as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District. The City Council's duly adopted Housing Element and accompanying actions establish the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea as a valid residential zoning mechanism consistent with California Government Code Sections 65583 and 65583.2. At the time of project approval, the certified Housing Element and residential overlay are in full legal effect. 3. The Project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the Project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations and would not result in new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. 4. Further, the proposed 27-unit residential project does not trigger Charter Section 423 (Greenlight) because it does not seek a General Plan Amendment. Furthermore, even if a General Plan Amendment was sought the amendment would not be considered "major" because the proposed project is less than 100 dwelling units, has less than 100 peak hour trips (traffic) and has no commercial component (thus, it is less than 40,000 square feet of floor area). Therefore, even without reliance upon the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea, no public vote is required for this proposed project under Greenlight. 5. In the event the Housing Element and General Plan amendments are invalidated by court order, the City nonetheless finds that the Project may be approved for the following reasons: 1. The certified PEIR, which is final and lawful, serves as a valid and independent basis for establishing the suitability of residential development at this site. 35-47 2. Under CEQA and California Government Code Section 65457 (exemption for residential projects consistent with a specific plan or general plan EIR), the certified PEIR's confers legal stability on the City's approval, including its reliance on the HO-4 subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District for land use purposes. 3. The City's approval advances the statewide interest in addressing housing needs, consistent with California Government Code Section 65589.5, and supports the City's good faith compliance with state law. Preventing the development of 27 residential units —already environmentally analyzed and approved —due solely to procedural uncertainty would run contrary to both local planning policy and state housing mandates. 35-48 CEQA Consistency Memorandum Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., Dated June, 2025 File available via link due to size: https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3171539&dbid=0&repo=CNB 35-49 EXHIBIT "D" OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARD CHECKLIST 35-50 Objective Design Standards Checklist Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 / Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3204 www.newportbeachca.gov Disclaimer: This checklist is intended to help ensure compliance with Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). It does not include all design and development standards from other sections of the NBMC, planned community development plans, or any overlay zoning district; however, compliance with all applicable standards is still required. If you have questions on which standards apply to your project, please contact a planner at 949-644-3204. Name of applicant: Ford Road Ventures LLC Date: April 17, 2025 Project Address: 1650 & 4302 Ford Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (APNs 458-361-10 & 458-361-02) Project Application # (City staff to fill out) PA2025-0049 Development Type: ❑✓ Multi Family Unit Residential ❑ Mixed Use Development Project Site Context (check all that apply) ❑ Situated adjacent to existing residential development ❑ Situated next to existing commercial development ❑ Situated adjacent to designated historical structure ❑✓ Other Adjacent to AT&T property and Bonita Canyon Sports Park 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes I No I N/A Yes No I N/A Drawing Reference A. General Standards AL 1: Multi -unit development orientation a. Development color scheme (8+ buildings) ✓ ✓ b. Development color scheme (30+ buildings) ✓ ✓ c. Pedestrian walkways and linkages ✓ ✓ d. Architectural variety and features ✓ ✓ e. Structured parking visibility ✓ ✓ f. Corner lot loading docks/service areas ✓ ✓ g. Parking facility entrances ✓ ✓ 35-51 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items LMAMReference Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing 2: Mixed -use buildings orientation a. Commercial unit entrances ✓ ✓ b. Residential unit entrances B. Orientatio 1. Orientation to primary public street ✓ ✓ 2: Screening of parking areas ✓ 3: Multi -unit projects across from single-family ✓ ✓ 4: Building arrangement for outdoor space . Parking Standards 1: Parking compliance with NBMC 20.40.070 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ a. Parking lot placement ✓ ✓ b. Landscaped area ✓ ✓ 2: Residential garages a. Street facing garage door i. Consistent garage and building architecture ✓ ✓ ii. Arbor or other similar feature ✓ ✓ 3. Parking structures and loading bays a. Shielding of parked vehicles ✓ ✓ b. Minimize blank concrete facades D. Common Open Space (C.O.S) 1: Common recreation area requirement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2: Residential entry distance from C.O.S. ✓ ✓ 3: Pedestrian walkway connection points ✓ 4: Open space location ✓ ✓ 5: Usable open space grade ✓ ✓ 6: Seating and lighting . Recreation Activities 1: Play area location and visibility ✓ ✓ 2: Senior housing areas of congregation ✓ ✓ 3: Recreational amenities per unit count ✓ 2 1 P a g e 35-52 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference F. Landscaping 1: Min. 8% of total site landscaped ✓ ✓ 2: Landscaping materials a. Ground cover ✓ ✓ b. Nonliving decorative landscaping ✓ ✓ c. Turf areas for recreation ✓ ✓ 3: Landscaping and irrigation ✓ ✓ G. Frontage Types and standards 1: Storefronts a. Ground floor elevation location b. Entrance using one of given methods c. Windows and/or glass doors coverage ✓ ✓ d. Upper floor facade window coverage ✓ ✓ e. Floor to floor height (15 ft) ✓ ✓ f. Awnings or marquees min/max height 2: Live work/office fronts a. Ground floor elevation location ✓ ✓ b. Entrance for ground floor tenant ✓ ✓ c. Entrance for upper floor tenants ✓ ✓ d. Ground floor facade coverage ✓ ✓ e. Upper -level facade coverage ✓ ✓ f. Ground floor to ceiling height ✓ ✓ g. Awnings or marquees min/max height ✓ ✓ h. Setbacks ✓ ✓ 3: Residential fronts a. Ground floor elevation i. Garage length of building facade ✓ ✓ ii. Entrance for ground floor tenants ✓ ✓ iii. Entrance for upper -floor tenants ✓ ✓ iv. Ground and upper floor facade coverage ✓ ✓ v. Setbacks ✓ ✓ 3 1 P a g e 35-53 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference H. Walls and Fences 1: Community perimeter and theme walls ✓ ✓ 2: Wall materials ✓ ✓ 3. Wall style conformance with architecture ✓ ✓ 4. Exterior perimeter wall depth 1: Utility locations and placement ✓ ✓ 2: Mechanical equipment screening (if needed) 3: Utility rooms (if feasible) for certain equipment ✓ ✓ a. If not feasible, incorporated into design ✓ ✓ J. Private Street Standards 1: Private street right-of-way width a. Without on -street parallel parking (41 ft) ✓ ✓ b. With on -street parallel parking (50 ft) ✓ ✓ 2: Private street zones a. Street zone (SZ) design standards ✓ ✓ b. Sidewalk zone(SWZ) design standards ✓ ✓ c. Landscaping and paving zone (LPZ) design standards K. Private Driveway Zones 1: Private driveway right-of-way (dimensions) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2: Driveway zones a. Driveway zone (DZ) b. Landscape and paving zone (LPZ) ✓ ✓ L. Publicly Accessible Open Space (PADS) Standards 1: Required PAOS ✓ ✓ 2: Site area calculations ✓ ✓ 3. PAOS Design Standards a. PAOS minimum width b. PAOS access ✓ ✓ M. Facade Modulation Standards 1: Density and building typology ✓ ✓ 4 1 P a g e 35-54 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference N. Vertical Modulation 1: Components a. Base ✓ ✓ b. Middle ✓ ✓ c. Top ✓ ✓ 2: Changes in facade material and/or color a. Banding ✓ ✓ b. Floor heights ✓ c. Fenestration ✓ ✓ d. Cladding material ✓ ✓ 3. Additional vertical modulation standards a. First floor height i. Density less than 30 units/acre ✓ ✓ ii. Density greater than 30 units/acre (residential only)• • iii. Density greater than 30 units/acre (commercial units on ground floor ✓ ✓ b. Vertical variation i. Density less than 30 units/acre ✓ ii. Density greater than 30 units/acre ✓ ✓ O. Horizontal Modulation 1: Building standards for developments with density of less than 30 units/acre a. Maximum building length ✓ ✓ Deviation Req. b. Required minimum modulation area ✓ ✓ c. Minimum depth Deviation Req. d. Maximum number Deviation Reg. 2: Building standards for developments with density of 30 units/acre or greater a. Maximum facade length b. Required minimum modulation area c. Minimum depth ✓ ✓ d. Minimum width ✓ ✓ e. Maximum number ✓ ✓ 5 1 P a g e 35-55 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference P. First Floor Opening and Transparency Standards 1: Building standards for development with density less than 30 units/acre a. Minimum opening standard ✓ ✓ 2: Building standards for development with density of 30 units/acre or more a. Minimum opening standard i. For any at -grade or above -grade first floor unit frontinq a street or paseo 1/ V/ ii. For any mixed -use multi -unit building with a ✓ ✓ first -floor commercial use fronting a street, courtyard, or paseo Q&Irst FiciA 1: Individual residential unit entrances a. Residential front door standards i. Minimum entry sidewalk width ✓ ✓ ii. Entry stoop, terrace and patio area ✓ 2: Lobby Entrances a. Location standards and accessibility i. Sidewalk entry width ✓ ✓ ii. Entry landing area ✓ ✓ iii. Prohibited primary entries ✓ ✓ 6 1 P a g e 35-56 Attachment B Project Description 35-57 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 202S Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description and Justification Project Description This signature project located at the Southeast corner of Macarthur Blvd. and Bonita Canyon Drive at the gateway to Newport Beach benefits from an SB 330 Preliminary Application that was deemed complete by the City on April 7, 2025. As a result of this deemed complete status, this project is permitted to proceed through this entitlement process without being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in California Government Code Section 65589.5(o). The intent of this development project is to provide much needed for -sale housing in the area close to UCI and the Irvine Business Complex. This area of Newport Beach is almost exclusively comprised of single family detached homes — for sale attached housing in this area is desperately desired particularly for families as starter homes. The total existing parcel is 1.06 acres and will be increased under the vesting tentative tract map to provide a 1.16-acre residential property and a separate gated parking area for the AT&T facility. The proposed project includes 27 townhomes within four proposed buildings that are aligned to provide ample landscape setbacks along Bonita Canyon Drive and at the same time block the Southern view of the unaesthetic AT&T building. The primary orientation of the buildings face toward the existing Bonita Canyon Sports Park — the project will connect to the existing trail on the North edge — this will keep `eyes on' the park at all times of day and night creating a safer environment for all Newport Beach residents. The vehicular access will come from the end of Ford Road that has little traffic. The entry will be shared with the AT&T parking lot. Fire aerial ladder access is easily available from Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Drive — however the project has been designed to accommodate the fire radius at entry and a `T' (hammerhead) at the center of the project, if desired by the Fire Marshal. Each home includes a 2-car garage and there are an additional 13 guest parking spaces located on the project site. Residents will be required to use their garages for the parking of their vehicles to avoid any parking impacts on the adjacent community. This project meets or exceeds all of the City's objective design standards for multi -family projects. Where the project exceeds a standard, a waiver is technically required and explained below in the justification section. The architectural style has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Port Street neighborhood. Architectural articulations and high -end stone, brick, wood siding have all been used to portray the elegance of the community. The floor plans are all designed light and bright with huge indoor/outdoor spaces including a 4th level Lanai in several of the plans. Within the community there are two common open space areas that will serve as social amenity areas including a cozy fire pit and picnic BBQ area. 1 35-58 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025 The property that houses this project was included within City Council Resolution No. 2025-13, which adjusted the height limit for various properties within the HO-4 Subarea to accommodate residential development within the intended prescribed density range of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Specifically, the City Council adjusted the height limit for this property to 48 feet, which is below the maximum height allowed for this area of 50 feet for flat roofs and 55 feet for sloped roofs. However, as explained in the justification section below this project would have independently qualified for a height adjustment under Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.30.060(C)(3). Justification Major Site Development Review — In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews), the City may approve or conditionally approve a site development review application, only after first finding that the Project is: Finding: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district. The Project is allowed within the Zoning District. The Property is located at the terminus of Ford Road in the City of Newport Beach adjacent to Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and is identified by the City of Newport Beach as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 in HO-4. • The Project has been designed to comply with applicable standards of the Housing Overlay and other applicable zoning code regulations. B. In compliance with all of the following applicable criteria in NBMC Section 20.52.080(C) (2) (c): a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; c. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and f. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). 35-59 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 202S • The Project complies with the purpose and intent of the City's Housing Overlay, which allows for the development of residential housing units. • The Project complies with all applicable development standards, including, but not limited to, floor area ratio, setbacks and parking. • The Project has been designed to fully integrate pedestrian and vehicle access in a safe and efficient manner. • The Project has been designed to include finished materials and landscaping to ensure it blends seamlessly with the surrounding residential development currently located within the Port Streets. • The proposed design, bulk, and scale of the development is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development. The open design, architecture and orientation of the Project helps ensure compatibly with the existing and long-term development pattern of the Port Streets. • On site -parking is available to residents, guests, and visitors alike. The parking was developed to ensure the most efficient use of all available spaces, and to afford a greater interface with the adjacent rights -of -way to ensure compatibility with the pedestrian environment. • There are no existing significant views through or across this property. • Proposed landscaping complies with NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscaping) and NBMC Section 21.30.075 (Landscaping) including the installation and maintenance of drought tolerant and noninvasive species. C. The proposed development is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, • The Project is consistent with the development goals for the Housing Overlay. The Project fits in and complements the existing surrounding residential developments. • The Project architecture is timeless, elegant and blends seamlessly with the architecture of the Port Streets. The Project will be a visual upgrade to the existing site and area. • On site vehicular and pedestrian circulation has been designed to provide safe and efficient public access. 3 35-60 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025 The Project has been designed to accommodate safe and effective emergency vehicle access. Emergency vehicles will have access to the development from Ford Road. The construction will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. All ordinances of the City and all conditions of approval shall be complied with. Objective Design Standards Request for limited waiver of Multi -Family Objective Design Standards under NBMC Section 20.48.185(C), because the proposed project design standards exceed the City's standards. The Planning Commission may waive any of the design and development standards in this section upon finding that: 1. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section; and 2. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards. (1) 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Landscape and Paving Zone (LPZ)) A four -foot minimum width zone shall be provided. The zone shall be landscaped a minimum of twenty (20) percent of the total site abutting a building. A combination of vines, ornamental, grasses, shrubs, ground cover, and ornamental trees shall be provided. Landscaping in pots is permitted. The current plan provides a 3.5' wide LPZ at most driveway areas, with a minimum width of 3' where the units are offset. These offsets contribute to enhanced building articulation, resulting in a more visually appealing elevation. Modifying the plan to meet the 4' minimum requirement would reduce the size of the amenity and landscape areas in front of the buildings due to setback and grading constraints. Our preference is to prioritize more landscaping in these front amenity areas rather than in front of the garages. The plan, as currently designed, complies with the 20% landscaped minimum requirement. (2) 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length) No building shall be greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet in length. With the assumption that the original intent being to avoid lengthy, plain building masses, we've incorporated varied roof forms, deck recesses/projections, facade projections, and material variation individual to each unit from the next, providing the appearance of individual townhomes, rather than a long single building. The 8-plex building length is also limited by minimum garage widths and utility closet depths, so any further reduction would result in loss of a unit. (3) 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation —Minimum Depth) All recesses or projections shall be a minimum of two feet in depth. For the projections less than the 2 feet depth, varied material types and colors are provided at the projections for additional visual articulation. 4 35-61 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025 (4) 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation - Maximum Number) No facade shall have more than two total recesses or projections per facade. Due to the length of the 8-plex and the townhome arrangement of the units, limiting the modulation over full length wouldn't allow for enough material breaks to individualize the units between one another, and further emphasizing the original purpose for limiting the building length to avoid lengthy building masses. Height Adjustment Through Site Development Review Under NBMC Section 20.30.060(C)(3), the review authority may approve a site development review to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height only after first making all of the following findings: a. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Under the Housing Overlay the project is subject to zero setbacks from the property line for the first floor. This project voluntarily integrates varying setbacks of up to 20 feet at points along the first floor with additional setbacks on the higher levels, and is purposely not built out to the property line. These setbacks help create more open space than would otherwise be required by code. The setbacks offer a project amenity beyond those otherwise required and contribute to a more visually appealing project for the neighborhood and community. b. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes; Special time and attention have been focused on the architectural design of the project to provide visual interest through the use of light, shadow, vertical elements and varied roof planes. Specifically, the project embraces an architectural style that has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Port Street neighborhood. Architectural articulations and high -end stone, brick, wood siding have all been used to portray the elegance of the community. The floor plans are all designed light and bright with oversized indoor and outdoor spaces including a 4th level Lanai in several of the plans. C. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties; and The project has been specifically designed to ensure that it blends in with the community, and avoids undesirable or abrupt scale changes with existing adjacent developments or public spaces. The project is separated from the homes to the north by a major arterial roadway (Bonita Canyon Drive) and there is approximately 185 feet of separation from the project's structures to the closest residential property line. To the south, the project 5 35-62 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025 is separated from the homes along Port Sheffield Place by approximately 230 feet when including setbacks. This separation ensures that the change in scale provides a subtle and gradual transition from existing uses. d. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. The project is not seeking any additional floor area than could otherwise be achieved without the approval of the height increase. This project is proceeding under the City's Housing Overlay, which establishes a minimum dwelling unit density of 20-50 units per acre. 0 35-63 Attachment C Project Plans 35-64 lb - �111 -, -% - t r ram' Nr ® L: �r].Y ia. 3 — -sue: � .,�. ' ■ � r- FORD ROAD 0i, NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA w ki_a KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 " \ • KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 125 125 COVER SHEET I CS 1 3ARENA f.... tq � r' � i I i Y� • ��� ,. s ._R '-�- - �� �� � - � - -- �. � � �f- �:. a'' �<� mow. - �. ;�. ` :- .. �eT. T: '' ''Y � � . _ ,' _ `�ra.. riffs y� 1 _ F T �� t _�`_ r. �-: FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24-172 DATE 6 125 125 PERSPECTIVE AT BONITA CYN RD - VIEW B I CS 3 _, 3 E ARENA SHEET INDEX COVER SHEET PERSPECTIVE AT BONITA CYN RD - VIEW A PERSPECTIVE AT BONITA CYN RD - VIEW B SHEETINDEX PLANNING ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN LANDSCAPE PAVING ZONE EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE CODE ANALYSIS UA SPLIT PLAN 1 UA SPLIT PLAN 2 UA SPLIT PLAN 3 UA SPLIT PLAN 4 COMPOSITE PLANS - 5 PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS - 5 PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS - 6 PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS - 6 PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX UA SPLIT 5 PLEX ELEVATIONS UA SPLIT 5 PLEX ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN UA SPLIT 6 PLEX ELEVATIONS UA SPLIT 6 PLEX ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN UA SPLIT 8 PLEX ELEVATIONS UA SPLIT 8 PLEX ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN UA SPLIT 8 PLEX PERSPECTIVES UA SPLIT COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD A UA SPLIT COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD B ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATIONS ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATIONS FSD SITE PLAN OPENING CALCULATIONS OPENING CALCULATIONS FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24-172 DATE 6 125 125 LANDSCAPE OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN CS 1 RETAINING WALL SECTIONS & SITE FURNISHINGS CS 2 CS 3 OFFSITE AT&T SITE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS INDEX FIREPIT LOUNGE AREA ENLARGEMENT PICNIC AREA ENLARGEMENT FENCE & WALL PLAN SP1 SP2 Al A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 All Al2 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 CIVIL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TITLE SHEET EXISTING CONDITIONS CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN SECTIONS CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN AVERAGE GRADE PLANE L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 1 OF 1 C-01 C-02 C-03 C-04 C-05 C-06 ✓NIGHTHALL INDEX 30AN LINT SUMMARY u. vxFr H-pum egaw� G.nn hv�w •,ne 4MwY lu.Ab.:• �, w a CAN CANYON DR — BONITA - V PAPoUMC SUMMAAV BCNITA CANYON DRIVE aa� s° rr .It. ia.i R.N... 4' � . l -. • \ AT&T BIRLDING - y ❑ A �•y O 25,840 $F ' f 9q I 1 ee J A •. 4302 FORD RD NEWPORT BEACH I CA _�# KNICHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24-172 3va, M DATE 08 107 125 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN - AFTER I SP2 ARENA r J!_ MIT_ ■ lam• -�� �fll t!� -_ 111lip ;Ili �+lilln�. Ir��Yr.Y.ONION Ism] �■ liI u u ALLOWABLE BUILDING ARM EXIT TRAVEL DISTANCES PLAN 1 P AN 2 PLAN 3 PLAN 4 FORD ROAD 3,16-1-VIS LE �- NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA w I I it KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 125 125 CODE ANALYSIS I Al 3ARENA SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 DATE 6 125 125 GROSS � PLAN 1 • 2 BR/2.5 BA TO— GROSS NRMQ 1,916SQFf. NOT, REE. Ms SHALL HAVE An M PLAN 1 2 BIU2 5 BA OPENING SIZZE OF s] SQ FT, NET S2— NET iOTALNE7 L—SO R. „4--1'-0"SCALE �— (, =. 3 aM KNIG I T ALL UA SPLIT PLAN 1 A2 A PEN A O T II 0-TE C-F CON -ON FIRST FLOOR rof �. Imo! !�I Co]ii n I— ■Ilia ■II!! r���l ■II!! I■I SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2 _ - I I B NUS R OM� I I TERRACE I I I FOURTH FLOOR PLANA2 • 3 BR/3.5 WLOFT oss MBMq 2, 2e so.B.. LIVING R MI-2• 3 BR/-.5 M LOFT RInNz •TOTn�NEr N isov so.ET. FORD ROAD ,-0"SCALE A- NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA w I I (,�: KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 25 25 UA SPLIT PLAN 2 1 A3 3 A R E N A VAN 3 R GARAGE 6pTH 3 1 mc, ii ENTRY BEDROOM 4 O o i.v FIRST LEVEL S—E: 114• -1-0- / DECK El O SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL 1-4-7 sa,La: yr - rva. FOURTH LEVEL scue: v4• ` r-n Gaols AaeA PLAN 3 • 4 BL.5 BA/LOFT %AN 3 • TOTAL GROSS (N—) MNGA— PIAN2•31 3.5MLa FooTALNeTa z�4az sa n. FORD ROAD CA T-0"SLE •— NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA w I I 8 : KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 25 25 UA SPLIT PLAN 3 1 A4 3 A R E N A FIRST LEVEL sine: 114• — 1-0- FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 DATE 6 125 125 KITCHEN I I e POWDE I I DINING PLAN SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL scow. 1/4. — I swe: V4 — I IQ KNIGHTH LL FOURTH LEVEL —E. 1/4• — r-n GROSS AREA PIAN 4 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFF TIIR� 1-1 oss (.13 z, NET LINNG AREA PIAN 4 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFF P- 4 •TOTA1 NEi N 3,50R „4--1'-0"SCALE ,.' IIIII �i�� 3 UA SPLIT PLAN 4 1 A5 APENA 2ND FLOOR FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 DATE 6 125 125 a 3/16"=1'-0"SCALE �. 8 6 (�=� KNIGHTTALL COMPOSITE PLANS-5 PLEX I A6 3ARENA ------ 0 FRI PLAN 4 � V V V V zPLAN 2 joE In PLAN 2 Elo �i� 4TH FLOOR FORD ROAD 3„6"=,-VIS LE •- NEWPORT BEACH ! CALIFORNIA w I I 1I 1w 0 KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 " \ KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 125 125 COMPOSITE PLANS - 5 PLEX I A7 3AR E NA 2ND FLOOR ---1 D.S D.S. .S. Z--- i i D �I PLAN 2 PLAN 1 V7 ------------ i i i PLAN 2 I Run -------------- P 1 PLAN 4 _ PLAN 3 ®--, o.s FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 DATE 6 125 125 IQ KNIGHTH LL 0 3/16" = 1'- V SCALE � � 161 �/ A, 3 A COMPOSITE PLANS - 6 PLEX I A8 ARENA ----------------- --------- ------------------ --------- lo PLAN 3 n n PLAN 4 III f� zu El m❑ j E � M fn l� C D o �� - ----------------- 4TH FLOOR FORD ROAD 3„-1-o"I�LE •— NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA w � 1I IWAN KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 " \ KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 125 125 COMPOSITE PLANS - 6 PLEX I A9 3AR E NA 2ND FLOOR --- D.S. ___________________ PLAN 3 -T PLAN 4 ---________________ . PLAN 3 PLAN 4 ------___________ D.S. .S. --- i i D PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 P 1 lm��ffl C5 1 O -- u OF ® , � I�, L----- -- IIIII O HOREB it i.l ------------ __® ® ® :1 FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 DATE 6 125 125 IQ ✓NIGHH LL 3/16" = 1'- V SCALE 1I COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX I Al ko �� 3�AN ARENA E �� i -,------------------ g M= @ PL4N 3 n n D 11 PLAN 4 V V V PLAN2 � �nT��CE0 " mEl PL4N 3 n n E ❑u� V ------------------ 8 m=m [ Elu/��❑emu PL4N 4 O OPLAN2 �� -------------------�---- ------------- ------------ LL El �U 4TH FLOOR FORD ROAD 3 VIS LE t- NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA w I I 1I IWAR KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 " \ KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 125 125 COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX I A11 3 A R E N A it ii 1 ii - loonNo ■ ■ NoON ■ ■ I No " FRONT• REAR ELEVATION PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN a PLAN 1 PLAN 2 FORD ROAD 3,16-1-o"S�LE 1- NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA w I I 1I (��: KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 " \ KNIGHTHALL 114 DATE 6 125 125 ILIA SPLIT 5 FLEX ELEVATIONS I Al2 3 A R E N A RIGHT ELEVATION PLAN 2 ROOF PLAN FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 DATE 6 125 125 LEFT ELEVATION PLAN 2 l'- V SCALE 'I KNIGHTH LL UA SPLIT 5 PLEX ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN I Al 3AN ARENA ------------------ WIN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ , ■■ ■ ■ ' ME' ■ 11 ■ ■■■ : ■ ME' ■■■ FRONT• PLAN 2 REAR ELEVATION PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 4 PLAN s PLAN 1 PLAN 2 Id a I FORD ROAD 3„6-,-VIS LE 0- NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA w �: I I 16 (, KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 " \ KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 25 25114 ILIA SPLIT 6 FLEX ELEVATIONS I A14 3 A R E N A RIGHT ELEVATION PLAN 2 ROOF PLAN LEFT ELEVATION PLAN 2 FORD ROAD 3 oS�AE t— NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA 8 16 KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 25 25 UA SPLIT 6 PLEX ELEVATIONS &ROOF PLAN A15 A R E N A m Im --i�l1' � LF! HIM III wl=li I, "- mmmim■..- t � !iMrMM��� IJ� �ml IN 11 ir W Ill or II. II S E E 1 NEE 1 1 ■ u �I■-�i_ ■■ r I RIGHT ELEVATION PLAN 2 'NOTE: WINDOW CONDITION VARIES BETWEEN BLDGS 1 & 2 PER OPENING RESTRICTIONS, SEE SHEET A25 ROOF PLAN If e LEFT ELEVATION PLAN 2 'NOTE: WINDOW CONDITION VARIES BETWEEN GLEES 1&2 PER OPENING RESTRICTIONS, SEE SHEET A25 IN 11 Nl�:2= FORD ROAD 3 0"SCALE t- NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA I I 1I (��: KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 IQ KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 25 25 UA SPLIT 8 PLEX ELEVATIONS &ROOF PLAN A17 A R E N A vl No If i ILI Ni all 5r,. o-.. loj i �j ;07� COLOR SCHEME A 1. ROOF 2. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT CAPISTRANO "ASH SINGLE HUNG - BLACK GRAY" MILGARD MCELROY METAL V 3. BRICK TUNDRABRICK "LATIGO" EL DORADO STONE -.ie 4. OUTDOOR FAN HAIKU COASTAL 52" BLACK BIG ASS FANS i . 5. OUTDOOR LIGHTING RAWLEY LED SCONCE OIL RUBBED BRONZE REJUVENATION A. STUCCO 16/20 SW 7005 "PURE WHITE" B. SW 9139 "DUBONAIR" C. SW 6236 "GRAYS HARBOR" D. SW 7594 "CARRIAGE DOOR" E. SW 7674 "PEPPERCORN" FORD ROAD 0- NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA w I I 16 KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 DATE 6 KNL IGHTHAL25 25 UA SPLIT COLOR &MATERIAL BOARD A A19 3 A R E N A COLOR SCHEME B 1. ROOF 2. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT 3. BRICK CAPISTRANO "ASH SINGLE HUNG - BLACK TUNDRA BRICK GRAY" MILGARD "CHALK DUST" MCELROY METAL EL DORADO STONE -oe 4. OUTDOOR FAN HAIKU COASTAL 52" BLACK BIG ASS FANS FI 5. OUTDOOR LIGHTING RAWLEY LED SCONCE OIL RUBBED BRONZE REJUVENATION J A. STUCCO 16/20 SW 7008 "ALABASTER" B. SW 7524 "DHURRIE BEIGE" C. SW 7615 "SEA SERPENT" D. SW 9128 "GREEN ONYX" E. SW 7048 "URBANE BRONZE" FORD ROAD w i S�LE NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA o 8 16 (�_�♦ KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 25 25 UA SPLIT COLOR &MATERIAL BOARD B A20 3 A R E N A z Ir° 111111 � •�� r l 1 11 ❑ �� : �� _ 11 ❑ ❑ ❑❑ 1 E❑ ❑ ❑❑ I� ° ❑❑ ❑ I ❑ 8 PLEX FACADE 6 PLEX FACADE FORD ROAD 3 ,-VIS LE �- NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA 8 1I KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 IQ DATE 6 KNL IGHTHAL25 25 ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATIONS A21 ARENA ■ ■ I� ! i ■'ll " i A 1 ■ 11 � ■ 1 1��� =- 5 PLEX FACADE LUPPER wwoow anwE 3 3 sF 1 en El UPPER FLOOR FA—E WINDOWS PRO' o g, 1 e. e ee A 6 PLEX FACADE 12'PRWECTION:6155P a PRO-10 Sao SF PRU,EPROJECTION AREA PROVIOED:1(515 a Sao) I2,9E0=95% FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 DATE 6 125 125 5 PLEX FACADE PROJECTION AREA PROVIDED: (SaO -515 • EQ- 515) /a,035=52% IQ KNIGHTH LL 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 16 (, =� 3 ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATIONS I A22 APENA FORD ROAD ,,,6"_, l"llLl NORTH 1- �o ,w NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA Q o ,b 31= �w KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 \ KNIGHTHALL DATE 6 25 25 FSD SITE PLAN A23 3 A R E N A 0 0El 0 11 1 ; C BUILDINGS 1 & 2 - SOUTH ELEVATION LEVEL4 FSD f : 45 % MAX PROVIDEDIDED: 18 SF 1119 SF =15% LEVEL 3 FSD ': 45%MAX PROVIDED : 71 SF 1278 SF = 26% LEVEL 2 FSD 1: MAX PROVIDEDIDED83 S: 83 SF / 276 SF = 30% LEVEL FSD 5'-10':25%MAX PROVIDED: 20 SF 180 SF = 25% BUILDING 4 - NORTH ELEVATION FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 DATE 6 125 125 III C -MC�9tlWlNEI bTB�P➢4H q W LEVEL4 LL 4 FSD I: MAX PROVIDED: 661 SF I1,8595F=40% �� - 0 0= LEVEL3 FSD 15'-2V: 75% MAX PROVIDED: 555 SF 11,652 SF=34% 2 LEVEL2 FSD 1: MAX 520 PROVIDED: 520 : SF 11,607 SF = 32% LEVELI FSD 1: MAX : 44SF / 1,458 SF = 30% PROVIDEDIDED"0 �?�� �6P aPE ELEYPl14K 22:1-:M., LEVEL4 FRO 10IDED'. 115 MAX PROVIOEO. 115 SF / 32] SF = 35% �n LEVEL3 FSD 10'-15': 45%MAX PROVIDED:]8 8F/2635F=28% LEVEL2 FSD 00'-15-:45%MAX PROVIDED: 97 SF / 292 SF = 33% r LEVELI FSD V.10': 25%MAX PROVIDED: 16 SF I140 SF =11% BUILDING 2- WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE /0 IQ 81 (l/,•♦ KNIGHTTALL OPENING CALCULATIONS I A24 3APENA BUILDING 3 - REAR ELEVATION FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 DATE 6 125 125 BUILDINGS 1 & 2 - SIDE ELEVATION (BETWEEN BUILDINGS 1 & 2 CONDITION ONLY) IQ ✓NIGHH LL F/ F/32]SF=35% AAX F/4195F=43% AAX F I468 SF = 44% 377 BS?pB� �GBMFELEYP➢4K 3/16" = 1'- V SCALE 0 8 16 OPENING CALCULATIONS I A25 3AN ARENA LEGEND O MAILBOXES © PICNIC AREA © FIREPIT LOUNGE AREA 0 MONUMENT SIGNAGE © EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 0 BIKE RACKS Q MODULAR WETLAND - SEE DRAWINGS BY CIVIL 0 CONCRETE WALKWAY Q SECTION 'A' - SEE SHEET L2 SECTION 'B' - SEE SHEET L2 PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE ® TRANSFORMER ® PARKING AREA SLIDING VEHICULAR GATE ONSITE CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE OFFSITE f was« �—D W , z�ticr�E, ata�,� AKYKUVAL 13Y 1 Ht PROPERTY OWNER FORD ROAD ,-za-G'S�LE NORT� • NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA 0 I 0 I � (`: KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL, LLC 1 24 -172 KN IGHTHALL URBAN DATE b 16 125 A I T A L OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 A R E N A 35-95 o,. s R p - - p - a s. © oLOUNGE SITE FURNISHINGS BIKE RACK MFR: MAGLIN MODEL: ICONIC BIKE RACK COLOR: SILVER 14 FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL, LLC 1 24 -172 DATE 6 116 125 FIRE PIT MAILBOXES MFR: ORE DESIGN MFR: SALSBURY INDUSTRIES MODEL: FORMED CYLINDER MODEL: 16A-TYPE III COLOR: LINEN WHITE COLOR: WHITE T" kw' ,44 RETAINING WALL SECTIONS & \`♦ 6fNIGHTHALL URBAN SITE FURNISHINGS I L2 ARENA 35-96 I Car, INUILd j OEM r -omm abbilili j LEGEND O PARKING STALLS © WALKWAY © ENHANCED PAVING 0 LOUNGE SEATING WITH FIREPIT © PLANTING AREA 0 RETAINING WALL FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL, LLC 1 24 -172 DATE 6116I25 KNIGHTHALL C A P I T A L KEY PLAN 1/4-'-D'SCALE NORTH IIIIIB10 FIREPIT LOUNGE AREA ENLARGEMENT I L4 �0 URBAN ARENA 35-98 LEGEND O PARKING STALLS © WALKWAY © SEAT WALL c X 0 ENHANCED PAVING " © TRELLIS Q LOUNGE SEATING O OUTDOOR KITCHEN 0 PLANTING AREA e 0 TRASH RECEPTACLE RETAINING WALL MODULAR WETLAND -SEE DRAWINGS BY CIVIL >-✓� i 0O Lj Z Mdld I. N`d_1dJ 17 N`dld Ndld V �Z Ndld FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL, LLC 1 24 -172 DATE 6116I25 TA KNIGHTHALL A P I T A KEY PLAN 1/4-'-0"SCALE NORTH IB URBAN PICNIC AREA ENLARGEMENT I L5 ARENA 35-99 ArrKUVAL nr I rIC PROPERTY OWNER FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL, LLC 1 24 -172 DATE 6 116 125 FENCE & WALL PLAN I L6 URBAN AR mNA 35-100 �.III.", EXISTING EASEMENTS ED,KK,TOEADEE,,OFroD„�E°FOl'FTA"Do O OF D�w1 RE uFEns A rrownax OF F—E, S ABBREVIATIONS D w CD , RE =HINE' RESOMNING FN wRD. ITERDE wATOO TO 0 Nm ��ncxr-ar-wnv E NO III I El s —_ VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19396 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AND RE —SUBDIVISION PURPOSES) ,ANYON DRIVE - ? � , _ -- -� - i' a a � r oar+ row1 211 OR \ ' vwovDsm srDa, DUN �� F� SEED waANxs � mN� o DExEE ITHE i FLOOD ZONE g' of w�D x� UEs .� 0 a - • °� a °mxm Dx xEDNE.,ax ww°x�m Er D.D. oEwaA. DF xDDDrvc .ND NAww o xEM a ES ,' aY aoDD �DwuwE FAw S.F .µa x°. a „w F„T�E Eiz,iao�T. UTILITY NOTES e \ i. vxovosm vueuc wATEw a SEwEe NNxs ro m xsruEm o w axsnE TD g�°E TnE �vDSFO Eoms i o z..ut veDVDs DTDTEs ro EE nsrwTD vEw cN OF nEwvoaT mncx SFAZwaos uo svECFa*nxs. f. F .wD R _D EST Exmnc OONn To RE— F.c ITES .. 3 °Rn ow:l10u .1"1 El "11% a 1°01wa`w1f0sco NOD uR x Foe D eaoD , PROPOSED LOT SUMMARY UNMEROME m ,5; g ED wMEMI SITE VICINITYuMAP SITE ADDRESS RO!m F DEVELOPER SIRE zx —FEEvwr xEwaowr eucx a EZEEo ENGINEER oCIVIL (somas) o �9Eo zE,E DE GENERAL NOTES c DEVE,ovEo uxD I . . i i/ i , i / wm. z ED EARGEDuno DSE .Eca z. wEVDExrw coxoox N u z LEGAL DESCRIPTION v wav F,aD x Eoo. Es vacE . of v.eDa w.vs wscovos of svD muFrc. TOOEEREM or sND vurca MAR E„Nc F.srEeD. or NE FILL_ _REEDPO Of�xs. MT i ,,,FIENCE , o x E DF E, FE Ox E sD Tw E Ee T DeNEe OF sND e . mx D DNe wED N > DE Ir . THEI o OF ,D _ . o,s<axsE OF D.EA IEEE To NE xOA.=lu COI.EI of SxD v 11. . iLET - E 11111 of A 1111 wa RED IF SMD ­ ------ _ '—.uz.FEE" 1.—. - - --°k—� Fouow nc DE_' LxE xraN of Sxo vuavEE i Ewnc ­ OF TEE OE- _EF IF s7si ar n IS-1E IF FIENNoma A.aE zr wEST A osAxc mcxOE xomx "ODOO csr . Dsr.xc REIT FEa TO NE ND�»FwsrEll I —El OF SS wAroEE �. ,D . A o µ« OF DEA i ORDER IF 3 ms.EuuENr ND EEsosz sas DF DFFcuE b aicDaos oFEs°xI ov"..°�ii co°NwTMs cpDu $ � OF°- o FE RECoa : DEED xE °EDED 1 r FLAID IRE a. ,w,. w ETHRO BASIS OF BEARINGS $ N s=;._­E. . 'I Ep= OF`=.' FGI ;"DD-E� E E.E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FORD ROAD 4302 FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SHEETINDEX TITLE SHEET C-01 EXISTING CONDITIONS C-02 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PWJ C-03 —GNS C-04 CONCE-AL UIIUW PVN C-05 MRACE GRADE PLANE C-O6 4302 FORD ROAD RNIGHTHAU CAPITAL, LLC FUSCOE ENGINEERING 1400NEWPORT CENTER DR, SUITE 2w 1-5 SAND CANYON AVE, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 82260 IRVINE. CA U618 PHGNE: e4e.aT4.lefio vawPmwm RwNww x�Paaccavzu�anw,swnl,�EP.exrs�sa<x.,lc .wrs�.zu-m,Em„sowc ms-,o-zozs an:z,N�1 .law e,. m<aw ABBREVIATIONS & LEGEND — — — — wwrinROFERrr uNE qN,. ea P... sEWER uNE rvE OvROrosEO NCOULVt —All VICINITY o SITE ADDRESS DEVELOPER oRNE wIIE z5o OWNER CIVIL ENGINEER LEGAL DESCRIPTION EX BASIS OF BEARINGS zu, x.x.xRssj. wns xm AS mx wslx ax auxlxcs — Tws xw. FLOOD ZONE r�aoo Ixwwxcc R.,E N.r xxa rvo. xwszcmam. cREcm'c iiz,izx,� C-01 TITLE SHEET 6/16/2025 35-102 ONITA CA YON DRIV -- -- — ---- -- —� —IM.2 --- -- \ g— ----- --- — ` \hu 200.2 � ro o. V1 6 O NAP } wn. ruewo,u. w o Oz EXISTING EASEMENTS w� ° OIw Boa 7e5 vrres zss .o zeo or a111— 1--. '9sx v,,crs ms 1a ms GO. 1-1oF` O 67oF OM—necanos. uPEcrs A M 0x a P_ 4302 FORD ROAD xNIGHTH—CAPITAL, aC FUSCOE ENGINEERING NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 id00NEWPORTCENTERDR,SUNS NEW PORT BEACH. CA-60 M 15—SANDCANYONAVE,SUITE100 IRVINE. CA U618 PHONE: BaeaT I9W vawa„wm RwNww r�rao,ccavzu�anw,swx�,�ex,s�sa<x.,�c .uxsvm-m,nmr.owc �a-,s-mu z:xur.� xw.a w: owa,�r / C l C-02 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6/16/2025 35-103 O, BONITA CANYON DRIVE K E DEG - �qq _ newer . o° PYGP 6�� l e•l Yi / f4� r Sax i DYIEN9IXY5 UE NINSD BY Y .,• �A -• eRAIF ERRYE gYEEEpYS e' YAY #IE rwGG1c ILt1E0 \O�O \ PFR ST9 US rRPkE AS A GqN WIM MT %DT _ 2 acuaw Ersl,cw nn _ y - a PE,AN VIEW \ Yu 1ws rmsa .n: rwsro >• � / I[mr ru-Fle Pane w1E � - - _ rnisEe navE 2a' wwwr ax ° � � *Ati'a amN ELEVA3TON 5- faeee 9[y YW7f a EM lrvrrA eeppnylq Q- —Wal er earl id. dF� eplWe !r N Ne LexA mi ervEhed reek - FY1n and palr prN.Mr emcete wr6. _ �- FB Vw -A ur Lk finch nLh '—h d reek he Y from yap or Vock _ N BOTTOMLESS TRENCH DRAIN- "rs C-03 EARTHWORK NOTES scut i =zo rns. e.oso a �ww; z. Exisn P T x 9M 9 ux = ux ssovE, x = „' C-03 4302 FORD ROAD YMGHTHALLCAPITAL, ITC GUSCOE ENGINEERING1p} E t.+ e>o x , �, In xN CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN l4oDN—RG CENTER DR, SUITE 288 15S35 SAND CANYON AVE, SUITE 100 NEW PORT BEACH, CA 92660 —PORT BEACH. CA 92268 IRVINE, CA 92618 u x cr (wx1 9JI.. SE1BnKK —1 xo6TxEA5i PPGPERry unE - , i'/3 - 15]'. a' SfftMti< PPwneFO evel°pment Review IN— S. 9494T4.1960 °nnixixG weus, ox rao,ix¢. s sxxNxece. au,Nxc, a sass moY ununEs. 6/16/2025 ,�PxNEG,G�.�.roo,�PD��DP,�xEI���Ex..G P�,r+z� Gx,Ero]�wG iG�I�zazs zze.ePw Pa,� � G.a.: o 35-104 �c Aa oP.� ------ 6 R.6 m --------r-------------- SECTION A c oa rt FRP. uu N..z P.�Pt�rxr / 96 oxm I PTB 1 rn°°c SECTION B c oa E i i auo¢ � vxPa.r "p PS5 �sNPiw SECTION D c oa SECTION E c-oa C-04 4302 FORD ROAD KNIGHTHAU CAPITAL, uC FUGCOE ENGINEERING SECTIONS 1a00NEWPORT CENTER DR, SUITE— 1553E SAND CANYON AVE, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92260 IRVINE. CA 92618 Davawamam Re New PIA.— 9a9.aT4.1960 6/i6/2025 .nPPo,So,svzu�anPwawlr�r�.eNrs�sa<P.,�s .uPsvz.,-oo,Gorszonwc coa-,s_zozs s:ss:zaPwi Pula e,: or„�,�, 35-105 \e a' % BONIT ANYON D E \\ a�6-!F1 ORAIN4GE CA4]LYi i x o.,.`,sip \f\ / / \ \ s�oi�(ivaj. 3 '�:• \ \ \TT \ q aueuc / / \/ O � / A V AA, �e ( s � � t cu6uc LEGEND f\ `�� Fsyp l�Tr zo PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE •'\ 1 PROPOSED WATER LINE +� / —�—�— FIRE WATER SERVCE PROPOSED SEWER LINE PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT Q PROPOSED MODULAR WEfIAND \\�\/ 7 ♦, ® FIRE HYDRANT TRANSFORMER 1 1 '�\ �\ PSIZED TO 81SS ��•` DRY UTILITY \ \ .� \ — — — — — — FIRE HYDRANT 150' RADIUS \ - EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE —a-- EXISTING WATER LINE — — — FIRE WATER SERVICE \ — a — — PROPOSED SEWER LINE \ — — _— EXISTING ELECTRICAL - — — - —_— EXISTING FIBER OPTICS EXISTING GAS - —sn— EXISTING STREET LIGHT - -- EXISTING TELEPHONE I EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 4302 FORD ROAD KNIGHTHA-LCAPI—, LC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 1400 NMNEWPORTCENTERDR,SUITE20 IM35 SAND CANYON AVE, SUITE 100 NEW PORT BEACH. CA-60 IRVINE, CA -16 PHONE: P49A74.1 SIX veroPment ReWew ,nP Nvs.,�oo�XR.4�� .Eu.ss�Ban� RNA.,.,-oo�Do�P.owc (os-1— ,:,— ) oT,1.1. l CONCEPTUAL UTILITY C-05 PLAN PLAN 6/16/2025 35-106 AVE—El GRAD E —NE 6 5 AVERAGE GRADE —NE m 35 .87 oO -RAGE GR DE PLANE E FLo—T-11 NV lb T lAl. } 2 / A? ?k 4302 FORD ROAD KNIG T11— CAPITA-, LLC FCGC0E ENGINEERING NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 N:P0N`RTpB=HCENTER DR, SUITE— 1-5 SAND CANYON AVE, SUITEE 100 . CA 92260 IRVINE. CA 92618 PHGNE:9a9.aT4.fefio 11 2. C-06 AVERAGE GRADE PLANE 6/16/2025 35-107 Attachment D July 3, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report 35-108 PO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 3, 2025 �+4LIFOP. P Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) ■ Major Site Development Review ■ Vesting Tentative Tract Map SITE LOCATION: Unaddressed property abutting 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361) and 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02) APPLICANT: Ford Road Ventures LLC OWNER: Pacific Bell Telephone Company PLANNER: Jerry Arregui, Assistant Planner 949-644-3249, jarregui@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A request to authorize the development of a 27-unit, for -sale, residential townhome community on an undeveloped and unaddressed property. The project also includes improvements to the adjacent AT&T Facility property, including the installation of a gate to restrict vehicular access, repainting of the AT&T Facility building, and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications monopole within the AT&T Facility property. Lastly, the project includes subdividing the unaddressed property and reconfiguring the lot line between the project site and the AT&T Facility property. The following approvals are required: • A Major Site Development Review authorizing construction of residential development, increase in maximum structure height, and deviations from specific multi -unit objective design standards. • A Vesting Tentative Tract Map authorizing the adjustment of property lines between the project site and the AT&T Facility property to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units for individual sale (i.e., for condominium purposes). RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Find that this project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of the 35-109 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 2 CEQA Guidelines because the Project is consistent with the previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023060699); and 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2025-012, approving the Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map filed as PA2025-0049 (Attachment No. PC 1). (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank) 35-110 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 3 VICINITY MAP Project Site x { _ AT&T Facility Property 5 A YI F7T k` _ I yIM Y m!' if a � •h GENERAL PLAN ZONING i, p g r; a�'j• PC 50 sa i OS Pr pf 4 4 L 4 n LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Public Facilities (PF) and ON -SITE Public Facilities (PF) Housing Opportunity (HO) Undeveloped, AT&T Overlay, Newport Center Facility Subarea HO-4 NORTH FMultiple Residential (RM) Planned Community - Bonita Canyon PC50 Newport Bluffs Apartments EAST Open Space (OS) PC50 Bonita Canyon Sports Park Undevelo ed Planned Community — Bonita Canyon Sports SOUTH Parks and Recreation (PR), OS, and Harbor View Hills (PC3) Park, Trail, and Harbor Single Unit Residential Detached and Open Space OS View Community WEST IF OS Open Space (OS) Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail 35-111 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 4 INTRODUCTION Background Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District and Amendment On September 13, 2022, the City Council adopted the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period (Housing Element). The Housing Element was later certified as statutorily compliant with state law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 5, 2022. On September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2024-16 and 2024-17, approving amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to establish the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts in Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) of the NBMC and to create multi -unit objective design standards in Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC, respectively. The new sections serve to implement Policy Actions 1A through 1G and 3A in the 6t" Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan. The adoption of these ordinances provided new housing opportunities within five subareas to ensure the City can meet its 6t" Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation: Airport Area Environs Area (HO-1), West Newport Mesa Area (HO-2), Dover-Westcliff Area (HO-3), Newport Center Area (HO-4), and Coyote Canyon Area (HO-5). These subareas correspond directly to the Focus Areas identified in Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis) of the Housing Element. Properties identified as a Housing Opportunity Site have specified development standards conducive to residential development at the prescribed average density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. The standards include but are not limited to minimum lot area, setbacks, height, open space, landscaping, and parking. The Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards are applicable to any residential project with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre to ensure the highest possible design quality and to provide a baseline standard for new multi -unit developments throughout the City. As shown in Figure 1 below, the project site was identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 with an assumed net yield of 64 dwelling units and included within the HO-4 (Newport Center Area) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank) 35-112 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 5 Eastbluff,� BeImLirl O o Project Site Bonfra Canyon 0 #° R,f 13,&Ot x Rig Canvon r e1► Bad Newport Hilts Bark Hapl delei [� Ne Newport Center JDR L Irvine Terrace t N� .�" 41� d�}'QUIBf DILLS RD Balboa Island f Inine terrace T:-A-ld Hmrbur Vie+r Figure 1, HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District On November 19, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-85, initiating an amendment to Section 20.28.050 in Title 20 and the pending complementary section in Title 21 of the NBMC, to review and make possible adjustments to certain development standards, including but not limited to building height limits as specified in Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 [Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts] and pending Table 21.28-1 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) in Title 21 of the NBMC. 35-113 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 6 As originally adopted, Table 2-16 (Development Standards For Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 in Title 20 identified heights within the HO-4 Subarea as being limited to those in the underlying base zoning district. Given the variety of zoning districts, maximum height limits range from as high as 300 feet and as low as 32 feet. Due to the lower base height limits, an adjustment to allowable building heights is appropriate and necessary to accommodate residential developments within the intended prescribed density range of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. On June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, which adjusted the height limitations for housing projects on several properties within the HO-4 Subarea, including an increased height limit of 48 feet for the subject property. However, it is important to note that this amendment is not yet effective until 30 days after adoption. Proiect Settin As depicted in Figure 2 below, the townhome community is proposed for the undeveloped and unaddressed property, near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection. The townhome site is northeast of a City -owned trail and the parking lot for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and is approximately 230 feet northwest of the Harbor View community consisting of single-family residences. While the townhome development will occur within the undeveloped property, the project also involves improvements to the AT&T Facility addressed as 1650 Ford Road. The AT&T facility property is developed with an approximately 35-foot-tall utility building that houses telephone and communication equipment, a surface parking lot accessed from Ford Road, and a 50-foot-tall wireless telecommunications monopole. Both of these properties are currently owned by the Pacific Bell Telephone Company and will comprise the project site. The future ownership of the townhome site by the Applicant is contingent on securing entitlements for residential development. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank) 35-114 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 7 Newport Bluffs Apartments 1F; " _ �' " •' '� •r_JF-�� i wT .. � P AT&T Facility Project Site '. Harbor View Community Bonita Canyon Sports Park ;,� ,"aril '1 S r �„•�� 'i• ri_ ` Figure 2, Oblique image of the project site and the surrounding neighborhood Project Description The applicant proposes to develop a 27-unit residential townhome community. The proposed development includes two-, three-, and four -bedroom units ranging from 1,916 to 2,989 square feet, each with an attached two -car garage. The units are to be distributed within four detached four-story buildings with a maximum structure height of 47 feet and 11 inches, above the established grade. Dwelling unit types are summarized in Table 1. The project's design and architecture, access and parking, amenities, AT&T Facility improvements, and subdivision are each described under separate headers below. The applicant's full project description is provided as Attachment No. PC 2. Table 1. Dwellina Unit Summary Floor Plan Gross Floor Area (Sq. Ft Bedrooms Garage Spaces No. Units Plan 1 1,916 2 2 8 Plan 2 2,325 3 2 8 Plan 3 2,916 4 2 5 Plan 4 2,989 4 2 6 35-115 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 8 Design and Architecture As depicted in Figure 3, the project was designed with contemporary coastal architecture with an articulated facade, which includes varied rooflines, balconies, facade projections and recessions, large windows, and material variation. Additionally, the project includes two color schemes: a coastal palette with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral earthy palette with beige, brown, light green and light white. Figure 3, Project Rendering, as seen from Ford Road Access and Parking Two of the four buildings will face the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and are adjacent to the park trail. The project is integrated with the Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail using landscaping and pedestrian walkways which allow for three points of access to the trail. This connectivity is intended to allow for pedestrian access to the park and nearby destinations. Additionally, this connectivity allows for use of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes provided along Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Drive. The project is designed with vehicular access from Ford Road, through a shared driveway with the AT&T Facility. No additional curb -cut openings are proposed. The project will include an easement with the AT&T Facility property to ensure access for the project is maintained and future curb openings are not required. This layout is depicted in Figure 4. 35-116 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 9 BONITA CANYO DR Area Picnic - Parking Area Delivery/Turn ` Around Space f Parking f Trail # r- - -� Access ,r Trail AT&T� t, Facility Trail x " "T"ItUiD ` Access Bonita Canyon Sports Park Shared Driveway opt �- Figure 4, Site Plan The project proposes two drive aisles within the interior of the community, leading to each unit's individual garages and guest parking spaces. The drive aisles will also accommodate emergency, delivery and refuse vehicle access. Trash pick-up will be staged along the drive aisles, as each unit will have residential trash bins. There is a designed turn around area which allows for larger delivery, service and emergency vehicles to safely exit the property. The project will provide 54 parking spaces (i.e., two per unit) within garages, 10 uncovered guest parking spaces, and two uncovered delivery spaces for a total of 66 parking spaces. 35-117 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 10 Residential Amenities The development provides resident -serving amenities including an approximately 2,300- square-foot outdoor picnic area and an approximately 550-square-foot outdoor firepit area located on the northern portion of the site as depicted in Figure 4 above. The picnic area includes an outdoor kitchen with barbeque grills, outdoor seating, a detached trellis structure, and landscaping throughout. The firepit area is smaller in scale and provides an additional lounging area for residents and guests. Renderings depicting the firepit and picnic areas are included with the project plans (Attachment No PC 3). The project provides each unit with 139 to 156 square feet of private balconies and covered patios. AT&T Facility Improvements The project also includes improvements to the AT&T Facility property. As shown below in Figure 5, a gate will be installed to restrict access from the shared driveway and the building will be painted grey with blue accents. Figure 5, Rendering of AT&T Property Improvements Additional improvements include repaving the parking lot, installation of new landscaping, and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications facility monopole. While the final design and location of the telecom facility is not yet complete, the future facility will need to conform to the development standards provided in Chapter 20.49 (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities) of the NBMC and will require subsequent review and permitting. 35-118 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 11 Subdivision and Establishment of Grade The project will subdivide the undeveloped property to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes and allow for the airspace subdivision of the units for individual sale (i.e., for condominiums purposes). As shown below in Figure 6, the project will also adjust the easterly property line between the undeveloped property and the AT&T Facility property, increasing the size of the townhome site from 1.06 to 1.16 acres and decreasing the size of the AT&T Facility property from 1.74 to 1.64 acres. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19396 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AND RE -SUBDIVISION PURPOSES) EONITA CANYON DRIVE r I Project Site Bonita Canyon Sports Park �,V Adjusted Property Line 0.1 Acre Increase r r Fr! AT&T Property N Figure 6, Vesting Tentative Tract Map showing the adjusted lot lines Lastly, the project proposes the establishment of grade for height measurement purposes for each building. The grade establishment is pursuant to Section 20.30.050 (13)(1) (Grade 35-119 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 12 Establishment — Subdivisions) of the NBMC and grades range from 196.35 to 198.83 feet based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Required City Approvals The following approvals are required to implement the proposed project: Major Site Development Review (SDR): Required for any project proposing five or more residential units with a tract map. The SDR additionally allows for an increase in maximum structure height pursuant to Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) of the NBMC and allows for deviations of four multi -unit objective design standards pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM): Requested to adjust the easterly property line between the project site and the AT&T Facility property, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes, and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the units for individual sale (i.e., for condominium purposes). DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan Consistency Though the subject property is categorized as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element, it was included as Site ID No. 141 within Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis) of the adopted and certified 6t" Cycle Housing Element deeming it potentially appropriate for multi -unit residential development in furtherance of the City's housing goals. Its rezoning with the HO-4 Subarea designation is supported by Land Use Element Policy LU4.4 (Rezoning to Accommodate Housing Opportunities), which states that the City would provide housing opportunities through the use of a housing overlay zoning district as a regulatory mechanism. In addition to the above, the project is consistent with several other General Plan Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Circulation Element policies that establish fundamental criteria for the formation and implementation of new residential development. A consistency analysis was completed and is detailed in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1), as well as the attached General Plan Consistency Table (Attachment No. PC 4). Zoning Code Consistency Both the undeveloped property and the AT&T Facility property are zoned Public Facilities (PF). The undeveloped property is also located within the HO-4 Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. As previously discussed in the Background section, Section 20.28.050 (B) (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts — Uses 35-120 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 13 Allowed) of the NBMC allows for multi -unit residential development on housing overlay sites if the project meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement. Based on the proposed 1.16-acre lot, the project results in a density of 23.27 units per acre and meets the density requirement of the HO-4 Subarea. In addition to minimum density, the project conforms to all applicable development standards of the HO-4 Subarea specified in Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, as evidenced by the project plans (Attachment No. PC 3) and as illustrated in Table 2 below. Table 2: HO-4 Subarea Development Standards Development Standard Standard Proposed Setbacks (min.) Front (Ford Road) 0 feet 6 feet Side (northeast) 0 feet 6 to 56 feet Side (west) 0 feet 4 to 6 feet Rear (southeast) 0 feet 11 to 24 feet Streetside (Bonita Canyon)' 20 feet 20 to 45 feet Parking (min.) 61 spaces 66 spaces Building Separation 10 feet 22 to 33 feet Common Open Space (75 sq. ft./unit min.) 2,025 sq. ft. 2,857 sq. ft (Fire Pit/Picnic Area) Private Open Space (5% gross floor area/unit min.) 96 to 150 sq. ft. per unit 139 to 156 sq. ft. per unit Height (max. )2 48 feet 47 feet, 11 inches Lot Coverage No Limitation 45% ' Footnote No. 3 of I able 2-16 requires that any portion of a building that is over 20 teet in height, which include the Project's third and fourth floors, shall provide a 20-foot setback from the street right-of-way. 2 City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the project site. The project is also subject to the Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards provided in Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. As indicated in the Objective Design Standards Checklist (Attachment No. PC 5), the project conforms to 48 of the 52 applicable standards. Subsection 20.48.185 (C) allows for deviations from any objective design standards through the approval of a SDR, by the Planning Commission, with additional findings. The applicant requests minor deviations of four standards as described in the Major Site Development Review- Multi -Unit Objective Design Standard Deviation section below. 35-121 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 14 Major Site Development Review Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Review, Findings and Decision) of the NBMC requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings before approving SDR: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district; B. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the following applicable criteria: i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials, and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection); and C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Major Site Development Review — Height Increase As previously discussed in the Background section, the City Council recently adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, increasing the base height limit of the site from 32 feet for structures with a flat roof and 37 feet for structures with a sloped roof, to a maximum height limit of 48 feet for the subject property. However, since this ordinance doesn't become effective until July 26, 2025, the project application includes a request for additional height through the SDR process in accordance with Section 20.30.060(C)(3) (Height Limits and Exceptions - Required Findings) of the NBMC. The Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height only after making all the following findings in addition to the findings required pursuant to Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews — Findings and Decision): 35-122 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 15 a. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Examples of project amenities include, but are not limited to: i. Additional landscaped open space; ii. Increased setback and open areas; and iii. Enhancement and protection of public views; and b. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes; c. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties; and d. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. Staff believe facts to support the findings exist to approve the SDR, including a request for the increased height allowance. These facts are discussed in detail in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The key facts in support of findings are summarized in the following paragraphs. Setbacks and Open Space Although the project site has an irregular shape and the HO-4 Subarea requires limited setbacks, the project design compactly arranges the four separate buildings to maximize site efficiency to provide larger than required setbacks. The project provides varying setbacks including a 20 to 45-foot streetside setback on the north, a 6 to 56-foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west, and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the project site. These setbacks allow for additional open area and for more light and air through the project. A preliminary landscape plan was provided which includes varying drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species throughout the projects sites larger than required setback areas and within the picnic area, and firepit area. The HO-4 Subarea is not subject to any maximum lot coverage requirement. However, the compact site design of the project is accommodated through the taller buildings design which results in a lot coverage of approximately 45%. In comparison, properties located within the Multiple Residential (RM-6000) Zoning District are allowed a maximum lot coverage of 60%. The project provides additional open area through its compact design and less horizontal massing to reduce the site coverage compared to what is 35-123 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 16 allowed a RM-6000 District, accomplished with the allowed 48-foot height of each building. These compact design features allow the project to better reflect the character of a single- family neighborhood, in contrast to an apartment building project with a zero -setback design. The provided setbacks, open areas, and lower lot coverage offer amenities beyond those otherwise required by the H04 subarea and contributes to a more visually appealing project for the neighborhood. Scale and Compatibility The project is appropriately buffered from surrounding residential and recreational uses by existing roads, landscaping, and substantial setbacks and shown in Figure 8. Figure 8, Oblique Image of Project Site with Building Heights and Distances to Surrounding Uses The project is separated from the Harbor View community to the south by Ford Road, a two-lane connector with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 45 to 60 feet in height. The nearest single -unit dwelling is approximately 230 feet from the project's southmost structures. Homes within the Harbor View community consist of single -story to two-story structures, and maximum allowed heights of up to 32 feet. The adjacent AT&T building is approximately 35 feet in height. The changing scale of structures, intervening road with large street trees and distance provides a harmonious transition from the two- story Harbor View community to the project. 35-124 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 17 As previously mentioned, the project includes several improvements to the adjacent AT&T Facility property including new landscaping and repainting the building. While these improvements are not required, the applicant has committed to improving the adjacent property to ensure combability between the project and the AT&T Facility as well as for the benefit of both existing and future residents of this community and surrounding area. The project is separated from the Newport Bluffs apartments to the north by Bonita Canyon Drive, a four -lane primary arterial road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height, and approximately 185 feet from the project's northmost structures. Figure 9, Rendering of Project from Bonita Canyon Drive While access to the project is not taken from Bonita Canyon Drive, the project has been designed to include enhanced architectural and landscape treatments to improve the view for motorists and residents to the north as shown in Figure 9. The project has been conditioned to install perimeter landscaping along Bonita Canyon Drive, including trees, to ensure that the landscaping will be installed which serves to buffer and soften the project and ensures scale compatibility is maintained. 35-125 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 18 Major Site Development Review — Multi -Unit Objective Design Standard Deviation Pursuant to Section 20.48.185(A) (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards — Purpose) of the NBMC, the project is seeking deviation from four of the 52 applicable Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards as shown in the Objective Design Standards Checklist (Attachment PC 5). The Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow deviation of multi -unit objective design standards only after making all the following findings: A. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section. B. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards Staff believe facts to support the findings exist to approve the deviation of the four objecting design standards. These facts are discussed in detail in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The key facts in support of findings needed for the deviations are summarized as follows: 1. Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone (LPZ): A 4-foot minimum width zone abutting a building is required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping with a combination of vines, ornamental, grasses, shrubs, ground cover, and ornamental trees. The project provides a 3-foot, 6-inch wide LPZ at most driveway areas which result from building offsets. The building offsets contribute to enhanced building articulation, resulting in a more visually appealing fapade. Increasing the LPZ zone to meet the 4-foot width requirement would reduce the size of the building offsets and the open setback area in front of each building. The narrower LPZ design maximizes the amount of landscaped open space in front of each building and maintains the 20% landscape standard, which provides more benefit to future residents than the negligible 6 inches of LPZ adjacent to garages. 2. Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length. Building length shall be limited to 150 feet. The project proposes two eight -unit buildings with a length of 155 feet. The project prevents lengthy unarticulated building masses by incorporating varied rooflines, balconies, fagade projections and recessions, and material variation which creates the appearance of distinct units and breaks up the building's overall length and massing. The building provides more than the required articulation and includes upper floor setbacks which ensure the building length is less visually obtrusive. 3. Horizontal Modulation — Minimum Depth: All building recesses or projections shall be a minimum of 2 feet in depth. The project proposes a variety of different recesses and projections including upper floor setbacks, balconies and covered patios. The project proposes a variety of different recesses and projections 35-126 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 19 including upper floor setbacks, balconies and covered patios which range from 6 inches to 12 feet. The intent of this requirement is to allow for sufficient depth of recesses and projections so that building lengths are sufficiently modulated. While some of the project's recesses and projections are less than 2 feet in depth, the project provides large upper floor setbacks, balconies, and patios between 5 and 12 feet as shown in Figure 10. The project provides additional depth for other recesses and projections features which ensures building length is less visually obtrusive. 4. Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Number: There shall be a maximum limit of two recesses or projections per fagade. The project includes more than two recesses and projections in both of the largest buildings within the development as depicted in Figure 10. Due to their length, the additional recesses and projections allow for sufficient modulation to each unit. The intent of this requirement is to avoid lengthy and plain building facades. Limiting the design to only two recesses or projections would result in less modulation, less visual interest, and a building less reminiscent of townhomes. The project is furthering the intent of this requirement by sufficiently modulating the 8-plex building, which results in a less visually obtrusive building length. 7 ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ so N■■ ■■ ■■ ■ 1 ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ MEN ■■ ON ■ 1 - II II i!M II II ■■EN . R ME a Figure 10, Fagade of Eight -Unit Building The proposed design also includes more than the required fagade glazing and includes two color pallets where only one is required for this project. The project as proposed goes beyond the intent of the Objective Design Standards, which ensures the highest possible design quality for residential projects with a density of at least 20 units per acre. Though the project requests minor deviation of four objective design standards, the project still more than complies with the intent the objective design standards therefore the deviations are appropriate. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 35-127 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 20 Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps) of the NBMC, requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings before approving a Vesting Tentative Tract Map: A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code; B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report, D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision; F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land, G. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5, (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area; 35-128 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 21 H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 664 73. 1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, 1. That the subdivision is consistent with California Government Code Sections 66412.3 and 65584 regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Staff believe facts to support the findings exist to approve the VTTM. These facts are discussed in detail in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The key facts in support of findings are summarized in the following paragraphs. The project proposes to adjust the eastern property like between the project site and the adjacent AT&T property to increase the lot to 1.16 acres to accommodate the project design. The VTTM is essential to develop the property with a townhome project as it is required to allow for the individual sale of residential units. Because the project includes for -sale units, the project is subject to pay an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees) of the NBMC, as required for park and recreational purposes. The existing parcel is undeveloped; therefore, the in -lieu parking fee will be required for 27 new dwelling units. A preliminary application for residential development, filed as PA2025-0056, was deemed submitted on April 7, 2025, for this project. The preliminary application prevents the project from being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in Government Code Section 65589.5(o). Therefore, the project will be subject to an in -lieu park fee of $38,400 per unit which is the fee that was in effect at the time the preliminary application was deemed submitted. The site is suitable for the type and density of the development in that the infrastructure serving the site has been designed to accommodate the proposed project. A sewer and water demand study were prepared by PSOMAS dated May 14, 2025, and concludes that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the project. The site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, or wetlands. Furthermore, the project is not expected to result in any public health or safety concern to residents in this area or throughout the City. All improvements associated with the project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, 35-129 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 22 which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) of the NBMC. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval will be complied with. Environmental Review Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and its implementing guidelines set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50 on July 23, 2024, certifying Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023060699 (PEIR), approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC which are available at: Housing Implementation Program EIR. The project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines because, inasmuch as the property involved is within the HO-4 Subarea, the project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations; and would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial more adverse impact than addressed in the PEIR. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines provides, in relevant part: a. Projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. b. In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; ii. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; 35-130 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 23 iii. Are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or iv. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. c. If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. d. This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions: The project is consistent with: A. A community plan adopted as part of a general plan; B. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development; or C. A general plan of a local agency; and An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan. As part of its decision -making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. Additional CEQA review is only triggered if the project's new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in PEIR such that major revisions to the PEIR would be required. A detailed consistency analysis has been prepared by T & B Planning Inc., dated June 2025, which was peer reviewed and accepted by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., is provided as Exhibit "A" to the draft resolution and hereby incorporated by reference. Both the consistency analysis and peer review conclude that the project would not create any new significant impacts or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR and therefore no further environmental review is required. 35-131 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 24 SUMMARY Staff believe the findings for project approval are made as demonstrated by Attachment No. PC 1 to this report. The project is consistent with the intent of the HO-4 Subarea and is consistent with several policies of the General Plan Housing, Land Use, and Circulation Elements. If approved, the project will provide a net increase in 27 for sale attached single -unit dwellings, which diversifies the City's housing stock and helps increase the supply of housing in Newport Beach. Alternatives and Housina Accountabilitv Act Compliance Should the Planning Commission's review and evaluation of this project not coincide with City staff's recommendation, then the following alternative options are available to the Planning Commission: The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate any concerns. If the requested changes are substantial, the item could be continued to a future meeting. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. If the Planning Commission chooses to deny or reduce the density of the project, findings must be made consistent with the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5), which restricts the City's ability to deny, reduce density of, or make infeasible housing developments for projects that are consistent with objective general plan, zoning (including objective design standards), and subdivision standards. The law also places the burden of proof on the City to justify denial or reduction in density. Therefore, if after consideration of all written and oral evidence presented, the Planning Commission desires to either disapprove or impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density or with any other conditions that would adversely impact feasibility of the proposed project, the Planning Commission must articulate the factual basis for making the following findings and direct staff to return with a revised resolution incorporating the articulated findings and factual basis for the decision: (A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 35-132 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Planning Commission, July 3, 2025 Page 25 (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways) including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Correspondence Correspondence received to date for the project is included as Attachment PC 6 for the Planning Commission consideration. Prepared by: Submitted by: 07 er Arre i JaotslMurillo, AICP Assistant Planner Deputy Community Development Director JP/ja ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution PC 2 Applicant's Project Description PC 3 Project Plans PC 4 General Plan Policy Consistency PC 5 Multi -Unit Objective Design Standard Checklist PC 6 Project Correspondence 35-133 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution 03/13/2018 35-134 FRESOLUTION NO. PC2025-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CONSTRUCT 27 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED ON AN UNADDRESSED PARCEL ABUTTING 1650 FORD ROAD (PA2025-0049) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Ford Road Ventures LLC ("Applicant"), on behalf of the property owner Pacific Bell Telephone Company ("Owner") concerning property located at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02), and an undeveloped and unaddressed property abutting 1650 Ford Road (458-361-10), and legally described as Lot A and Lot B, respectively, of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2019-001 ("Properties"). 2. The Applicant proposes to develop a 27-unit, for sale, residential townhome complex upon the undeveloped and unaddressed property, near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection, northeast of the parking lot for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and west of the AT&T Facility located at 1650 Ford Road ("Project Site"). The proposed development includes two-, three-, and four -bedroom units ranging from 1,916 to 2,989 square feet. The development will include a two -car garage for each unit, 10 uncovered guest parking spaces and two uncovered delivery spaces for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces. Units will be distributed within four, detached, four-story buildings with a maximum structure height of 47 feet and 11 inches, above the established grade. The development will provide resident -serving amenities including an outdoor picnic area and an outdoor firepit area. Vehicular access to the Project Site will be taken from Ford Road, through a shared driveway with the adjacent AT&T facility. Pedestrian access will be provided to the adjacent Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail. The project also proposes improvements to the neighboring AT&T Facility property including the installation of a gate to restrict access to its parking lot, repaving of the parking lot, new landscaping, repainting the building, and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications monopole. Lastly, the project will subdivide the undeveloped and unaddressed Project Site and reconfigure the lot line between the Project Site and the AT&T Facility property. ("Project"). 3. The following approvals are required from the City of Newport Beach ("City) to implement the Project: Major Site Development Review ("SDR"): i. A SDR is required for projects proposing 5 or more units with a tract map. Though not required as discussed in Fact 5 below, the Applicant has requested a SDR to allow for an increase in maximum structure height pursuant to Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) of the Newport 35-135 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 2 of 37 Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") A SDR is also requested to allow deviations from four multi -unit objective design standards pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. Vesting Tentative Tract Map ("VTTM"): i. A VTTM is requested to adjust the easterly property line between the undeveloped Project Site and the AT&T facility to increase the lot to approximately 1.16 acres, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes within the undeveloped Project Site, to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units for condominium purposes. 4. On September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2024-16 and 2024-17, approving amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC to establish the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts in Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) ("Housing Overlay") and to create multi -unit objective design standards in Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. The new sections serve to implement Policy Actions 1A through 1 G and 3A in the 6t" Cycle Housing Element ("Housing Element") of the General Plan. The Project Site was identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141. 5. Subsequently, on June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, approving amendments to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments adjusted the height limitation for certain properties within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District to accommodate potential residential development with the intendent prescribed density range. Specifically, these amendments allowed for the base height limit of the Project Site to be increased from 37 feet to 48 feet. Independent of this amendment, pursuant to Section 20.30.060(C) (Height Limits and Exceptions — Increase in Height Limit) of the NBMC, the Project has the flexibility to increase the allowed base height limit of 37 feet up to 55 feet through the approval of a SDR. Facts in support of findings are included in Findings D through G. 6. The Project Site is located within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District ("HO-4 Subarea"). The Project Site is designated as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District. 7. The Project Site is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required. 8. The Project does not include the construction of affordable housing. However, the City's Sites Inventory within the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element contains adequate other sites suitable for affordable housing opportunities and therefore is consistent with the State's no net loss provisions. 07-29-24 35-136 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 3 of 37 9. A public hearing was held on July 3, 2025, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and its implementing guidelines set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50 on July 23, 2024, certifying Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023060699 ("PEIR"), approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC which are available at: Housing Implementation Program EIR. 2. The Project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code ("PRC") and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines because, inasmuch as the property involved is within the HO-4 Subarea, the Project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations; and would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial more adverse impact than addressed in the PEIR. 3. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines provides, in relevant part: a. Projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. b. In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; iii. Are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or 07-29-24 35-137 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 4 of 37 iv. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. c. If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. d. This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions: The project is consistent with: A. A community plan adopted as part of a general plan; B. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development; or C. A general plan of a local agency; and An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan. 4. As part of its decision -making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the Project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. Additional CEQA review is only triggered if the Project's new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in PEIR such that major revisions to the PEIR would be required. A detailed consistency analysis has been prepared by T & B Planning Inc., dated June 2025, which was peer reviewed and accepted by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference and the additional findings set forth in Section 4 below. 5. The Project is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by the City's General Plan Housing Implementation Program as analyzed by the PEIR, and the required determinations can be made, as detailed in Exhibit "A." Therefore, in accordance with Section 21083.3 of the PRC and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required to approve the Project. The Planning Commission determines: a. The Project is consistent with the development density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre established by existing zoning and general plan policies for which the PEIR was certified; 07-29-24 35-138 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 5 of 37 b. There are no significant environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project or the parcels on which the Project would be located; c. There are no significant environmental effects of the Project that were not analyzed as significant effects in the PEIR; d. There are no potentially significant off -site impacts or cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the PEIR; and e. There are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the PEIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior PEIR. 6. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Major Site Development Review In accordance with Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews — Findings and Decisions) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject Zoning District Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Site is located within the HO-4 Subarea and is identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141. Pursuant to Section 20.28.050 (B) (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts — Uses Allowed) in addition to the uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted in the base zoning district, multi -unit residential development that meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement shall be permitted within the HO Overlay Zoning District. 2. Pursuant to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, the HO-4 Subarea requires a density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Based on the proposed 1.16-acre lot, the Project results in a density of 23.27 units per acre and meets the density requirement of the HO-4 Subarea. 07-29-24 35-139 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 6 of 37 3. The HO-4 subarea requires a zero -foot front, side, streetside and rear setback. However, footnote No. 3 of Table 2-16 requires that any portion of a building that is over 20 feet in height, which includes the Project's third and fourth floors, shall provide a 20- foot setback from the street right-of-way. The Project is bounded to the north by Bonita Canyon Drive and to the south by Ford Road. Though only the upper floors of required a 20-foot setback from the street right-of-way, the Project provides a varying streetside setbacks of 20 to 45-feet from of the entire height of the two buildings nearest to Bonita Canyon Drive and additional setbacks for the fourth -floor covered patios. The portion of Ford Road directly adjacent to the Project Site is dedicated as open space and not public right-of-way; therefore, the upper floor setback would not apply at this location. The Project also provides varying setbacks for the other setback areas including, a 6 to 56- foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west, and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project complies with setback requirements. 4. Table 2-16 establishes a maximum height for the HO-4 subarea consistent with the base zone of the property, which in this case, is 37 feet. However, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. The Project proposes a height of 47-feet, 11 inches to the highest ridge as measured from the established grade as indicated on the VTTM pursuant to Section 20.30.050 (13)(1) (Grade Establishment — Subdivisions) of the NBMC. Independent of the amendment, pursuant to Section 20.30.060(C) (Height Limits and Exceptions — Increase in Height Limit) of the NBMC, the Project has the flexibility to increase the allowed base height limit of 37 feet up to 55 feet through the approval of a SDR. Facts in support of findings are included in Findings D through G. 5. Table 2-17 (Residential Off -Street Parking Requirements for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) of the NBMC requires 1.8 spaces per unit that includes two bedrooms, 2.0 spaces per unit that includes three or more bedrooms and 0.3 spaces per unit for visitor parking. The Project proposes 27 dwelling units, eight with two bedrooms and 19 with three or more bedrooms, resulting in a requirement of 61 spaces. Project provides a two - car garage for each unit, 10 guest parking spaces and two delivery spaces for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces. The Project therefore complies with the minimum parking requirement. 6. Pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC, multi -unit objective design standards are applicable to any residential project with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. These standards ensure the highest possible design quality and provide a baseline standard for new multi -unit developments throughout the City. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference, the Project deviates from the following four objective design standards: 07-29-24 35-140 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 7 of 37 (1) Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone); (2) 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length); (3) 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation — Minimum Depth); and (4) 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Number) of the NBMC. The Project otherwise complies with the design standards and, in come some cases, exceeds the intent of the standards. Section 20.40.185(C) of the NBMC allows for deviations from any objective design standards through the approval of a SDR by the Planning Commission if the Applicant can demonstrate that strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the objective design standards and that the project possesses compensating design and development features that meets or exceeds the intent of the objective design standards. The facts in support of the required findings are included in Findings H through I. 7. The HO-4 subarea requires a minimum building separation of 10 feet. The Project proposes varying building separations of 22 feet to 33 feet. The Project therefore complies with the minimum building separation requirement. 8. The HO-4 subarea requires that at least 75 square feet of common space to be provided per dwelling unit throughout the Project Site with a minimum length and width of 15 feet. The Project is therefore required to provide a minimum of 2,025 square feet of common open space. Section 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defines common open space as the land area within a residential development that is not individually owned or dedicated for public use and that is designed, intended, and reserved exclusively for the shared enjoyment or use by all the residents and their guests including but not limited to areas of scenic or natural beauty, barbecue areas, landscaped areas, turf areas, and habitat areas. The Project provides a total of 2,857 square feet of common open area within an outdoor picnic area and firepit lounge area. The Project therefore complies with the minimum common open space requirement. 9. The HO-4 subarea requires that at least 5% of the proposed gross floor area per unit be dedicated to private open space. Qualifying areas of private open space shall have a dimension of at least 6 feet in length and width. Section 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defined private open spaces as outdoor or unenclosed areas directly adjoining and accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive private enjoyment and use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests including but not limited to a balcony, deck, porch or terrace. The Project requires between 96 to 150 square feet of private open space per unit. The Project provides between 139 to 156 square feet of qualifying private open space per unit in the form of balconies and covered decks and therefore complies with the minimum private open space requirement. The Project provides additional private open space for certain units in the form of additional balconies. While these areas do not count as qualifying private open space, as they do not meet the minimum width requirement, the balconies provide additional private open space areas for residents and furthers the intent of this requirement. 07-29-24 35-141 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 8 of 37 Finding: B. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the following applicable criteria: i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and A The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). Facts in SUDDort of Findina: The Project Site is categorized as Public Facilities (PF) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. However, as indicated in Land Use Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities) residential use of any property including within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category. In this case, the HO-4 subarea would allow residential development on the Project Site in addition to the uses allow in of the underlying PF land use category and zoning district. 2. The Project is consistent with the following General Plan Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Circulation Element policies that establish fundamental criteria for the formation and implementation of new residential development, including, but not limited to the following: a. Housing Element Policy 3.2. Encourage housing developments to offer a wide spectrum of housing choices, designs, and configurations. See finding LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices below. b. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.3 (Range of Residential Choices). Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. 07-29-24 35-142 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 9 of 37 Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element. The Project proposes a 27-unit residential condominium complex consisting of for -sale, attached single -unit dwellings offered in four distinct floor plan configurations ranging from two to four bedrooms and 1,916 to 2,989 square feet. This Project would diversify the City's housing stock, accommodate a variety of household sizes, respond to market demand, and support the City's efforts to increase the supply of housing throughout the City. c. Land Use Element Policy LU3.2 (Growth and Change). Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The Project is proposed on an undeveloped and underutilized property within an area of the City that is considerably developed. The Project will add 27 attached single -unit dwellings to the City's housing stock which allows the City to further its efforts of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Implementation Program and meet the City's RHNA. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department reviewed the Project's projected traffic generation analysis and found that Ford Road would adequately serve the project. The Project is projected to produce 182 average daily trips, which does not exceed the 300 average daily trip threshold, and therefore, no additional traffic analysis is required. Additionally, the Public Works Department reviewed the submitted sewer and water demand study and found that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project, as adequate infrastructure is available and has sufficient capacity. d. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities). Residential use of any property included within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category or density limit established through Policy LU 4.1, Table LU 1 and Table LU 2, or any other conflict in the Land Use Element. A general plan amendment is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity zoning overlay district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay districts specified in Policy LU 4.4 is an average over the entire property or project site. For example, a portion of a development site may be developed at a higher 07-29-24 35-143 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 10 of 37 density than specified by Policy 4.4 provided other portions of the site are developed at lower densities such that the average does not exceed the maximum. Density calculations and total units identified in LU 4.4 do not include units identified as pipeline units or units permitted pursuant to State density bonus law. The Project is located within Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 and is located within the HO-4 Subarea. The Project proposes 27 residential condominiums on a 1.16-acre property which yields a density of 23.27 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the allowed density of the HO-4 Subarea. e. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.6 (Character and Quality of Residential Properties). Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized. While Policy LU 5.1.6 is intended for single-family detached and two -unit projects, the Project includes large setback areas that are thoroughly landscaped with drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species. While the HO-4 Subarea does not require any base floor setbacks along the front, side or rear property lines, the Project provides varying setbacks including a 20 to 45-foot streetside setback on the north, a 6 to 56-foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west, and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the Project Site. This setback design allows the Project to better reflect the character of a single-family neighborhood. Trash containers will be located within each dwelling unit's garage and screened from the public right-of-way. The visibility of driveway and parking paving has been minimized through use of landscaping to prevent an unpleasant visual experience to the surrounding neighborhood. f. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.9 (Character and Quality of Multi -Family Residential) Require that multi -family dwellings be designed to convey a high -quality architectural character in accordance with the following principles: Building Elevations Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal fagades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume Provide street- and path -facing elevations with high -quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes. 07-29-24 35-144 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 11 of 37 Ground Floor Treatment Set ground -floor residential uses back from the sidewalk or from the right-of- way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping. Raise ground -floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking space. Encourage stoops and porches for ground -floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways. Roof Design Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units' architecture. Open Space and Amenity Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference, the Project complies with the majority (48 of 52) of the applicable objective design standards and in some cases exceeds the intent of the standards. However, the Applicant requests minor deviations of four objective design standards. The Objective Design Standards were developed to implement Land Use Policy LU5.1.9, therefore compliance with these standards with negligible deviation ensures that the Project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU5.1.9. g. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.1 (Compatible Development). Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors Although the Project Site has an irregular shape, the Project design compactly arranges the four separate buildings to maximize site efficiency and preserve larger than required setbacks. The Bonita Canyon Sports Park unique parcel shape extends in front of the northwest portion of the Project Site, further setting back the proposed development up to 50 feet from the Bonita Canyon right-of-way in that location. The Project site design includes interior drive aisles and resident amenity areas which are screened from public view. The Project's large setbacks, landscaped edge conditions, and location of drive 07-29-24 35-145 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 12 of 37 aisles and residential amenities reduce the visual impact of the Project and ensures compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. h. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.2 (Form and Environment). Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. The contemporary coastal architectural style of the Project has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Harbor View community. Architectural articulations and high -quality materials including brick and wood siding are utilized to blend in with the character of the surrounding community. Additionally, the Project includes two color schemes: a coastal color scheme with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white. These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes throughout the City. i. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.3 (Ambient Lighting). Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan which shows that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. Land Use Policy LU 6.15.23 (Sustainable Development Practices). Require that development achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs -generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR, Title 24, Parts 6 — California Energy 07-29-24 35-146 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 13 of 37 Code) and the Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11 - CALGreen). Additionally, the Project would implement water -efficient landscaping, water quality best management practices and low impact development practices. The Project is within proximity to Newport Center commercial and office developments and would provide housing near this employment center. The Project includes pedestrian linkage to the Ford Road public sidewalk and Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail which offer provide pedestrian and bicyclist connections to nearby destinations such as Newport Center, approximately two miles away, and the Newport Hills Shopping Center, one mile away. The Project is also located in close proximity to the existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes provided along Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Drive. k. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.3 (New Development Maintained Responsibility). Ensure minimization of traffic congestion impacts and parking impacts and ensure proper roadway maintenance through review and approval of Construction Management Plans associated with new development proposals in residential neighborhoods. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. This ensures that any traffic congestion impacts associated with the construction process is minimized to the greatest extent possible. I. Circulation Element Policy CE 7.1.7 (Project Site Design Supporting Alternate Modes). Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. See finding LU 6.15.23 Sustainable Development Practices above. 3. Facts 1 through 9 in support of Finding A are hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The Project Site is not located within a Specific Plan Area. 5. The Project includes various intentional architectural design features including recessed balconies, varied rooflines, and material changes with a neutral, earthy and coastal color pallet. These design features result in well -articulated facades which reduce the visual bulk of the Project and allow each unit to appear as distinct homes rather than a single, unarticulated, building. Additionally, the Project is integrated with the Bonita Canyon Sports Park through the use of landscaping and pedestrian walkways. 6. The Project will utilize an existing curb cut for vehicular access from Ford Road. The curb opening will be shared between the Project Site and the adjacent AT&T facility property; however, a distinct drive aisle will be constructed for the Project. Offsite 07-29-24 35-147 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 14 of 37 improvements include the installation of a gate restricting access to the AT&T facility parking lot. 7. The Project landscaping complies with Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscaping) and Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping) of the NBMC. Additionally, the Project complies with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance ("WELO") which requires the installation and maintenance of drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species. The Project's varied setbacks, 6 to 56 feet, allows for substantial perimeter landscaping, with enhanced treatments along Bonita Canyon Drive to improve the view for motorists and residents to the north, and along Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail to enhance the pedestrians and park user experience. Landscaping is also integrated throughout the Project Site, including around the picnic and firepit areas to enhance the residential experience. 8. Pursuant to Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection) of the NBMC, projects shall preserve significant visual resources from public views and corridors including identified in Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views) of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan. The Project Site is not within the vicinity of any Public Viewpoints, nor any Coastal View Roads as identified in Figure NR3. The nearest designated public viewpoint is located at Big Canyon Park, over a mile west of the Project Site. The nearest designated coastal view road is MacArthur Boulevard, south of the San Joaquin Hills Road, over a mile south of the Project Site. Due to the distance and urbanized nature of the Project area, the Project is not anticipated to impact any public views. Finding: C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor will it endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of person residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project has been designed to minimize aesthetic impacts to the surrounding neighborhood to the greatest extent possible by providing an architecturally pleasing contemporary coastal architectural style design with articulation and high -quality materials. 2. The Project has been designed to have adequate, efficient, and safe pedestrian and vehicular access to and from the Project Site within driveways, parking, and loading areas. The Project includes the drive aisles that are located within the Project Site, behind the proposed buildings, which will significantly buffer any vehicle noise produced. The Project is also designed to accommodate and provide safe access for emergency vehicles, and refuse collection vehicles through the Ford Road access point. 3. The Project Site is adjacent to Bonita Canyon Drive, a four -lane primary arterial road with a central median and Ford Road, a two-lane connector road with a central median. 07-29-24 35-148 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 15 of 37 These two roads create large buffers between the Project and the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the north and south. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department reviewed the Project's traffic generation analysis prepared by Pirzadeh & Associates Inc, dated May 13, 2025, which projected 182 average daily trips. The Public Works Department found that found that Ford Road would adequately serve the Project, and no additional traffic analysis is required. 5. The Project requires 61 onsite parking spaces; however, the Project provides 66 onsite parking spaces, including a two -car garage for each unit, 10 guest parking spaces and two delivery spaces. The additional parking and individual unit garage parking will mitigate use of street parking on Ford Road or the adjacent parking lot within the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. 6. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan which shows that lighting values are 1" or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. 7. The Project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, along with all City ordinances and all conditions of approval which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Height Increase The HO-4 subarea limits heights to that of the base zoning district. The underlying zoning district is Public Facilities (PF) which is regulated by the Nonresidential, Nonshoreline Height Limit Area. In this height limit area, the base height limit for structures with flat roofs is 32 feet and the base height limit for structures with sloped roofs is 37 feet. However, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. Though the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, in accordance with Section 20.30.060(C)(3) (Height Limits and Exceptions - Required Findings) of the NBMC, the Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height only after making all the following findings in addition to the findings required pursuant to Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews — Findings and Decision): Finding: D. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Examples of project amenities include, but are not limited to: 07-29-24 35-149 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 16 of 37 i. Additional landscaped open space; ii. Increased setback and open areas; iii. Enhancement and protection of public views; Facts in Suaaort of Findina: 1. The HO-4 subarea is not subject to any minimum setback requirement for portions of a building that are below 20-feet in height, which is the Project's first and second floors. However, the Project voluntarily integrates varying setbacks of 6 to 56 feet at the first floor with additional setbacks on the higher levels. These setbacks help create more open areas throughout the Project Site than would otherwise be required by the NBMC. 2. The HO-4 subarea is not subject to any maximum lot coverage requirement. However, the compact site design of the Project is accommodated through the taller builder design which results in a lot coverage of approximately 45%. In comparison, properties located within the Multiple Residential (RM-6000) Zoning District are allowed a maximum lot coverage of 60%. The Project provides additional open area through its compact design and less horizontal massing to reduce the site coverage compared to what is allowed a RM-6000 District, accomplished with the additional height of each building. 3. Fact 9 in Support of Finding A is hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The provided setbacks, open areas, and lower lot coverage offer amenities beyond those otherwise required by the HO-4 subarea and contributes to a more visually appealing project for the neighborhood. Finding: E. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Facts 5 in support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Architectural articulations and varied materials including high -end stone, brick and wood siding are provided to mirror the high -quality design of the neighborhood. 3. The Project is subject to comply with the City's Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards which ensure a high -quality design. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference, the Project deviates from four objective design standards but otherwise complies with the design standards and, in some cases, exceeds the intent of the standards. The facts in support of findings are included under Findings H and I. Finding: 07-29-24 35-150 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 17 of 37 F. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project is surrounded by the Newport Bluff apartment complex to the north across Bonita Canyon Drive, a parking lot within the Bonita Canyon Sports Park to the west, the Harbor View community to the south across Ford Road and the AT&T facility to the east. 2. The Project is separated from the Newport Bluffs apartment complex by Bonita Canyon Drive, a four -lane primary arterial road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height, and approximately 185 feet from the Project's northmost structures. The Project has been conditioned to include perimeter landscaping along Bonita Canyon Drive, including trees, which will further buffer and soften the fagade of the Project and ensure scale compatibility is maintained. 3. The Project is separated from the Port Street neighborhood by Ford Road, a two-lane connector road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 45 to 60 feet in height. The nearest single unit dwelling within the Port Street neighborhood is approximately 230 feet from the Project's southmost structure. Homes within the Harbor View community consist of single -story to two-story structures and have an allowed maximum height of up to 32 feet. The adjacent AT&T building is approximately 35 feet in height. The changing scale of structures, intervening road with large street trees and distance provides a harmonious transition from the two-story Harbor View community to the Project. 4. The Project's westmost structure is separated from the usable area of the Bonita Canyon Sport Park by approximately 185 feet. Intervening uses include the large parking lot and landscape buffer with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height. In addition to the visual screen provided by the landscaping the setbacks and landscaping within the park adjacent to the Project site, the Project provides upper floor setbacks, balconies, covered decks, and varied rooflines which prevent the appearance of an overly bulky building oriented towards the parking lot and park beyond. 5. The Project height is otherwise allowed pursuant to Ordinance No. 2025-10 as adopted by the City Council on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC to allow for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. These amendments become effective on July 26, 2025. Finding: 07-29-24 35-151 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 18 of 37 G. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. Fact in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, the HO-4 Subarea does not have a floor area ratio (FAR) limitation. Muli-Unit Objective Design Standards Deviation In accordance with Section 20.48.185(A) (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards — Purpose) of the NBMC, the Project is seeking deviation from the following Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards: a) Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone) b) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length) c) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation — Minimum Depth) d) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Number) The Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow deviation of multi -unit objective design standards only after making all the following findings: Finding: H. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section. Facts in Support of Findina: Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone (LPZ)) of the NBMC requires that a 4-foot minimum width zone abutting a building is required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping with a combination of vines, ornamental, grasses, shrubs, ground cover, and ornamental trees. The Project provides a 3-foot, 6-inch wide LPZ at most driveway areas which result from building offsets. The building offset contributes to enhanced building articulation, resulting in a more visually appealing facade. Increasing the LPZ zone to meet the four -foot width requirement would reduce the size of the building offsets and the open setback area in front of each building. The LPZ areas, however, are designed with more than the required 20% minimum landscaping. The narrower LPZ design maximizes the amount of landscaped open space in front of each building which provides more benefit to future residents than the negligible six inches of LPZ adjacent to garages. 2. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length) of the NBMC limits building length to 150 feet. The Project proposes two eight -unit buildings with a length of 155-feet. The intent of the building length requirement is to prevent lengthy unarticulated building masses. The Project addresses this by incorporating 07-29-24 35-152 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 19 of 37 varied rooflines, balconies, fagade projections and recessions, and material variation which creates the appearance of distinct units and breaks up the building's overall length and massing. The building provides more than the required articulation and upper floor setbacks which ensures the building length is less visually obtrusive. 3. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation —Minimum Depth) of the NBMC requires all building recesses or projections to be a minimum of 2 feet in depth. The Project proposes a variety of different recesses and projections including upper floor setbacks, balconies and covered patios which range from 6 inches to 12 feet. The intent of this requirement is to allow for sufficient depth of recesses and projections so that building lengths are sufficiently modulated. While some of the Project's recesses and projections are less than two feet in depth, the Project provides large upper floor setbacks, balconies, and patios between 5 and 12 feet. The Project provides additional depth for other recesses and projections features which ensures building length is less visually obtrusive. 4. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation - Maximum Number) of the NBMC require a maximum of two recesses or projections per fagade. The Project includes more than two recesses and projections in both of the largest buildings within the development. Due to their length, the additional recesses and projections allow for sufficient modulation to each unit. The intent of this requirement is to avoid lengthy and plain building faces. Limiting the design to only two recesses or projections would result in less modulation, less visual interest, and a building less reminiscent of townhomes. The Project is furthering the intent of this requirement by sufficiently modulating the eight-plex building, which results in a less visually obtrusive building length. Finding: The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards. Facts in SUDDort of Findina: All facts in support of Finding H are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Facts 3 and 9 in support of Finding A are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. Section 20.48.185(D)(1)(a) (Muli-Unit Objective Design Standards — General Standards) of the NBMC requires that development with more than eight buildings to provide a minimum of two distinct color schemes. The Project includes only four buildings, however, the Project voluntarily provides two distinct color schemes. These include a coastal color scheme with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white. These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes throughout the City. 07-29-24 35-153 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 20 of 37 Vesting Tentative Tract Map In accordance with Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps) of the NBMC, the following findings, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: J. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: The Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) is for 27-unit residential condominiums. 2. Fact 1 and 2 in support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed VTTM and found it consistent with Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the NBMC and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 4. The Applicant will provide an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. The existing parcel is undeveloped; therefore, the in -lieu park fee will be required for 27 new dwelling units. 5. A preliminary application for residential development, filed as PA2025-0056, was deemed submitted on April 7, 2025 for this Project. The preliminary application prevents the Project from being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in Government Code Section 65589.5(o). Therefore, the Project will be subject to the in -lieu park fee in the amount of $38,400 per unit which was the fee in effect at the time the preliminary application was deemed submitted. Finding: K. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed 1.16-acre Project Site is irregular in shape, slopes towards the northeast, and is not within a zone seemed to be subject to seismically induced liquefaction potential. The Project Site is adequality sized to accommodate the proposed density in compliance with all applicable requirements of the HO-4 subarea. 2. The site is suitable for the type and density of the development in that the infrastructure serving the site has been designed to accommodate the proposed project. A sewer and 07-29-24 35-154 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 21 of 37 water demand study were prepared by PSOMAS dated May 14, 2025. The study concluded that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project. The Project does not result in more than 500 dwelling units; therefore, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is not required for Project. 3. The Project has been reviewed by the Building, Fire, and Public Works Department and must comply with all Building, Fire, and Public Works Codes and City ordinances. Finding- L. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision -making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report Facts in Support of Finding: 1. As detailed in the CEQA Consistency Memorandum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference, the site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or wetlands. The proposed Project would not have any specific effects which are peculiar to the proposed Project or the Project site. Additionally, there are no project -specific significant impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan Housing Implementation Program ("GPHIP") Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), no potentially significant off -site or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GPHIP PEIR, and no substantial new information not known at the time the GPHIP PEIR was certified that shows that the proposed Project's effects would be more severe than discussed in the GPHIP PEIR. Finding: M. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed VTTM is for a 27-unit condominium complex. All improvements associated with the Project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) of the NBMC and Section 66411 (Local agencies to regulate and control design of subdivisions) of the Subdivision Map Act. The Project will conform to all City ordinances and Conditions of Approval. 07-29-24 35-155 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 22 of 37 2. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures within GPHIP PEIR MMRP, as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Memorandum which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference. 3. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious health problems. Finding: N. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision -making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Fact in Support of Finding: 1. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed VTTM and determined that the design of the development will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of the Project Site within the proposed development because no public easements are located on the Project Site. Finding: O. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Fact in Support of Finding: 1. The Project Site is not subject to the Williamson Act. The Project Site is not designated as an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres in area. 2. The Project Site is within the HO-4 Subarea which is intended for development of a multi -story residential project. The intended use is not for residential development that is incidental to a commercial agricultural use. 07-29-24 35-156 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 23 of 37 Finding: P. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (2) the decision -making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in SuDDort of Findina: 1. California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 has been repealed by the Legislature. However, this project site is not considered a "land project" as previously defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code because the project site does not contain 50 or more parcels of land. 2. The Project is not located within a specific plan area. Finding - That, solar access, and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The VTTM includes attached dwelling units with open space, private driveways, and walkways which separate the individual buildings. The proposed subdivision design allows for solar access and passive and cooling opportunities through the use of large window and slide doors and the east -west alignment of 21 of the 27 dwelling units. 2. The Project and any future improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code, which requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The City's Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: R. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Fact in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed 27 dwelling unit project yields a density of 23.37 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the HO-4 subarea. The Project is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code as the Project results in a net increase in 27, for -sale, residential dwelling units which 07-29-24 35-15 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 24 of 37 contributes to the City's assigned 6t" Cycle RHNA. By developing vacant land with medium -density, ownership housing, the Project helps meet the City's housing goals while utilizing existing infrastructure and public services. Finding- S. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Wastewater discharge from the Project into the existing sewer system has been designed to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB") requirements. 2. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the Project. 3. Fact 2 in support of Finding K is hereby incorporated by reference. Finding- T. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Fact in Support of Finding: 1. The Project Site is not located in the Coastal Zone; therefore, compliance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Coastal Act is not applicable. SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS. 1. The Project Site is designated as a Housing Opportunity Site under the City of Newport Beach's certified 6th Cycle Housing Element, approved by the City Council and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Pursuant to that approval, a residential overlay was placed on the site, allowing for the development of the proposed 27 residential units. This overlay designation is supported by the certified PEIR, approving the MMRP, and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. 2. The Project Site is located within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. The Project Site is designated as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District. The City Council's duly adopted Housing Element and 07-29-24 35-158 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 25 of 37 accompanying actions establish the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea as a valid residential zoning mechanism consistent with California Government Code Sections 65583 and 65583.2. At the time of project approval, the certified Housing Element and residential overlay are in full legal effect. 3. The Project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the Project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations; and would not result in new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. 4. Further, the proposed 27-unit residential project does not trigger Charter Section 423 (Greenlight) because it does not seek a General Plan Amendment. Furthermore, even if a General Plan Amendment was sought the amendment would not be considered "major" because the proposed project is less than 100 dwelling units, has less than 100 peak hour trips (traffic) and has no commercial component (thus, it is less than 40,000 square feet of floor area). Therefore, even without reliance upon the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea, no public vote is required for this proposed project under Greenlight. 5. In the event the Housing Element and General Plan amendments are invalidated by court order, the City nonetheless finds that the Project may be approved for the following reasons: • The certified PEIR, which is final and lawful, serves as a valid and independent basis for establishing the suitability of residential development at this site. • Under CEQA and California Government Code Section 65457 (exemption for residential projects consistent with a specific plan or general plan EIR), the certified PEIR's confers legal stability on the City's approval, including its reliance on the HO-4 subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District for land use purposes. • The City's approval advances the statewide interest in addressing housing needs, consistent with California Government Code Section 65589.5, and supports the City's good faith compliance with state law. Preventing the development of 27 residential units —already environmentally analyzed and approved —due solely to procedural uncertainty would run contrary to both local planning policy and state housing mandates. SECTION 5. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. In accordance with Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by the City's General Plan Housing Implementation Program as analyzed by the PEIR, and the required determinations can 07-29-24 35-159 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 26 of 37 be made as detailed in the CEQA Consistency Memorandum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 2. The Planning Commission finds that the Site Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the 27-unit residential project are validly approved under existing law. The project is consistent with the certified Housing Element, is not subject to additional environmental review, and does not trigger Charter Section 423 thresholds. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map filed as PA2025-0049, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "C", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 4. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.64 (Appeals) of the NBMC. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: AVA Mark Rosene, Chair David Salene, Secretary Attachments: Exhibit "A" — CEQA Consistency Memorandum Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., Dated June, 2025 Exhibit "B" — Objective Design Standards Checklist Exhibit "C" — Conditions of Approval 07-29-24 35-160 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 27 of 37 EXHIBIT "A" CEQA Consistency Memorandum Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., dated June, 2025 File available via link due to size: https:Hlms.newportbeachca.gov/energov prod/energovwebapi/api/chunk/fileview/5252d440-e85a-4a8f-aeb6- 37e8584aa07f/5heWu94Oo4ZaG2vcln7pt1dok7NDGFeFXOwOplmidLlaSDgAm11 FIFTmbm3rV1bKgZ8e4Hm iAO J8cbVHXJ5w 07-29-24 35-161 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 28 of 37 EXHIBIT "B" OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS CHECKLIST File available via link due to size: https:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/STAFF/DocView.aspx?id=3169605&repo=CNB&dbid=0 07-29-24 35-162 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 29 of 37 EXHIBIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) Planning Division The Project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, landscape plan, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). Minor changes to the approved development may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project). By way of example, a change to the number of stories of a unit (e.g., three-story product, etc.), floor plan redesign, and change to offered square footage ranges would be considered minor changes provided the project was within the allowed height limit, and in compliance with the Objective Design Standards and density range under the HO Overlay Zoning District. 2. Any substantial modification to the approved Site Development Review plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require an amendment to this Site Development Review application or the processing of a new application. 3. The Project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals approved by the City of Newport Beach ("City") and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval 4. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be caused the revocation of this approval. 5. This Major Site Development Review shall expire and become void unless exercised within seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012 to coincide with the expiration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 as provided in Condition No. 16. 6. On June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 approving a amendments to properties within the HO-4 Subarea including allowing a base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. To ensure consistency with that Ordinance, this resolution shall be become effective on July 26, 2025. 7. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "C" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits. 8. The proposed residential development shall consist of 27 townhome, condominium units. The number of condominium units may be reduced by the Applicant provided the total 07-29-24 35-163 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 30 of 37 number of units meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement under the HO Overlay Zoning District. 9. The maximum height of the residential structures shall be 48 feet as measured from the established grade. No building or any portion of structure, architectural feature or mechanical equipment shall exceed 48 feet. 10. The on -site residential amenities including the outdoor picnic area and firepit lounge area as illustrated on the approved plans shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the Project. The exact mix of amenities may be modified from the original approved plans subject to the approval by the Community Development Director. The Project shall maintain at least 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit on the Project Site as required by the HO-4 subarea. The square footage of on -site resident -serving amenities shall not be reduced so that the development no longer provides 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit 11. The residential structure shall be attenuated to provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less pursuant to Section 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards) of the NBMC. Use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double paned windows, advance insulation systems, or other noise mitigation measures, as deemed appropriate by the City shall be incorporated in the design of the new residential structure to provide adequate noise attenuation. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, and Chapter 15.42, Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Fair Share Traffic Fees and Transportation Corridor Agency fees shall be paid for the Project at the fee assessed at the time of payment. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable school fees for the Project. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable property development tax as required pursuant to NBMC Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax) for the Project. 15. A preliminary application for residential development, filed as PA2025-0056, was deemed submitted on April 7, 2025 for this Project. The preliminary application prevents the Project from being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in Government Code Section 65589.5(o). The Applicant shall provide an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. Therefore, the Project will be subject to an in -lieu park fee of $38,400 per unit which is the fee that was in effect at the time the preliminary application was deemed submitted. 07-29-24 35-164 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 31 of 37 16. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 shall expire seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012. Pursuant to Section 19.16.010(A) (Expiration of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, an approved tentative tract map expires 24 months after the date of its approval or conditional approval. Under Section 19.16.020(A) (Extension of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, the subdivider shall have the right to request an extension of the map for up to five years. The subdivider has submitted an application for an extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 and has requested that the extension be granted after the Planning Commission adopts Resolution No PC2025-012; thus, providing for an initial term of the vesting tentative tract map of 24 months, followed by extension of five years, for a total term of seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012. 17. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.49.1210 (Removal of Telecom Facilities), the Applicant shall inform the Community Development Director by certified mail no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinued use of a telecom facility. 18. Any future proposed wireless telecommunication facilities, including but not limited to the relocation of the existing wireless telecommunications monopole, shall conform with Chapter 20.49 (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities) of the NBMC. 19. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought -tolerant planting and water -efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 20. The Project shall include landscaping around the perimeter of the Project Site to adequately screen drive aisles, parking areas, and create a visual buffer between the public right-of-way and the Project. These plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 21. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained by the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 22. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 07-29-24 35-165 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 32 of 37 23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "I " or less at all property lines. 24. Prior to the issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval. 25. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control), under Sections 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) and 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards), and other applicable noise control requirements of the NBMC. 26. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7.00 a.m. and 6.30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. 27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. Upon approval of the plan, the Applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. 28. The exterior of the development shall be always maintained free of litter and graffiti. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris, and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 29. All trash bins shall be stored within each residential unit and screened from the view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The Applicant shall ensure that the trash receptacles are maintained to control odors. The Applicant shall ensure that the trash bins are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of periodic steam cleaning of the trash bin, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash bins shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 30. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 31. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures within the General Plan Housing Implementation Program ("GPHIP') Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR') Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP') as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Memorandum prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., dated June, 2025. 32. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future 07-29-24 35-166 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 33 of 37 owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current property owner or leasing agent. 33. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of Ford Road Townhomes including, but not limited to, Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (PA2025-0049). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit, or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Building Division 34. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required before the issuance of a building permit. 35. Exterior wall and opening protection shall comply with Chapter 705 of California Building Code (CBC). 36. The applicant shall employ the following best available control measures ("BACMs") to reduce construction -related air quality impacts: Dust Control • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material. Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Emissions • Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off -road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment Off -Site Impacts 07-29-24 35-167 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 34 of 37 • Encourage carpooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Fill Placement The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve a 10% soil moisture content in the top 6- inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 37. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the city with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 38. Before the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 39. A list of "good housekeeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of waste or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Real Property Administrator 40. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall enter into a license agreement, easement or similar agreement approved by the City Attorney with the City for points of access across the City property. 41. Points of access to the City property shall not be used for code required path of travel or accessible route. 07-29-24 35-168 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 35 of 37 42. The City reserves the right to redevelop City property and remove one or more points of access to City property. 43. Bonds are required prior to construction if any work is to occur on City Property. 44. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall update plans to ensure runoff remains onsite or connects to a drain in the public right-of-way. Cross lot draining is not permitted on City property. Public Works Department 45. A Tract Map shall be recorded prior to the sale of any residential units. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital -graphic file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 46. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 pf the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18. Monuments (one -inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 47. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, a Subdivision Agreement shall be obtained and approved by the City Council consistent with the Section 19.36.010 (Improvement Agreements (California Government Code Section 66462)) of the NBMC. 48. Prior to Final Map approval, the Applicant shall provide a Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond, each for 100% of the estimated improvement costs for the improvements in the public right-of-way, as prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Director, for each of the following, but not limited to, public and private improvements, street improvements, monumentation, sidewalks, striping, signage, street lights, sewer systems, water systems, storm drain systems, water quality management systems, erosion control, landscaping and irrigation within the public right-of-way, common open spaces areas accessible by the public, fire access and off -site improvements required as part of the project. 49. Warranty Bond for a minimum of 10% of the engineers cost estimate (final percentage to be determined by the Public Works Director) shall be released 1-year after the improvements have been accepted. 07-29-24 35-169 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 36 of 37 50. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 51. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work activities within the public right- of-way. 52. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final construction management plan (CMP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer. 53. Parking layout shall comply with the City Parking Lot Standard 805. Dead-end drive aisle in public areas shall provide a dedicated turn around space and minimum 5-foot drive aisle extension. 54. The Applicant shall reconstruct all existing broken and/or otherwise damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Ford Road frontages per City Standards. 55. All deliveries and move-ins/move-out shall be accommodated on -site and prohibited from parking or stopping within the public right-of-way. 56. The on -site sewer and water system is planned to be a public system. Final Design of the water and sewer services is subject to further review by the Public Works Department during plan check. The public sewer and water system shall be designed according to the City of Newport Beach standards. All applicable sewer and water easements shall be dedicated to the City as part of the Tract Map. 57. The Project storm drain system shall be privately owned and maintained. The storm drain system shall be prohibited from discharging to the adjacent City lots and shall be redesigned accordingly. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final hydrology and hydraulic report shall be reviewed and approved. Any required improvements to downstream City infrastructure to accommodate the proposed project shall be designed and constructed by the proposed project. 58. The parking layout and gate operation within Lot 5 shall be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works Department Fire Department 59. Onsite fire hydrants shall be required and a fire underground plan submital complying with the 2022 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 24 shall be a required as a deferred submittal. 60. Residential fire sprinklers complying with the 2022 NFPA Standard 13R shall be required. 61. Waterflow monitoring systems complying with the 2022 NFPA Standard 72 shall be required. 07-29-24 35-170 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 37 of 37 62. Fire master plan complying with the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) Guideline D.08 shall be required as a deferred submital. 63. Fire rescue opening and laddering pads complying with NBFD Guideline C.05 shall be required. 07-29-24 35-171 Attachment No. PC 2 Applicant's Project Description 03/13/2018 35-172 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 202S Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description and Justification Project Description This signature project located at the Southeast corner of Macarthur Blvd. and Bonita Canyon Drive at the gateway to Newport Beach benefits from an SB 330 Preliminary Application that was deemed complete by the City on April 7, 2025. As a result of this deemed complete status, this project is permitted to proceed through this entitlement process without being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in California Government Code Section 65589.5(o). The intent of this development project is to provide much needed for -sale housing in the area close to UCI and the Irvine Business Complex. This area of Newport Beach is almost exclusively comprised of single family detached homes — for sale attached housing in this area is desperately desired particularly for families as starter homes. The total existing parcel is 1.06 acres and will be increased under the vesting tentative tract map to provide a 1.16-acre residential property and a separate gated parking area for the AT&T facility. The proposed project includes 27 townhomes within four proposed buildings that are aligned to provide ample landscape setbacks along Bonita Canyon Drive and at the same time block the Southern view of the unaesthetic AT&T building. The primary orientation of the buildings face toward the existing Bonita Canyon Sports Park — the project will connect to the existing trail on the North edge — this will keep `eyes on' the park at all times of day and night creating a safer environment for all Newport Beach residents. The vehicular access will come from the end of Ford Road that has little traffic. The entry will be shared with the AT&T parking lot. Fire aerial ladder access is easily available from Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Drive — however the project has been designed to accommodate the fire radius at entry and a `T' (hammerhead) at the center of the project, if desired by the Fire Marshal. Each home includes a 2-car garage and there are an additional 13 guest parking spaces located on the project site. Residents will be required to use their garages for the parking of their vehicles to avoid any parking impacts on the adjacent community. This project meets or exceeds all of the City's objective design standards for multi -family projects. Where the project exceeds a standard, a waiver is technically required and explained below in the justification section. The architectural style has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Port Street neighborhood. Architectural articulations and high -end stone, brick, wood siding have all been used to portray the elegance of the community. The floor plans are all designed light and bright with huge indoor/outdoor spaces including a 4th level Lanai in several of the plans. Within the community there are two common open space areas that will serve as social amenity areas including a cozy fire pit and picnic BBQ area. 1 35-173 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025 The property that houses this project was included within City Council Resolution No. 2025-13, which adjusted the height limit for various properties within the HO-4 Subarea to accommodate residential development within the intended prescribed density range of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Specifically, the City Council adjusted the height limit for this property to 48 feet, which is below the maximum height allowed for this area of 50 feet for flat roofs and 55 feet for sloped roofs. However, as explained in the justification section below this project would have independently qualified for a height adjustment under Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.30.060(C)(3). Justification Major Site Development Review — In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews), the City may approve or conditionally approve a site development review application, only after first finding that the Project is: Finding: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district. The Project is allowed within the Zoning District. The Property is located at the terminus of Ford Road in the City of Newport Beach adjacent to Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and is identified by the City of Newport Beach as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 in HO-4. • The Project has been designed to comply with applicable standards of the Housing Overlay and other applicable zoning code regulations. B. In compliance with all of the following applicable criteria in NBMC Section 20.52.080(C) (2) (c): a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; c. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and f. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). 35-174 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 202S • The Project complies with the purpose and intent of the City's Housing Overlay, which allows for the development of residential housing units. • The Project complies with all applicable development standards, including, but not limited to, floor area ratio, setbacks and parking. • The Project has been designed to fully integrate pedestrian and vehicle access in a safe and efficient manner. • The Project has been designed to include finished materials and landscaping to ensure it blends seamlessly with the surrounding residential development currently located within the Port Streets. • The proposed design, bulk, and scale of the development is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development. The open design, architecture and orientation of the Project helps ensure compatibly with the existing and long-term development pattern of the Port Streets. • On site -parking is available to residents, guests, and visitors alike. The parking was developed to ensure the most efficient use of all available spaces, and to afford a greater interface with the adjacent rights -of -way to ensure compatibility with the pedestrian environment. • There are no existing significant views through or across this property. • Proposed landscaping complies with NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscaping) and NBMC Section 21.30.075 (Landscaping) including the installation and maintenance of drought tolerant and noninvasive species. C. The proposed development is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, • The Project is consistent with the development goals for the Housing Overlay. The Project fits in and complements the existing surrounding residential developments. • The Project architecture is timeless, elegant and blends seamlessly with the architecture of the Port Streets. The Project will be a visual upgrade to the existing site and area. • On site vehicular and pedestrian circulation has been designed to provide safe and efficient public access. 3 35-175 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025 The Project has been designed to accommodate safe and effective emergency vehicle access. Emergency vehicles will have access to the development from Ford Road. The construction will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. All ordinances of the City and all conditions of approval shall be complied with. Objective Design Standards Request for limited waiver of Multi -Family Objective Design Standards under NBMC Section 20.48.185(C), because the proposed project design standards exceed the City's standards. The Planning Commission may waive any of the design and development standards in this section upon finding that: 1. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section; and 2. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards. (1) 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Landscape and Paving Zone (LPZ)) A four -foot minimum width zone shall be provided. The zone shall be landscaped a minimum of twenty (20) percent of the total site abutting a building. A combination of vines, ornamental, grasses, shrubs, ground cover, and ornamental trees shall be provided. Landscaping in pots is permitted. The current plan provides a 3.5' wide LPZ at most driveway areas, with a minimum width of 3' where the units are offset. These offsets contribute to enhanced building articulation, resulting in a more visually appealing elevation. Modifying the plan to meet the 4' minimum requirement would reduce the size of the amenity and landscape areas in front of the buildings due to setback and grading constraints. Our preference is to prioritize more landscaping in these front amenity areas rather than in front of the garages. The plan, as currently designed, complies with the 20% landscaped minimum requirement. (2) 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length) No building shall be greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet in length. With the assumption that the original intent being to avoid lengthy, plain building masses, we've incorporated varied roof forms, deck recesses/projections, facade projections, and material variation individual to each unit from the next, providing the appearance of individual townhomes, rather than a long single building. The 8-plex building length is also limited by minimum garage widths and utility closet depths, so any further reduction would result in loss of a unit. (3) 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation —Minimum Depth) All recesses or projections shall be a minimum of two feet in depth. For the projections less than the 2 feet depth, varied material types and colors are provided at the projections for additional visual articulation. 4 35-176 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025 (4) 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation - Maximum Number) No facade shall have more than two total recesses or projections per facade. Due to the length of the 8-plex and the townhome arrangement of the units, limiting the modulation over full length wouldn't allow for enough material breaks to individualize the units between one another, and further emphasizing the original purpose for limiting the building length to avoid lengthy building masses. Height Adjustment Through Site Development Review Under NBMC Section 20.30.060(C)(3), the review authority may approve a site development review to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height only after first making all of the following findings: a. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Under the Housing Overlay the project is subject to zero setbacks from the property line for the first floor. This project voluntarily integrates varying setbacks of up to 20 feet at points along the first floor with additional setbacks on the higher levels, and is purposely not built out to the property line. These setbacks help create more open space than would otherwise be required by code. The setbacks offer a project amenity beyond those otherwise required and contribute to a more visually appealing project for the neighborhood and community. b. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes; Special time and attention have been focused on the architectural design of the project to provide visual interest through the use of light, shadow, vertical elements and varied roof planes. Specifically, the project embraces an architectural style that has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Port Street neighborhood. Architectural articulations and high -end stone, brick, wood siding have all been used to portray the elegance of the community. The floor plans are all designed light and bright with oversized indoor and outdoor spaces including a 4th level Lanai in several of the plans. C. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties; and The project has been specifically designed to ensure that it blends in with the community, and avoids undesirable or abrupt scale changes with existing adjacent developments or public spaces. The project is separated from the homes to the north by a major arterial roadway (Bonita Canyon Drive) and there is approximately 185 feet of separation from the project's structures to the closest residential property line. To the south, the project 5 35-177 Ford Road Project Site Development Review Project Description & Justification May 29, 2025 is separated from the homes along Port Sheffield Place by approximately 230 feet when including setbacks. This separation ensures that the change in scale provides a subtle and gradual transition from existing uses. d. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. The project is not seeking any additional floor area than could otherwise be achieved without the approval of the height increase. This project is proceeding under the City's Housing Overlay, which establishes a minimum dwelling unit density of 20-50 units per acre. 0 35-178 Attachment No. PC 3 Project Plans Tmplt 04/03/18 35-179 OL r' J '� � � 1 ' � � � 1 +� f � ;. r L �F� •yam. Y# , acr "Ll ; J4& . d L)HU ROAD :WPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA ' _... 'LM..L � •r y NNW IM L�wl i I I . +d 1 r i { 9 7VER SHEET I CS 1 e o��i a `T - • 4 r Ao �• 1 4 S •Or �� '� � r wow ♦a + .'~ `�`- . jlk ■ _ 1 � - n .-f. OIM?li DBM!A[OYAII D --MR _ — � � -; � _mow• .�_ � � �, lob 1L a \ ■ _�� `,�'.�y� i� � ��'.r. �•, '�• ►ram t' OF a� _ •tom ■ + or _A H .3y■�, � � kra #'� -' � - . .. .■. ��_ may_` f •�.� ti _ _,; �� Ok Ma ♦ Y � ` �• -ate •!� r `� '� 1.4,i�'• s ram" i 'ti' � EF 1 'a, k.�i, • t _ q idt q • /.. i t • R. r � r4 .}�•.' .� A. � JL �1 , •� Tri� L i!. t' +r 7� •�.�{ w� � �' R. � ,Y \ �\ r _ -�-. �' �' ! of � � �`��i•" a �} `i ..� ` _ -• � ` - •�`.,T•= •t.- ��'� __� r ..;' ti `l•' � �• -,', ;• -1.\' ��p'• �• �• 'f 4 � .�i r� ` l��� t '�, ,• +5 �� .`� 1 ti . + 'C � � t .•� .` r}' - _ �-y ' y�. \ - i ll t C � t :�•� ,.+ ' � �r 5' . +• re • i4 . � � • . J � .. �' - y � r"� s++1 . S _ � � � •4'.: E �; s + '� i i i + - +�' ,i IC �■: ,�' 1� �y,r r •r . �, � • r _ ra J,IW' R.'i a. a.44. ~4 !� •+ 1 r 1► r `'• �- i`«� ]�,+ - "} _ ter. ` �� a-' __ �Y, '``• s`i .T�..r .: tir•r..c fir'tv■ •{ _r • `+. :M 1� .3b► �.'�,� �: nor "w'4^, :7T . • - _ �'.1ti .' , "�Ii�: r ' } _ }_ _ . - a •�G,' � �,• y Z ti � • _ ' + � � • �.. � � _ ! � w �'� I• {w•. '�_ � .■'1.� ��� t + +♦•'A• I ■ � - `f+• �.. •�- 1' +� ."" �. . ■ V � ti•r'i 1 Y � ► ■-S i .` � •� • �- _•.,� t `- � ..ice � t'�� - • - _� -6. } •r r '1.,� •• r { .', ! .� t .Y. •� "' - t` y�• r •� _ + 7�`�;•a y y. •+dw �� _ - 'a• 4 ' 'f - _ -. �Iy-.; 1 1•' _ Yk; y _ � • � . ■ � .. 1 _ , . ■ . �1[ ' 1 � �/} ^' � '' • ' \ ;�'rr�1� . � T- .ti � � }y.,! - � A'.`" _ i • �}' •,1.. . • ti�{� .. ^� t(1��;7 - •+ "'t .y .y �1Y : ti, ti ltk �. y . t . •�I['' _ .- _ rrk r ! • � - �' • _ • I 1 l) .� a 1 I' .. ~ . .1 } • l a • +T .� � 1 1 4 �rt _ k • _ . � r 1 r - ` ' � � r• +w � �• •,+' � 1 7I�'�. 'y � ■I ,`y1 .r 1f-. fti.s i• - i - r� .; w • � � •��* �` ,�•;. .a -a - •�: �� �• ••� - -1 t ' - • � ,r ♦ _ ,; �' ••'4. �.i L -' ! 4, . - ti .* . Y •i� `. ' ' - ." J1 i - 'ti i. ,• `• ♦ r *,�. _ - j t a - nft lip 0. ti 416 I �a _ S,Y�•- ` lk7 - r '' f- • ► i + �R t ` .' -i r ' a r IL oe NIT lk - NO vp �' iJ J.�s �?�{;`' • 1'1_• ..�. `t _ 'S ..; � �r � e.�„� w. s a._ _: .. �,n _ .,@'gin . _ - - � f. � 4 � �17 �.r, - J�-�• r ; i r � -� .. _ .ram i t.•. �`� -. , • !t le r� --m4PW 10 +i 'mow y • - y �. _ ,ate L. ftwl. ZZ AL -- :101hal m DDIVAN MWE KKA 0 1 Me] LOUN I Pil wlrwlrw Yll r:to] 111Ii Na L 1 dip 'i 4. ot 1 • ~ * �-` r� � �� i. - ICI • � •�1- l •. � i � • �,a�iti/■ ♦` •► �.aa �'1 ® � ,1 �� � r � • taw`. � � � r ! M /' �} all- jL • . _�' �- � �— .,.r. i••_ ■ '—!- �-T - `' ' •� - `•'. ,r �_� . 'aa �:.� fir• ` r}r, ,' Fig 4 � • • _�� � ^ a.� �' ,' •��•�r�'{,�-� •• f 7 ''!�� � �i1 • ra a •* 1 •�1 , � 5•E .:�fM'��'i .�: 7�.f _ a J-� _ _ - . � } .�r � + 1-� � ' - ti � � 1 � . « _ F +.,,:� � . `'.• Ire' + � � } � ; 4 � 1� �i •�'•�.� .� - •- ,� • � ■ • � �� � w•�.li ` - ..a � � ■ .�� ` � ,�4.. w _r �r •' J �� ice•` �� �. � � � �'r y � � - Ya � •�� I •��'r �4 � ~ , •1 -" i11�1�. i� �, �a. �.' !a- - _ 'R '2 a• `�!- �+'� '�; _ - _ - _ ` � s.�, + ' '+ �! ■ � �. � � * � .• 1 f � •f • - .,�� ., �,.�.+�i.h�t{?w y.° : �� � �; _ c t- iJ°• i w i�� • � � . r. L *• a 1/� �j adr y '� is r' r 1• i / ■ * F " •�' 7 _� .! -�i�Yf ;�' l - : - ' '4 }■'� -� 'r 1 a r i ! ` .. t ,1 •jlf J YAW- � x � r " 4w do -� s �� ,.r • '*; . L)HU ROAD :WPORT BEACH I CA '0160,401pil almal"s A m owl*] 0 11 ri 040 � Fz r3 �► n SHEET INDEX COVER SHEET PERSPECTIVE AT BONITA CYN RD - PERSPECTIVE AT BONITA CYN RD - SHEET INDEX PLANNING ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN VIEW A VIEW B LANDSCAPE PAVING ZONE EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE CODE ANALYSIS UA SPLIT PLAN 1 UA SPLIT PLAN 2 UA SPLIT PLAN 3 UA SPLIT PLAN 4 COMPOSITE PLANS - 5 PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS - 5 PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS - b PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS - 6 PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX UA SPLIT 5 PLEX ELEVATIONS UA SPLIT 5 PLEX ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN UA SPLIT 6 PLEX ELEVATION UA SPLIT 6 PLEX ELEVATION UA SPLIT 8 PLEX ELEVATION 5 5 AND ROOF PLAN UA SPLIT 8 PLEX ELEVATIONS AND ROOF PLAN UA SPLIT 8 PLEX PERSPECTIVES UA SPLIT COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD A UA SPLIT COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD B ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATION ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATION FSD SITE PLAN OPENING CALCULATIONS OPENING CALCULATIONS FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 24 -172 DATE 6125125 S S cs 1 CS 2 CS 3 INDEX spi SP2 Fiv A5 �v FiVA A10 Al 1 Al 2 Al 3 Al 4 Al 5 A16 Al 7 Al 8 Al 9 A20 A21 A22 A23 Em A25 LANDSCAPE OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN RETAINING WALL SECTIONS & SITE FURNISHINGS OFFSITE AT&T SITE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS FIREPIT LOUNGE AREA ENLARGEMENT PICNIC AREA ENLARGEMENT FENCE & WALL PLAN CIVIL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TITLE SHEET EXISTING CONDITIONS CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN SECTIONS CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN AVERAGE GRADE PLANE KsNIGHTHALL C A P I T A L Ll L2 L3 L4 LS L6 1 OF 1 C-01 C-02 C-03 C-04 C-05 C-06 INDEX URBAN ARENA 35-183 SITE SUMMARY Net Site Area: 1.16 ac Total Units: 27 units Average Net Density: 23.28 du/ac Total Buildable SF: 52,128 sf Lot Coverage: 45 % UNIT SUMMARY - UA SPLIT (4-STORY) Plan Type Net S.F. Bed/Bath Garage Stories # units °/o of total Buildable SF Plan 1 11314 2/2.5 2-tandem 3 8 30% 10,512 Plan 2 1,819 3/3.5+1aft 2-std 4 8 30% 14,552 Plan 3 2,402 413.5+loft 2-std 4 5 19% 12,010ANYU Plan 4 2,509 4/3.5+1oft 2-std 4 6 22% 15,054 ITA C _ - � •�• �� Total 27 100% 52,128 -- BO V PARKING SUMMARY MIN. PARKING REQUIRED Spaces required `} MULTI -UNIT DWELLING - 4 UNITS OR MORE 2 BR 1.8 spaces/unit 8 units 14.4 spaces ` 3+ BR 2 spaces/unit 19 units 38 spaces Guest 0.3 spaces/unit 27 units 8.1 spaces — — — — Total Required 61 spaces PARKING PROVIDED Spaces provided Garage - std 38 spaces ti Garage - tandem 16 spaces Open guest parking 10 spaces Delivery spaces 2 spaces �Z, �xv _ I Total Provided 66 spaces Spaces required Spaccs provided Accessible Parking (Table §11B-208.2 CBQ Standard 0 spaces 0 spaces Van Accessible 1 spaces 2 spaces r� J` Total 1 spaces 2 spaces EV Parking (§4.106.4 CGBSQ °< I EV Ready 40% 4 spaces 5 spaces EVCS 100/. 1 spaces 1 spaces Accessible 1 per 25 EVCS 1 space 1 spaces Total 6 spaces 7 spaces COMMON OPEN SPACE Net Site Area: 1.16 ac - # �� '�" �W Total Units: 27 units A Required Common Open Space 2,025 sf (75 sf per unit) Proposed Common Open Space 2,857 sf ,i ` _4 ri ' K 0 ,� .. . f f MR � L •� t r FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 24 -172 DATE 6116125 ANV h. .4 oZ U LLJ — -- — _ Ln _ _ y - ~ _� — -Amr- A�_ I� n s 0 Awl _ A i �� . �•� mow. ��- � d � a� �� � � - s ►} i� 1 f ;A r �l ✓� -} �� i ■ 1 cK * z j 1 } r •.S r AT&T BUILDING jjjjjj)E1 251840 SF ` Asti N r r - 2 + ' r * A ft46- - lolfiv Ow �40 % 41 op Fir Cts O VIM y i - '-- � I , r ~� I4NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L f MAI moo ,._zo,-o,.SCALE NORTH zlo aoURAN O 1� =�♦ ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN I SP1 A R P NA 35-184 LPZ AREA: 15 LANDSCAPE AREA: 57 % LANDSCAPE: FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 124 -172 BONITA CANYON DR 29 i 1'=20' - 0" SCALE 0 20 40 NORTH .� lflw6lko DATE 6116125 I4NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L LANDSCAPE PAVING ZONE EXHIBIT I SP2 URBAN ARENA 35-185 2ND LEVEL 1 ST LEVEL F 13: to IJ w cn I0 I� F@) i PN� 4 ♦ = = i 4TH LEVEL 3RD LEVEL PLAN 3 BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS: 4-STORY TYPE VA OCCUPANCY GROUP: (CBC SECTION 310.3 & 311.3) GROUP R-2/U SEPARATIONS: (CBC SECTION 420 & TABLE 508.4 & 406.3.4 WALLS SEPARATING DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE 1/2-HOUR FIRE PARTITION & 708.3.2 & 711.3) PER CBC SECTION 708.3.2 WITH FULL NFPA 13 SPRINKLERS. 1-HR FIRE AND 50-54 STC SOUND RATING PARTITION PROVIDED WALLS SEPARATING R-2 AND U OCC. SHALL BE 1/2" GYP BD MIN. AT GARAGE SIDE PER CBC TABLE 508.4 c AND SECTION 406.3.2. 5/8" GYP BD PROVIDED FLOORS SEPARATING R-2 AND U OCC. SHALL HAVE 5/8" TYPE'X' GYP BD AT GARAGE CEILING PER CBC SECTION 406.3.4. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: (CBC SECTION 602.5) TYPE VA FIRE SPRINKLERS: NFPA 13 SPRINKLERS PER CBC SECTION 903.3.1.1, WITH SPRINKLER MONITORS AND ALARMS PER CBC 903.4. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT: (CBC SECTION 503 & TABLE 504.3) 70 FT. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE STORIES: (CBC SECTION 503 & TABLE 504.4) 4 STORIES ALLOWABLE AREA PER FLOOR: (CBC SECTION 503.1 & R-2: 36,000 SF MAXIMUM TABLE 506.2) U: 27,000 SF MAXIMUM ACCESSIBILTY: SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 11A. 10% OF TOTAL UNITS ON SITE SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE PER CBC 1102A.3. PRIVATELY FUNDED. EXITING: ONLY ONE EXIT REQUIRED PER CBC SECTION 1021.2 - MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE IS 125 FEET -ti I PLAN i J EXIT TRAVEL DISTANCES 1ST LEVEL 13'-3" 2ND LEVEL 39'-11 " 3RD LEVEL 46'-7" TOTAL 99'-10" A A 1 ST LEVEL 12'-4" 2ND LEVEL 23'-11 " 3RD LEVEL 17'-4" 4TH LEVEL 46-7" TOTAL 100'-1 " PLAN 3 1 ST LEVEL 12'-8" 2ND LEVEL 43'-2" 3RD LEVEL 18'-2" 4TH LEVEL 45'-5" TOTAL 119'-5" PLAN 4 1 ST LEVEL 12'-8" 2ND LEVEL 46'-8" 3RD LEVEL 18'-9" 4TH LEVEL 45'-10" TOTAL 123'-11 " ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA: ALLOWABLE AREA TABLE FRONTAGE(If)INCREASE SPRINKLER (Is) INCREASE ALLOWABLE ACTUAL BUILDING AREA 1ST ACTUAL BUILDING AREA 2ND ACTUAL BUILDING AREA ACTUAL BUILDING AREA 4TH ACTUAL BUILDING AREA ALLOWABLE BUILDING TOTAL ACTUAL BUILDING AREA ACTUAL BUILDING AREA S.F. BUILDING FIRE WALL BUILDING TYPE OCCUPANCY CONSTRUCTION TYPE (CBC TABLE 506.2) (CBC SECTION 506.3) (CBC SECTION 506.3) NUMBER OF STORIES FLOOR S.F. FLOOR S.F. 3RD FLOOR S.F. FLOOR S.F. GARAGE S.F. DECK & TERRACE HEIGHT S.F. R2 + U MIXED -AREA RATIO (<3) REQUIRED R2 / U (CBC 504.4) R2 R2 R2 R2 U (CBC TABLE 504.3) R2 5 PLEX - 4 STORY R-2 / U TYPE VA, 1-HOUR 36,000 / 27,000 S.F. NOT USED USED FOR HEIGHT 4 1,340 3,468 3,661 1,184 2,415 1,177 70 10,830 13,245 0.36 NO INCREASE (4-STORY) 6 PLEX - 4 STORY R-2 / U TYPE VA, 1-HOUR 36,000 / 27,000 S.F. NOT USED USED FOR HEIGHT INCREASE (4-STORY) 4 1,765 4,283 4,592 1,620 2,879 1,574 70 13,834 16,713 0.45 NO 8 PLEX - 4 STORY R-2 / U TYPE VA, 1-HOUR 36,000 / 27,000 S.F. NOT USED USED FOR HEIGHT INCREASE (4-STORY) 4 2,644 6,032 6,404 2,520 3,792 2,244 70 19,844 23,636 0.63 NO FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 DATE 6125125 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L CODE ANALYSIS I Al URBAN ARENA 35-186 0'-6' 10'-2" ELEN IWIT-111= o u 0 r NTRY H.B.1 1 J 1 FIRST FLOOR FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 24 -172 DATE 6125125 SECOND FLOOR 1 0'-6" 1 9'-4" 6'-0" 0 W.1.C. I BALCONY BEDROOM j BEDROOM 1 I 0 10'-6" X 1 P-8" I 13-0" X 12'-4" PLAN 1 AC UNIT O LAU /Y I o 0 — —I� BATH 1 0 HALL BATH 2 ----- i �I 0 w O a ce Q �i O N r -------- r-, THIRD FLOOR I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L NOTE: ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE AN EGRESS WINDOW WITH A MINIMUM OPENING SIZE OF 5.7 SQ. FT. GROSS AREA PLAN 1 • 2 BR/2.5 BA PLAN 1 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT. PLAN 1 • DECKS 139 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. NET LIVING AREA PLAN 1 • 2 BR/2.5 BA PLAN 1 • FIRST FLOOR - NET 54 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • SECOND FLOOR - NET 612 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • THIRD FLOOR - NET 647 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • TOTAL NET 1,314 SQ.FT. 1/4"=1' - 0" SCALE 4 8 UA SPLIT PLAN 1 1 A2 URBAN ARENA 35-187 0 FIRST FLOOR FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 24 -172 DATE 6125125 OPPOSITE CLOSET CONDITION p P R o T-9" CLG. I I [PTLTRY_G T 14'-1 FOURTH FLOOR ®®®®®®®"®®®®®®®M 1111111"s1 BATH PI III.. i�z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 BATH 1 O PLAN 2 o N I O 0=_--_—_--__ LAUND. O KITCHEN LIV I G 00 s'-o' cLG. BALCONY BEDROOM 2 o v 9'-0" CLG. 0 M. C. T-o" CLG. I ❑ I 0 O t----- 0 DECK EXCLUDED FROM PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS 14'-1 SECOND FLOOR I -All 15'- I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L 14'-1 THIRD FLOOR NOTE: ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE AN EGRESS WINDOW WITH A MINIMUM OPENING SIZE OF 5.7 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 BEDROOM 1 A911=11 Ee GROSS AREA PLAN 2 • 3 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 2 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT. PLAN 2 • DECKS 1 1 1 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TERRACE 214 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. 0 DECK EXCLUDED FROM PRIVATE OPEN SPACE NET LIVING AREA PLAN 2 • 3 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 2 • FIRST FLOOR - NET 340 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • SECOND FLOOR - NET 543 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • THIRD FLOOR - NET 619 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • FOURTH FLOOR - NET 292 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TOTAL NET 1,509 SQ.FT. 1/4"=1' - 0" SCALE 4 8 UA SPLIT PLAN 2 1 A3 URBAN ARENA 35-188 /l l 1 Pill FIRST LEVEL SCALE: 1 /4'' l'-0" FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 8'-0" CLG. �G. MIN) 0 F L PANTRY 0-V ULO. (7'-6" CLG. MIN.) DN. 17R@7.24" 16T@ 1,k UP 17R@7.2411 16T@ 10" 2 1 1-211 F)ININ(-, e-V LILl7. 14'-10" X 9'-0" DW KITCHEN W-0" CLG. SINK MICRO/STOVE IRB PLAN 3 • LIVI G ROOM W-0" CLG. 6'-611 X 15'-911 nFC I< 12' PRIVATE OPEN SECOND LEVEL SCALE: 1 /4" = 1'-0" i THIRD LEVEL SCALE: 1 /4" 1'-0" NOTE: ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE AN EGRESS WINDOW WITH A MINIMUM OPENING SIZE OF 5.7 SQ. FT. hill d FOURTH LEVEL SCALE: 1 /4'' l'-0" GROSS AREA PLAN 3 • 4 B R/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 3 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 PLAN 3 • DECK 89 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TERRACE 176 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. NET LIVING AREA PLAN 2 • 3 B R/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 3 • FIRST FLOOR - NET 388 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • SECOND FLOOR - NET 764 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • THIRD FLOOR - NET 881 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • FOURTH FLOOR - NET 370 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TOTAL NET 2,402 SQ.FT. 1/4"=1' - 0" SCALE 4 8 DATE 6125125 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L UA SPLIT PLAN 3 URBAN I A4 ARENA 35-189 M v FIRST LEVEL SCALE: 1 /4'' l'-0" FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 v v J J SECOND LEVEL SCALE: 1 /4" = l'-0" THIRD LEVEL SCALE: 1 /4" 1'-0" NOTE: ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE AN EGRESS WINDOW WITH A MINIMUM OPENING SIZE OF 5.7 SQ. FT. BONUS ROOM W-0" CLG. DN. 17R@7.24" 16T@ 10" PLAN 4 TERRACE AC UNITS PRIVATE OPEN 0 FOURTH LEVEL SCALE: 1 /4'' l'-0" GROSS AREA PLAN 4 • 4 B R/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 4 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • DECK 69 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TERRACE 204 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. NET LIVING AREA PLAN 4 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 4 • FIRST FLOOR - NET 416 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • SECOND FLOOR - NET 879 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • THIRD FLOOR - NET 822 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • FOURTH FLOOR - NET 391 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TOTAL NET 2,509 SQ.FT. 1/4"=1' - 0" SCALE 4 8 DATE 6125125 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L UA SPLIT PLAN 4 URBAN A5 ARENA 35-190 2ND FLOOR 1 ST FLOOR FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 PLAN 1 • 2 BR/2.5 BA PLAN 1 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT. PLAN 1 • DECKS 139 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. GROSS AREA PLAN 2 • 3 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 2 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT. PLAN 2 • DECKS 1 1 1 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TERRACE 214 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. GROSS A R F A PLAN 3 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 3 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • DECK 89 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TERRACE 176 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. PLAN 4 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 4 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • DECK 69 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TERRACE 204 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 DATE 6125125 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L COMPOSITE PLANS - 5 PLEX URBAN A6 ARENA 35-191 I � 29'-7" 21'-2" 29'-7" 4TH FLOOR 3RD FLOOR FORD OAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 PLAN 1 • 2 BR/2.5 BA PLAN 1 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT. PLAN 1 • DECKS 139 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. GROSS AREA PLAN 2 • 3 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 2 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT. PLAN 2 • DECKS 1 1 1 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TERRACE 214 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. GROSS ARFA PLAN 3 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 3 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • DECK 89 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TERRACE 176 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. PLAN 4 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 4 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • DECK 69 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TERRACE 204 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 DATE 6125125 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L COMPOSITE PLANS - 5 PLEX URBAN A7 ARENA 35-192 2ND FLOOR 1 ST FLOOR FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 PLAN 1 • 2 BR/2.5 BA PLAN 1 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT. PLAN 1 • DECKS 139 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. GROSS AREA PLAN 2 • 3 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 2 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT. PLAN 2 • DECKS 1 1 1 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TERRACE 214 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. GROSS ARFA PLAN 3 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 3 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • DECK 89 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TERRACE 176 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. PLAN 4 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 4 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • DECK 69 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TERRACE 204 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 DATE 6125125 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L COMPOSITE PLANS - b PLEX URBAN A8 ARENA 35-193 29 -7 21 -2 21 -2 291-711 4TH FLOOR 7 l ni 7 fill 3RD FLOOR FORD OAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 PLAN 1 • 2 BR/2.5 BA PLAN 1 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT. PLAN 1 • DECKS 139 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. GROSS AREA PLAN 2 • 3 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 2 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT. PLAN 2 • DECKS 1 1 1 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TERRACE 214 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. CROSS ARFA PLAN 3 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 3 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • DECK 89 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TERRACE 176 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. PLAN 4 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 4 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • DECK 69 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TERRACE 204 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 DATE 6125125 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L COMPOSITE PLANS - b PLEX URBAN A9 ARENA 35-194 29'-1 1" 155'-2" - 1 1 " li 5'-4" II C� II I I II � PLAN 1 zi PLAN 3 '-A" 99'_ 1 1 " 2ND FLOOR 1 ST FLOOR FORA GOAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL � 24 -172 DATE 6125125 L—L PLAN 3 i_7u �'00/.yz v===/ PLAN 1 PLAN 2 n �o _ 1 1 " I F'-A" I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L GROSS AREA GROSS AREA PLAN 1 • 2 BR/2.5 BA PLAN 1 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 3 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 •FOURTH FLOOR -GROSS 363 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT. PLAN 3 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • DECK 89 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT. PLAN 3 • TERRACE 176 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT. OF CALCULATION. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. GROSS AREA PLAN 2 • 3 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 2 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 •FOURTH FLOOR -GROSS 391 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT. 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX I Al 0 URBAN ARENA 35-195 _7" I nll - - - L PLAN 3 � n u-u L 11> 110 w m I O ------- - - - - - - - 711 4TH FLOOR 3RD FLOOR FORA GOAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 24 -172 DATE 6125125 1 ccl nu 0 w 0o O I O IF ------ I 29'- I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L - - - - - - - - - nn� Ce]:Z�i.•�•11:7�1 PLAN 1 • 2 BR/2.5 BA PLAN 1 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 539 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 708 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 670 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 1,916 SQ.FT. PLAN 1 • DECKS 139 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 96 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 139 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE OF CALCULATION. TO METHOD GROSS AREA PLAN 2 • 3 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 2 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 839 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 572 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 621 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 292 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,325 SQ.FT. PLAN 2 • DECKS 1 1 1 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 • TERRACE 214 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 116 SQ.FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 178 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. GROSS ARFA PLAN 3 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 3 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 889 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 805 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 862 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 363 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,919 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • DECK 89 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 • TERRACE 176 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 146 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 218 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. GROSS AREA PLAN 4 • 4 BR/3.5 BA/LOFT PLAN 4 • FIRST FLOOR - GROSS 903 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • SECOND FLOOR - GROSS 886 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • THIRD FLOOR - GROSS 810 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • FOURTH FLOOR - GROSS 391 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TOTAL GROSS (NBMC) 2,989 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • DECK 69 SQ. FT. PLAN 4 • TERRACE 204 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ. (5% GFA) 149 SQ. FT. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 156 SQ. FT. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION. 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 COMPOSITE PLANS - 8 PLEX I All URBAN ARENA 35-196 FRONT ELEVATION PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 4 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 REAR ELEVATION PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 4 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 24 -172 DATE 6125125 MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION_ BUILDING 3 - 244.65 ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION_ BUILDING 3 - 196.65 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L UA SPLIT 5 PLEX ELEVATIONS I Al 2 URBAN ARENA 35-197 RIGHT ELEVATION PLAN 2 3 3:12 3:1 ROOF PLAN FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 24 -172 DATE 6125125 LEFT ELEVATION PLAN 2 -- 3:12 3:12 3:12 MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION_ BUILDING 3 - 244.65 ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION_ BUILDING 3 - 196.65 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L UA SPLIT 5 PLEX ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN I Al 3 URBAN ARENA 35-198 ■ OHL) H(m)AD :WPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA 0 liwolmiliffevu w Fz r3 A IN or-:KI d RIGHT ELEVATION PLAN 2 ROOF PLAN FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 24 -172 DATE 6125125 M7 LEFT ELEVATION PLAN 2 3:12 3:12 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION_ BUILDING 4 - 244.35 ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION_ BUILDING 4 - 196.35 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L UA SPLIT b PLEX ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN I Al 5 URBAN ARENA 35-200 ■ OHL) H(m)AD :WPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA rm AIIli1� 15!� 11111111 v 11■1111111 11MMIMM! I IN 1 Lim in dw itmmi� ii 1�y uFzUp►n 416 eor-: Kia RIGHT ELEVATION *NOTE: WINDOW CONDITION VARIES BETWEEN BLDGS 1 & 2 PER OPENING RESTRICTIONS, SEE SHEET A25 ROOF PLAN FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 PLAN 2 LEFT ELEVATION *NOTE: WINDOW CONDITION VARIES BETWEEN BLDGS 1 & 2 PER OPENING RESTRICTIONS, SEE SHEET A25 PLAN 2 0 3:12 3:12 mm- 3:12 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 8 16 MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION_ BUILDING 1 - 246.38 BUILDING 2 - 246.83 ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION_ BUILDING 1 - 198.38 BUILDING 2 - 198.83 DATE 6125125 KNIGHTHALL C A P I T A L UA SPLIT 8 PLEX ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN I Al 7 URBAN ARENA 35-202 NE ■ I fr PolkIII I Now Ps III i,�.� -� � �� , . � - I � ■ � � �� 11 will SHIP■ Iwo.- 01 NINO Ilk 411 I I ililit, Hill A���iiw� i it - INNNg U I-2 U H(m)AD :-WPORTRFACH I CALIFORNIA 0- ■ ■ p- .. 61,11110- ! MIS W i I�I' N 1:11 rc Ion lop 1111111111CIN-fififil 1111 11 MU im "HWHIM1115 111 h 01 j! miNOW 11 T! I e., 11WOU! wimmoLvmmlmmlwm COLOR SCHEME A 1. ROOF CAPISTRANO "ASH G RAY" MCELROY METAL 2. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SINGLE HUNG - BLACK M I LGARD FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 I BRICK 4. OUTDOOR FAN TUNDRABRICK HAIKU COASTAL 52" "LATIGO" BLACK EL DORADO STONE BIG ASS FANS 5. OUTDOOR LIGHTING RAWLEY LED SCONCE OIL RUBBED BRONZE REJUVENATION A. STUCCO 16/20 SW 7005 "PURE WHITE" B. SW 9139 "DU BONAI R" C. SW 6236 "GRAYS HARBOR" D. SW 7594 "CARRIAGE DOOR" E. SW 7674 "PEPPERCORN" 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 DATE 6125125 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L UA SPLIT COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD A I Al 9 URBAN ARENA 35-204 COLOR SCHEME B 1. ROOF CAPISTRANO "ASH G RAY" MCELROY METAL 2. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SINGLE HUNG - BLACK M I LGARD FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 3. BRICK 4. OUTDOOR FAN TUNDRA BRICK HAIKU COASTAL 52" "CHALK DUST" BLACK EL DORADO STONE BIG ASS FANS 5. OUTDOOR LIGHTING RAWLEY LED SCONCE OIL RUBBED BRONZE REJUVENATION A. STUCCO 16/20 SW 7008 "ALABASTER" I d B. SW 7524 "DHURRIE BEIGE" C. SW 7615 "SEA SERPENT" D. SW 9128 "GREEN ONYX" E. SW 7048 "URBANE BRONZE" 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 DATE 6125125 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L UA SPLIT COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD B I A20 URBAN ARENA 35-205 FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 I lJ IP1L VV II VLJ IJVV /-%\LP1. VVL JI UPPER FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS REQUIRED: 20% UPPER FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS PROVIDED: 602 / 2,879 = 21% I v I/"%L VVIIVLJIJvv f-%IXL_r%. Yvr %..7I I V IF1L VVIIVUVVV MMIZZM. L I Jr A: 1,382 SF I lI /'1V V 1 1 V VJ L. lV V /-%f\/-%. 1)u S F J L. FIRST FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS REQUIRED: 20% FIRST FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS PROVIDED: 306 / 1,382 = 22% UPPER FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS PROVIDED: 467 / 2,251 = 21% FIRST FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS PROVIDED: 210 / 1,008 = 21% J14 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 DATE 6125125 KNIGHTHALL C A P I T A L ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATIONS A21 URBANARENA 35-206 6 PLEX FACADE FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 124 -172 I V I !-IL V V I I V V V V V Pll \Lll. J.:/J V I UPPER FLOOR FACADE WINDOWS PROVIDED: 393 / 1,927 = 20% 4 nnl p11 IL 1 I\VJLV 1 II.JI V. J IJ JI PRIMARY FACADE: 2,980 SF PROJECTION AREA REQUIRED 10% PROJECTION AREA PROVIDED: (515 + 540) / 2,980 = 35% 8 PLEX FACADE rl� m\tWrJ 19■ 11WA N -m nr]I 1 901_01, r I\I IVIP'NI\ I I L. G,-t-tu JI PROJECTION AREA REQUIRED 10% PROJECTION AREA PROVIDED: 515 / 2,440 = 21% 12" PROJECTION: 515 SF PRIMARY FACADE: 4,036 SF PROJECTION AREA REQUIRED 10% PROJECTION AREA PROVIDED: (540 + 515 + 540 + 515) / 4,036 = 52% 12" PROJECTION: 515 SF 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 DATE 6125125 KNIGHTHALL C A P I T A L ARCHITECTURAL FACADE CALCULATIONS I A22 URBAN ARENA 35-207 EXTERIOR WALL FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 24 -172 DATE 6125125 -- F - \---� 1/16"=1' - 0" SCALE 0 16 32 NORTHVft I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L FSD SITE PLAN URBAN I A23 ARENA 35-208 mr I Illifllllll!�II. owl w11 LEVEL2 BUILDINGS 1 & 2 - SOUTH ELEVATION MAX F/119SF=15% MAX �F / 278 SF = 26% MAX F / 278 SF = 30% JIAX F/80SF=25% BUILDING 4 - NORTH ELEVATION FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 BUILDING 2 - WEST ELEVATION ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION BUILDING 1 - 198.38 BUILDING 2 - 198.83 _ MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION_ BUILDING 1 - 246.38 BUILDING 2 - 246.83 FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX PROVIDED: 115 SF / 327 SF = 35% FSD 10'-15': 45% MAX PROVIDED: 78 SF / 283 SF = 28% LEVEL 2 FSD 10'-15' PROVIDED 45% MAX 97 SF / 292 SF = 33% FSD 5'-10': 25% MAX PROVIDED: 16 SF / 148 SF = 11% 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE 0 8 16 ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION_ BUILDING 1 - 198.38 BUILDING 2 - 198.83 DATE 6125125 I/NIGHTHALL C A P I T A L OPENING CALCULATIONS URBAN A24 ARENA 35-209 BUILDING 3 - REAR ELEVATION FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL 1 24 -172 BUILDINGS 1 & 2 - SIDE ELEVATION (BETWEEN BUILDINGS 1 & 2 CONDITION ONLY) FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX PROVIDED: 133 SF / 923 SF = 14% FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX PROVIDED: 152 SF / 994 SF = 15% LEVEL 2 FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX PROVIDED: 132 SF / 952 SF = 14% FSD 15'-20': 75% MAX PROVIDED: 461 SF / 820 SF = 56% 3/16" = 1'- 0" SCALE } 0 8 16 MAXIMUM HEIGHT ELEVATION_ BUILDING 3 - 244.65 JIAX F / 327 SF = 35% OAX F/419SF=43% vlAX F/468SF=44% AAX / 377 SF = 26% ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION_ BUILDING 3 - 196.65 DATE 6125125 KNIGHTHALL C A P I T A L OPENING CALCULATIONS I A25 URBAN ARENA 35-210 LEGEND O MAILBOXES © PICNIC AREA © FIREPIT LOUNGE AREA 0 MONUMENT SIGNAGE © EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 0 BIKE RACKS Q MODULAR WETLAND - SEE DRAWINGS BY CIVIL 0 CONCRETE WALKWAY Q SECTION 'A' - SEE SHEET L2 SECTION 'B' - SEE SHEET L2 PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE ® TRANSFORMER ® PARKING AREA SLIDING VEHICULAR GATE ONSITE CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE OFFSITE APPKUVAL BY IHL PROPERTY OWNER FORD ROAD , -za -G' S�LE NORTH NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA w 0 I 0 I! KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL, LLC 1 24 -172 KN IGHTHALL URBAN DATE b 16 125 C A R, T A L OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 A R E N A 35-211 n . A � O 9 0 SITE FURNISHINGS BIKE RACK MFR: MAGLIN MODEL: ICONIC BIKE RACK COLOR: SILVER 14 FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL, LLC 1 24 -172 DATE 6 116 125 J FIRE PIT MAILBOXES MFR: ORE DESIGN MFR: SALSBURY INDUSTRIES MODEL: FORMED CYLINDER MODEL: 16A-TYPE III COLOR: LINEN WHITE COLOR: WHITE T ky'o, ,44 YA RETAINING WALL SECTIONS & \`♦ KNIGHTHALL URBAN SITE FURNISHINGS I L2 ARENA 35-212 Ilk, itn" I t r son LEGEND 0 PARKING STALLS 0 WALKWAY 0 ENHANCED PAVING 0 LOUNGE SEATING WITH FIREPIT 0 PLANTING AREA 0 RETAINING WALL FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL, LLC 1 24 -172 DATE 6116I25 KEY PLAN 1/4-'-0"SCALE NORTH IB O KNIGHTHALL C A P I T A L FIREPIT LOUNGE AREA ENLARGEMENT I L4 �0 URBAN ARENA 35-214 LEGEND O PARKING STALLS © WALKWAY © SEAT WALL 0 ENHANCED PAVING © TRELLIS Q LOUNGE SEATING O OUTDOOR KITCHEN 0 PLANTING AREA 0 TRASH RECEPTACLE RETAINING WALL MODULAR WETLAND -SEE DRAWINGS BY CIVIL FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL, LLC 1 24 -172 DATE 6116I25 19A KNIGHTHALL C A P I T A KEY PLAN 1/4-'-0"SCALE NORTH IB O V*46 URBAN PICNIC AREA ENLARGEMENT I L5 ARENA 35-215 FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH I CALIFORNIA KNIGHTHALL CAPITAL, LLC 1 24 -172 DATE 6 116 125 AYYKVVAL CY IMt PROPERTY OWNER �QA MIGHTHALL A P I T A L -20'-I"SCALE NORTH I I O FENCE & WALL PLAN I L6 URBAN ARENA 35-216 �.III.", EXISTING EASEMENTS ED,KK,TOEADEE,,OFroD„�E°FOl'FTA"Do O OF D�w1 RE uFEns A rrownax OF F—E, S ABBREVIATIONS D w CD , RE =HINE' RESOMNING FN wRD. ITERDE wATOO TO 0 Nm ��ncxr-ar-wnv E NO III I El s —_ VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19396 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AND RE —SUBDIVISION PURPOSES) ,ANYON DRIVE - ? � , _ -- -� - i' a a � r oar+ row1 211 OR \ ' vwovDsm srDa, DUN �� F� SEED waANxs � mN� o DExEE ITHE i FLOOD ZONE g' of w�D x� UEs .� 0 a - • °� a °mxm Dx xEDNE.,ax ww°x�m Er D.D. oEwaA. DF xDDDrvc .ND NAww o xEM a ES ,' aY aoDD �DwuwE FAw S.F .µa x°. a „w F„T�E Eiz,iao�T. UTILITY NOTES e \ i. vxovosm vueuc wATEw a SEwEe NNxs ro m xsruEm o w axsnE TD g�°E TnE �vDSFO Eoms i o z..ut veDVDs DTDTEs ro EE nsrwTD vEw cN OF nEwvoaT mncx SFAZwaos uo svECFa*nxs. f. F .wD R _D EST Exmnc OONn To RE— F.c ITES .. 3 °Rn ow:l10u .1"1 El "11% a 1°01wa`w1f0sco NOD uR x Foe D eaoD , PROPOSED LOT SUMMARY UNMEROME m ,5; g ED wMEMI SITE VICINITYuMAP SITE ADDRESS RO!m F DEVELOPER SIRE zx —FEEvwr xEwaowr eucx a EZEEo ENGINEER oCIVIL (somas) o �9Eo zE,E DE GENERAL NOTES c DEVE,ovEo uxD I . . i i/ i , i / wm. z ED EARGEDuno DSE .Eca z. wEVDExrw coxoox N u z LEGAL DESCRIPTION v wav F,aD x Eoo. Es vacE . of v.eDa w.vs wscovos of svD muFrc. TOOEEREM or sND vurca MAR E„Nc F.srEeD. or NE FILL_ _REEDPO Of�xs. MT i ,,,FIENCE , o x E DF E, FE Ox E sD Tw E Ee T DeNEe OF sND e . mx D DNe wED N > DE Ir . THEI o OF ,D _ . o,s<axsE OF D.EA IEEE To NE xOA.=lu COI.EI of SxD v 11. . iLET - E 11111 of A 1111 wa RED IF SMD ­ ------ _ '—.uz.FEE" 1.—. - - --°k—� Fouow nc DE_' LxE xraN of Sxo vuavEE i Ewnc ­ OF TEE OE- _EF IF s7si ar n IS-1E IF FIENNoma A.aE zr wEST A osAxc mcxOE xomx "ODOO csr . Dsr.xc REIT FEa TO NE ND�»FwsrEll I —El OF SS wAroEE �. ,D . A o µ« OF DEA i ORDER IF 3 ms.EuuENr ND EEsosz sas DF DFFcuE b aicDaos oFEs°xI ov"..°�ii co°NwTMs cpDu $ � OF°- o FE RECoa : DEED xE °EDED 1 r FLAID IRE a. ,w,. w ETHRO BASIS OF BEARINGS $ N s=;._­E. . 'I Ep= OF`=.' FGI ;"DD-E� E E.E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FORD ROAD 4302 FORD ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SHEETINDEX TITLE SHEET C-01 EXISTING CONDITIONS C-02 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PWJ C-03 —GNS C-04 CONCE-AL UIIUW PVN C-05 MRACE GRADE PLANE C-O6 4302 FORD ROAD RNIGHTHAU CAPITAL, LLC FUSCOE ENGINEERING 1400NEWPORT CENTER DR, SUITE 2w 1-5 SAND CANYON AVE, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 82260 IRVINE. CA U618 PHGNE: e4e.aT4.lefio vawPmwm RwNww x�Paaccavzu�anw,swnl,�EP.exrs�sa<x.,lc .wrs�.zu-m,Em„sowc ms-,o-zozs an:z,N�1 .law e,. m<aw ABBREVIATIONS & LEGEND — — — — wwrinROFERrr uNE qN,. ea P... sEWER uNE rvE OvROrosEO NCOULVt —All VICINITY o SITE ADDRESS DEVELOPER oRNE wIIE z5o OWNER CIVIL ENGINEER LEGAL DESCRIPTION EX BASIS OF BEARINGS zu, x.x.xRssj. wns xm AS mx wslx ax auxlxcs — Tws xw. FLOOD ZONE r�aoo Ixwwxcc R.,E N.r xxa rvo. xwszcmam. cREcm'c iiz,izx,� C-01 TITLE SHEET 6/16/2025 35-218 ONITA CA YON DRIV -- -- — ---- -- —� —IM.2 --- -- \ g— ----- --- — ` \hu � ro o. V1 6 O NAP } wn. ruewo,u. w o Oz EXISTING EASEMENTS w� ° O s Iw Boa mes vrres zss .o zeo or arnclu xEcoxos. '9x mox u,z1 v,,crs ms 1a ms oF` O 67oF OM—necanos. uvEcrs A M 0x a AW 4302 FORD ROAD xNIGHTH—CAPITAL, aC FUSCOE ENGINEERING NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 id00NEWPORTCENTERDR,SUNS NEW PORT BEACH. CA-60 M 15—SANDCANYONAVE,SUITE100 IRVINE. CA U618 PHONE: BaeaT I9W vawa„wm RwNww r�rao,ccavzu�anw,swx�,�ex,s�sa<x.,�c .uxsvm-m,nmr.owc �a-,s-mu z:xur.� xw.a w: owa,�r / C l C-02 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6/16/2025 35-219 O, _ cRass-EOT DRUNncE l�� cGh � 0.,'s°1` g.3 � �ge� � E46EMENT i0 BE PRONDED �171Y e, ex,6�ix.P 200,10 n bF4 LOTA E" P R LT w Do '« NAP A (9 81I 19e l r' �, w o e • � �/ , A,, A GRATE GNENRIX6 E tlUTf iRAYE mYENSpNS C YIN. WE iRAFFlC RATED \, rO�O \ e DY I ME AS A ESN FRAME a %J J/C -1 1 ) ^-I3"per- woms eA51 LxDIN I WPofSCR EWN �� " iN hR B�OfICA 4p fY!%IS PWRW w0, cw6NEG PLAN VIEW Rags ArRR POISING OAT s1.w+aRr dme CROWD RQO 24" maiH ELEVATION ° \ - Oig 24' widedeep Tench O b- placeo filler lrlh in the I-' Irh E4.ling 12" v«licd on eoch side - dFill lom 8" of the trench dih rn hrocked - balForm «wd pwr p«imel« wncrele wrb. e- Fii the resl aF the bench wAh trushetl rack to 4" from lop of be+A. BOTTOMLESS TRENCH DRAIN- "rs C-03 EARTHWORK NOTES S Lo: i =20 rns. e.oso a �ww; z. ExistSLSIE ­ TO x Rn, P LINE 1 ax SLOPE, x = „' C-03 4302 FORD ROAD NwGI—ALLCAPITAL, ue FuseoE ENGINEERING 1p} E tS+ e>o x , �, �n YN - xn (+' uln�Mw) CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN rvEwroRr cErvTER OR, SUITE ZJa 1s6]s servo CANYON AVE, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92260 IRVINE, CA 92616 u " cr (wx1 ELLLVNG Efieetx nLOnG xt6ixEA51 PxtPERry unEE- 11/3 - 15]'. a' SfftMti< P—L. evelopment Review PHONE: 9494T4.1960 annixixG wu,s, ox roorix¢. s sxxNxece. auLNxc, a srals mox ununEs. sn sizozs S,�PxrvEG,G�.2.roo,�PMxG�GxttxElt���xExa P�,r+2� GP,Ero]�wG iP�,�2P2s 2�e.rPw Pa,� � G.aa:" 35-220 �c Aa oP.� ------ 6 R.6 m --------r-------------- SECTION A c oa rt FRP. uu N..z P.�Pt�rxr / 96 oxm I PTB 1 rn°°c SECTION B c oa E i i auo¢ � vxPa.r "pPS5 �sNPiw SECTION D c oa SECTION E c-oa C-04 4302 FORD ROAD KNIGHTHAU CAPITAL, uC FUGCOE ENGINEERING SECTIONS 1a00NEWPORT CENTER DR, SUITE— 1553E SAND CANYON AVE, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92260 IRVINE. CA 92618 Davawamam Re New PIA.— 9a9.aT4.1960 6/i6/2025 .nPPo,So,svzo�anPwawlr�r�.eNrs�sa<P.,�s .uPsvz.,-oo,Gorszonwc coa-,s_zozs s:ss:zaPwi Pula e,: or„�,�, 35-221 \e a % BONIT ANYON D E AIx me a O yWER e 9 \ � O \ \f t Pu6Ln �fi V h '9 A\� - LEGEND zo PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE PROPOSED WATER LINE —�—�— FIRE WATER SERVCE PROPOSED SEWER LINE PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT Q PROPOSED MODULAR WEfIAND \\�\/ T ♦, ® FIRE HYDRANT TRANSFORMER I '�\ /\ PSIZED TO 8"SS / \�\ `✓ % DRY UTILITY — — — — — — FIRE HYDRANT 150' RADIUS — EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE —a-- EXISTING WATER LINE — — — FIRE WATER SERVICE \ — a — — PROPOSED SEWER LINE \ — — _— EXISTING ELECTRICAL — — — — —_— EXISTING FIBER OPTICS EXISTING GAS — —sn— EXISTING STREET LIGHT — -- EXISTING TELEPHONE\® — I EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 4302 FORD ROAD KNIGHTHA-LCAPI—, LC FUSCOE ENGINEERING NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9266D 1400 NEV.PORT CENTER DR, SUITE 2N 1 M35 SAND CANYON AVE, SUITE 100 NMPORT BEACH. CA 92260 IRVINE, CA 92616 PHONE: S49A74.1960 veroPment ReWew �PawN.,sv2.,�oo,XPwa�L.anE.Ex,s Banc Pwm z.,-oo,DosP.owc cos-14-2ou ,:,—I PHRa m: oT,1.10 l CONCEPTUAL UTILITY C-05 PLAN PLAN 6/16/2025 35-222 AVE—El GRAD E —NE 6 5 AVERAGE GRADE —NE m 35 .87 oO -RAGE GR DE PLANE E FLo—T-11 NV lb T lAl. } 2 / A? ?k 4302 FORD ROAD KNIG T11— CAPITA-, LLC FCGC0E ENGINEERING NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 N:P0N`RTpB=HCENTER DR, SUITE— 1-5 SAND CANYON AVE, SUITEE 100 . CA 92260 IRVINE. CA 92618 PHGNE:9a9.aT4.fefio 11 2. C-06 AVERAGE GRADE PLANE 6/16/2025 35-223 Attachment No. PC 4 General Plan Policy Consistency Tmplt: 04/03/18 35-224 General Plan Policy Consistency General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Housing Element Policy 3.2. Encourage The project proposes a 27-unit residential condominium housing developments to offer a wide complex. The project diversifies the City's housing stock spectrum of housing choices, designs, and through a townhome design, accommodates a variety of configurations. household sizes, responds to market demand, and supports the City's efforts to increase the supply of Land Use Element Policy LU 2.3 (Range of housing in the City. Residential Choices). Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element. Land Use Element Policy LU3.2 (Growth The project is proposed on an undeveloped and and Change). Enhance existing underutilized property within an area of the City that is neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, considerably developed. The Project will add 27 attached allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are single -unit dwellings to the City's housing stock which complementary in type, form, scale, and allows the City to further its efforts of the 6th Cycle Housing character. Changes in use and/or Element Implementation Program and meet the City's density/intensity should be considered only in RHNA. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing those areas that are economically Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department underperforming, are necessary to reviewed the project's projected traffic generation analysis accommodate Newport Beach's share of and found that Ford Road would adequately serve the projected regional population growth, improve project. The project is projected to produce 182 average the relationship and reduce commuting daily trips, which does not exceed the 300 average daily distance between home and jobs, or enhance trip threshold, and therefore, no additional traffic analysis the values that distinguish Newport Beach as is required. Additionally, the Public Works Department a special place to live for its residents. The reviewed the submitted sewer and water demand study scale of growth and new development shall be and found that no additional sewer system or water line coordinated with the provision of adequate improvements are required to accommodate the project, infrastructure and public services, including as adequate infrastructure is available and has sufficient standards for acceptable traffic level of capacity. service. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.5 The project is identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. (Residential Uses and Residential 141 and is located within the HO-4 subarea. The project Densities). Residential use of any property proposes 27 residential condominiums on a 1.16-acre included within an established housing property which yields a density of 23.27 dwelling units per opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed acre, consistent with the allowed density of the HO-4 regardless of and in addition to the underlying Subarea. land use category or density limit established through Policy LU 4.1, Table LU 1 and Table LU 2, or any other conflict in the Land Use Element. A general plan amendment is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity zoning overlay district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay districts specified in Policy LU 4.4 is an average over the entire property or project site. 35-225 General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.6 While Policy LU 5.1.6 is intended for single-family and two - (Character and Quality of Residential unit projects, the project includes large setback areas that Properties). Require that residential front are thoroughly landscaped with drought tolerant and setbacks and other areas visible from the noninvasive plant species. While the HO-4 Subarea does public street be attractively landscaped, trash not require any base floor setbacks, the project provides containers enclosed, and driveway and generous setbacks and better reflects the character of a parking paving minimized. low -density neighborhood. The visibility of driveway and parking areas have been minimized through use of landscaping and trash containers will be located within each dwelling unit's garage and screened from the public right-of-way. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.9 As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, (Character and Quality of Multi -Family which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated Residential) Require that multi -family by reference, the project complies with the majority (48 of dwellings be designed to convey a high- 52) of the applicable objective design standards and in quality architectural character in accordance some cases exceeds the intent of the standards. However, with the following principles: Building the applicant requests minor deviations of four objective Elevations, Ground Floor Treatments, Roof design standards. The Objective Design Standards were Design, Parking, Open Space and Amenity developed to implement Land Use Policy LU5.1.9, therefore compliance with these standards with negligible deviation ensures that the project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU5.1.9. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.1 Although the project site has an irregular shape, the project (Compatible Development). Require that design compactly arranges the four separate buildings to buildings and properties be designed to maximize site efficiency and preserve larger than required ensure compatibility within and as interfaces setbacks. The Bonita Canyon Sports Park unique parcel between neighborhoods, districts, and shape extends in front of the northwest portion of the corridors project site, further setting back the proposed development up to 50 feet from the Bonita Canyon Drive right-of-way in that location. The project site design includes interior drive aisles and resident amenity areas which are screened from public view. The project's large setbacks, landscaped edge conditions, and location of drive isles and residential amenities reduce the visual impact of the project and ensures compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.2 (Form The contemporary coastal architectural style of the project and Environment). Require that new and has been designed to portray the character and quality of renovated buildings be designed to avoid the the nearby Harbor View community. Architectural use of styles, colors, and materials that articulations and high -quality materials including, brick and unusually impact the design character and wood siding, are utilized to blend in with the character of quality of their location such as abrupt the surrounding community. Additionally, the project changes in scale, building form, architectural includes two color schemes: a coastal color scheme with style, and the use of surface materials that whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color raise local temperatures, result in glare and scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white. excessive illumination of adjoining properties These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel and open spaces, or adversely modify wind which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes patterns. throughout the City. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.3 The project has been conditioned to require a photometric (Ambient Lighting). Require that outdoor study in conjunction with a final lighting plan. The project lighting be located and designed to prevent has also been conditioned to allow the Community 35-226 General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency spillover onto adjoining properties or Development Director to order the dimming of light significantly increase the overall ambient sources upon finding that the illumination creates an illumination of their location. unacceptable or negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. Land Use Policy LU 6.15.23 (Sustainability The project is required to comply with the provisions of the Development Practices). Require that Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR, Title 24, development achieves a high level of Parts 6 — California Energy Code) and the Green Building environmental sustainability that reduces Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11 - CALGreen). pollution and consumption of energy, water, Additionally, the project would implement water -efficient and natural resources. This may be landscaping, water quality best management practices accomplished through the mix and density of and low impact development practices. The project is uses, building location and design, within proximity to Newport Center commercial and office transportation modes, and other techniques. developments and would provide housing near this Among the strategies that should be employment center. The project includes pedestrian considered are the integration of residential linkage to the Ford Road public sidewalk and Bonita with jobs -generating uses, use of alternative Canyon Sports Park Trail which offer provide pedestrian transportation modes, maximized walkability, and bicyclist connections to nearby destinations such as use of recycled materials, capture and re -use Newport Center, approximately two miles away, and the of storm water on -site, water conserving Newport Hills Shopping Center, one mile away. The fixtures and landscapes, and architectural project is also located in close proximity to the existing elements that reduce heat gain and loss Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes provided along Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Circulation Element Policy CE 7.1.7 Drive. (Project Site Design Supporting Alternate Modes). Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.3 (New The project has been conditioned to require the applicant Development Maintained Responsibility). to prepare a construction management plan (CMP) to be Ensure minimization of traffic congestion reviewed and approved by the Community Development, impacts and parking impacts and ensure Fire and Public Works Departments. The CMP will help proper roadway maintenance through review ensure that congestion associated with the construction and approval of Construction Management process is minimized to the greatest extent possible. Plans associated with new development proposals in residential neighborhoods. 35-227 Attachment No. PC 5 Multi -Unit Objective Design Standard Checklist Tmplt: 04/03/18 35-228 Objective Design Standards Checklist Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 / Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3204 www.newportbeachca.gov Disclaimer: This checklist is intended to help ensure compliance with Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). It does not include all design and development standards from other sections of the NBMC, planned community development plans, or any overlay zoning district; however, compliance with all applicable standards is still required. If you have questions on which standards apply to your project, please contact a planner at 949-644-3204. Name of applicant: Ford Road Ventures LLC Date: April 17, 2025 Project Address: 1650 & 4302 Ford Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (APNs 458-361-10 & 458-361-02) Project Application # (City staff to fill out) PA2025-0049 Development Type: ✓❑ Multi Family Unit Residential ❑ Mixed Use Development Project Site Context (check all that apply) ❑ Situated adjacent to existing residential development ❑ Situated next to existing commercial development ❑ Situated adjacent to designated historical structure ❑✓ Other Adjacent to AT&T property and Bonita Canyon Sports Park 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items A. General 1: Multi -unit development orientation a. Development color scheme (8+ buildings) b. Development color scheme (30+ buildings) c. Pedestrian walkways and linkages d. Architectural variety and features e. Structured parking visibility f. Corner lot loading docks/service areas g. Parking facility entrances Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 35-229 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items IL Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference 4 2: Mixed -use buildings orientation a. Commercial unit entrances b. Residential unit entrances B. Orientatio 1. Orientation to primary public street 2: Screening of parking areas 3: Multi -unit projects across from single-family 4: Building arrangement for outdoor space C. Parking Stan r .90 1: Parking compliance with NBMC 20.40.070 a. Parking lot placement b. Landscaped area 2: Residential garages a. Street facing garage door i. Consistent garage and building architecture ii. Arbor or other similar feature 3. Parking structures and loading bays a. Shielding of parked vehicles b. Minimize blank concrete facades . Common O en Space C.O.S 1: Common recreation area requirement 2: Residential entry distance from C.O.S. 3: Pedestrian walkway connection points 4: Open space location 5: Usable open space grade 6: Seating and lighting . Recreation Activities 1: Play area location and visibility 2: Senior housing areas of congregation 3: Recreational amenities per unit count 2 1 P a g e 35-230 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference F. Landscaping 1: Min. 8% of total site landscaped 2: Landscaping materials a. Ground cover b. Nonliving decorative landscaping c. Turf areas for recreation 3: Landscaping and irrigation G. Frontage Types and standards 1: Storefronts a. Ground floor elevation location b. Entrance using one of given methods c. Windows and/or glass doors coverage d. Upper floor facade window coverage e. Floor to floor height (15 ft) Vf f. Awnings or marquees min/max height Vf 2: Live work/office fronts Vf a. Ground floor elevation location b. Entrance for ground floor tenant Vf c. Entrance for upper floor tenants Vf d. Ground floor facade coverage Vf e. Upper -level facade coverage Vf f. Ground floor to ceiling height Vf g. Awnings or marquees min/max height Vf h. Setbacks Vf 3: Residential fronts a. Ground floor elevation i. Garage length of building facade ii. Entrance for ground floor tenants iii. Entrance for upper -floor tenants Vf iv. Ground and upper floor facade coverage v. Setbacks Vf 3 1 P a g e 35-231 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 20.48.185 Applicant Objective Design Standards Evaluation Checklist Items Yes No N/A Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Drawing Reference H. Walls and Fences 1: Community perimeter and theme walls 2: Wall materials if 3. Wall style conformance with architecture Vf 4. Exterior perimeter wall depth I. Utilitie 1: Utility locations and placement 2: Mechanical equipment screening (if needed) 3: Utility rooms (if feasible) for certain equipment a. If not feasible, incorporated into design I Private Street Standards 1: Private street right-of-way width a. Without on -street parallel parking (41 ft) b. With on -street parallel parking (50 ft) 2: Private street zones a. Street zone (SZ) design standards b. Sidewalk zone(SWZ) design standards c. Landscaping and paving zone (LPZ) design standards 1: Private driveway right-of-way (dimensions) 2: Driveway zones a. Driveway zone (DZ) Deviation Req. b. Landscape and paving zone (LPZ) L. Publicly Accessible Open Space (PAOS) Standards 1: Required PAOS 2: Site area calculations 3. PAOS Design Standards a. PAOS minimum width b. PAOS access M. Fagade Modulation Standards 1: Density and building typology 4 1 P a g e 35-232 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference N. Vertical Modulation All, A 1: Components a. Base b. Middle c. Top it 2: Changes in facade material and/or color a. Banding b. Floor heights c. Fenestration d. Cladding material 3. Additional vertical modulation standards a. First floor height i. Density less than 30 units/acre ii. Density greater than 30 units/acre (residential only) iii. Density greater than 30 units/acre (commercial units on qround floor b. Vertical variation i. Density less than 30 units/acre ii. Density greater than 30 units/acre O. Horizontal Modulation dm 1: Building standards for developments with density of less than 30 units/acre a. Maximum building length Deviation Req. b. Required minimum modulation area c. Minimum depth ✓ Deviation Req. d. Maximum number Deviation Reg. 2: Building standards for developments with density of 30 units/acre or greater a. Maximum facade length b. Required minimum modulation area c. Minimum depth d. Minimum width Vf Vf Vf e. Maximum number Vf 5 1 P a g e 35-233 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference P. First Floor Opening and Transparency Standards 1: Building standards for development with density less than 30 units/acre a. Minimum opening standard 2: Building standards for development with density of 30 units/acre or more a. Minimum opening standard i. For any at -grade or above -grade first floor unit frontinq a street or paseo ✓ ii. For any mixed -use multi -unit building with a first -floor commercial use fronting a street, courtyard, or paseo Q. First Floor Entry Standard 1: Individual residential unit entrances a. Residential front door standards i. Minimum entry sidewalk width Vf ii. Entry stoop, terrace and patio area 2: Lobby Entrances a. Location standards and accessibility i. Sidewalk entry width ii. Entry landing area iii. Prohibited primary entries 6 1 P a g e 35-234 Attachment No. PC 6 Project Correspondence Tmplt 04/03/18 35-235 From: Anne -Marie Angeloff <amangeloff@gmail.com> Sent: May 01, 2025 10:43 AM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Plan Number: PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. I am writing as a concerned resident about the proposed development along MacArthur Blvd and Bonita Canyon Drive (1650 Ford Road) for a 27 unit residential dwelling. This project calls for 67 parking spots and the driveway will be near the cul de sac on Ford Road. In their proposal the developer says "The vehicular access will come from the end of Ford Road that has little traffic". This is just blatantly false. This is an area that has intense bike and foot traffic as well as significant car traffic on the weekends. This is frequently used by young children not only from the adjoining neighborhoods but also from areas close by in Newport Beach. The pickleball courts are always full, the tennis courts have tons of people waiting and the fields and playgrounds are packed. This property was proposed a few years ago and shot down because of the concerns for traffic among others. This is a tiny space and cramming SIXTY SEVEN parking spaces for 27 units is absolutely horrific. It will be messy and lower home values in our area. It will look like Irvine all over again. And it makes the area unsafe for our kids to walk or ride bikes to the park. I am vehemently opposed to the city potentially allowing this property to be developed to squeeze so many people into a small area. This is Newport Beach and we should have higher standards. Please let me know when the next City Council meeting is planned so that we as a neighborhood can show up to speak. Sincerely, Anne -Marie Angeloff 35-236 From: Port Street Mom <portstreetmom@gmail.com> Sent: June 19, 2025 5:40 PM To: Arregui, Jerry Subject: Ford Rd Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Hi Jerry Thanks for taking the time yesterday to answer my questions about the proposed Ford Rd development project. I sent out a community email with some of the information you shared. I am relieved to hear the new project will be required to use the existing ATT driveway, as creating a new one in that small area seems unsafe. Janice Grace 9494137848 35-23 7 From: jane owen <jane714owen@gmail.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 4:46 PM To: Arregui, Jerry Subject: Old Ford Road condo project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear sir, I live in the Portstreets for 30 years. I've seen lots of changes come and go. Some productive, some not. The plans for the new condo project on Old Rd., Road I believe is not in the best interest of most people. The Pickleball courts, tennis courts, soccer fields, basketball courts, usually fill the parking lot daily with cars and people. Also as you drive down old Ford Road the baseball fields and soccer fields fill the entire street with cars that spill into the Portstreets neighborhood as well. I believe additional traffic due to the condo project plus visitors plus maintenance plus repair man plus housekeepers, etc. etc. will provide an overload of traffic on that road which is already crowded. A better use of that area would be additional sports facilities, such as a park, Pickleball courts or even an additional basketball court. Thank you for your consideration Jane Owen 1715 Port Margate 714-745-9982. 35-238 From: Jody Ghozland <jody@trafficgeeks.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 5:10 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Plan Number: PA2025-0056 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Community Feedback on Plan Number: PA2025-0056 Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding the proposed development identified as Plan Number: PA2025-0056, located adjacent to the AT&T building along Ford Road. As you may recall, a similar project was proposed in 2019 and was met with considerable community feedback. The current iteration of the plan proposes a more intensive use of the site, with 27 residential units —six more than previously proposed —and a maximum building height of 47 feet, which is ten feet taller than the 2019 version. This increase in density and height on such a compact parcel raises several concerns for those of us who live and work in the area. Chief among them are: Traffic Congestion: The influx of new residents and associated service vehicles (garbage trucks, delivery vans, ride -shares) will inevitably strain the already limited capacity of Ford Road and nearby intersections. Parking Impact: Overflow parking from the development will likely spill into public areas, further burdening residents and local businesses. Scale and Compatibility: A 47-foot-high structure is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood's character and may set a precedent for future developments that are incompatible with our community's scale. While I appreciate the City's commitment to housing development, I believe responsible growth must align with the infrastructure and character of the neighborhood. I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to consider these concerns seriously and request that a 35-239 revised proposal more appropriately reflect the community's feedback and the unique constraints of the site. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your ongoing service to our city. Sincerely, Jody Ghozland 35-240 From: Jenna Orzano <jenna.orzano@gmail.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 5:28 PM To: Arregui, Jerry Subject: Opposition to Proposed Condo Development Adjacent to the Port Streets Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed condominium development adjacent to the Port Streets neighborhood. This development poses significant concerns for our community. The additional traffic generated by new residents, delivery services (Amazon, mail), trash collection, and moving trucks would severely impact the safety and quality of life for current residents — particularly children who walk, bike, and play throughout the Port Streets. Ford Road is already under considerable strain, especially during afternoon hours due to activities at the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Adding more residential traffic to this already congested area would be both irresponsible and hazardous. This proposed development also threatens to erode the character and propertyvalues of the Port Streets. Introducing a high -density, multi -family unit so close to our single-family neighborhood is incompatible with the established community and will diminish real estate values. Residents purchased their homes in the Port Streets with a reasonable expectation that the surrounding area would maintain its low -density residential character. Additionally, there are serious implications for Andersen Elementary School. Allowing new multi -family units immediate access to this school would likely lead to increased class sizes, reduced attention per student, and strain on school resources —directly impacting the quality of education our children receive. We urge the City of Newport Beach to reject this proposed development in order to preserve the safety, infrastructure, school quality, and long-term value of our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jenna Orzano (Port Streets resident and Andersen Elementary family) 35-241 From: Justin Zev <justin@visionandsound.tv> Sent: June 25, 2025 5:45 PM To: Arregui, Jerry Cc: Blom, Noah Subject: RE: Ford Rd Condo Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Jerry, I'm also curious about the 40ft outside radius requirement related to fire apparatus being able to safely turn around. There are many cut de sacs in Newport where they don't allow you to park as it infringes on the turning radii and they ticket for this all the time. How is this developer getting around this requirement. I realize that having a 2"d access on Bonita Cyn Rd would solve this issue but I assume they aren't allowed to have an access that close to McArthur so this is being overlooked. Regards, Justin Zev Vision and Sound Direct 310.625.8549 www.visionandsound.tv Los Angeles Orange County 2617 N. Sepulveda, Suite 200 1935 Port Locksleigh Place Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Newport Beach, CA 92660 C LJ S T O M S '{ S T E M 1" T E G F2 .A T C> F2 S From: Justin Zev Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 5:11 PM To: jarregui@newportbeachca.gov Cc: nblom@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Ford Rd Condo Project Hi Jerry, I'm a Port Streets residence who understands the need for more housing but it sure seems like adding 27 additional unit to a small piece of land is very excessive. I'm going to make the assumption that anyone buying one of these condos is not single, and in most cases, already has kids as people are most likely to purchase for the access to Andersen Elementary school. If that's the case, that means a minimum of 54 additional vehicles for husband and wife + workers, etc. and I'm not convinced that this street will support that as it's already chaos during peak hours trying to get from Ford Rd to McArthur. 35-242 also think that driveway is dangerous as we ride our bikes along there all the time and there are many young kids who ride along that path. If it could be accessed from McArthur or Bonita it wouldn't impact Port streets residence as much but my guess is that wasn't an option so they are trying to squeeze in access from an already very busy road and cul-de-sac. am also not sure what these condos will sell for but my guess is that they will be 1 /5 of the average Port streets home value which is a completely different demographic and could have many conflicts with what makes Andersen such a great school. If you wouldn't mind, please keep me up to date on how these progresses. I also think having a hearing at 6pm on July 3rd seems like it was intentionally selected so that few people will show up. That's probably one of the days of the year where people are most likely to be out of town and unbale to attend. Regards, Justin Zev Vision and Sound Direct 310.625.8549 www.visionandsound.tv Los Angeles Orange County 2617 N. Sepulveda, Suite 200 1935 Port Locksleigh Place Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Newport Beach, CA 92660 C UST CDP M SYSTE M I "TE C� FRATC30F4S 35-243 From: Julie Meggers <julie@meggers.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 6:26 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development — Plan PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom, I'm writing as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form. This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units —more than the 2019 proposal —and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern. While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. Sincerely, Julie Meggers 1815 Port Ashley Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-887-5550 35-244 From: Shelli Black <shelIiblack@me.com> Sent: June 26, 2025 10:00 AM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: PLEASE VOTE NO- Ford Road Development — Plan PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Councilman Blom and Mr. Arregui, I oppose the above project, as currently planned. I am out of town and unable to attend the hearing on July 3rd. I am a homeowner in the Port Streets neighborhood and am concerned about the proposed development. Back in 2019 a similar project (with approximately 30 % less units and 30% lower in height) was denied. Why is this new project even on the table? The Ford Road area near the development already has significant parking and traffic issues because of the community parks and athletic fields. Adding so many units will only increase those issues, and add additional safety concerns for those of us living in the Port Streets. Development is likely to occur at this site, but the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. Sincerely, Shelli Black 1721 Port Ashley Place (949) 500-8523 35-245 From: Vita Prattes <vitaprattes@gmail.com> Sent: June 26, 2025 9:41 AM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Cc: Jason Prattes Subject: Ford Rd. Housing Proposal / Plan PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom, I'm a new homeowner in the Port Streets. My husband and I purchased our house on 1947 Port Laurent Place in 2024 because we loved the community, specifically the open land, abundance of parks, fields and natural wilderness. We moved from neighboring city, Huntington Beach, to escape what has become a "concrete jungle" with too many cars and horrible traffic on a daily basis. As you may know, HB is cluttered with hundreds of tall skinny houses or "bowling alley" houses (as locals call them) that define the downtown area nowadays. So, I am very disheartened to learn about the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056) which seems to resemble this exact style and vibe. I strongly oppose this project for many reasons. There are way too many units being squeezed into a small space. But more importantly, this location is already congested with heavy traffic and poses a safety concern to pedestrians and children who frequently play and walk in this area. I fear building 27 new homes would create an even greater risk for the potential of a horrible accident. It wouldn't be a question of "if" but rather a question of "when" this would happen. While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. 27 homes, 27 families/residents is simply put way too many people/cars for this small area. Thank you for your time in hearing my concerns. Thankyou, Vita Prattes and Jason Prattes 35-246 (714) 322-4969 1947 Port Laurent Place, Newport Beach CA 92660 Vita Prattes Realtor° I License # 02037037 Phone: 714.322.4969 35-247 From: SNLIVINGST <snlivingst@aol.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 6:35 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Ford Rd condo project... Plan Number: PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom, I'm writing as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form. This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units — more than the 2019 proposal —and a 47-foot-tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern. While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. NB has so little open space left it would be ashamed to lose this space for condo units which are inappropriate for this small location. It would be more appropriate for the city to purchase the land for recreational use. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. Sincerely, Stephen Livingston 35-248 From: Amy <amy.l.mclean@gmail.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 6:45 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: PA2025-0049 / 0056 - Public Comment [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Sirs, I would like to register my concerns over the proposed development of townhouses on Ford Road (PA2025-0049/0056). I am a resident of the nearby Port Streets neighborhood with two children. The planned entrance to the development is proposed to be shared with the existing entrance of the AT&T building. In addition to this road being already heavily used by people visiting the community parks and athletic fields, this location crosses a bike path used by students living in the Port Streets neighbourhood to commute to CDM Middle School and CDM High School. The additional traffic generated by the new development poses a significant potential hazard to the students using the bike lane, and will only increase congestion and noise. The plans state in the Project Description & Justification that the development has been designed to ensure it "blends seamlessly with the surrounding residential development currently located within the Port Streets" and "The proposed design, bulk, and scale of the development is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development. The open design, architecture and orientation of the project helps ensure compatibility with the existing and long-term development pattern of the Port Streets". The Port Streets community consists of over 1,000 one and two -storey single-family homes, spaced out on Lots which average —7,000 square feet. There are no townhouses in this community, much Less four -storey homes. The bulk, scale and density of the planned projects is not consistent with the existing two-story single -home housing. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge there are no plans to change the zoning of the Port Streets to allow 4-story town homes that support the statement that the new development reflects the 'long term development' of the existing community. As a home -owner who found purchasing a home for my family a daunting prospect, I am very sympathetic to the stated goals of providing additional starter homes to Newport Beach, and don't object to the development of this particular location. However, this particular development seems ill-conceived for this particular location, given the proposed entrance, scale and density. I would also note that a prior development received strong community opposition, and that was on a smaller scale and density. I would urge the city to take community feedback seriously, and reconsider the proposal as presented. 35-249 Sincerely, Amy McLean 1948 Port Claridge PL Newport Beach 92660 CA 35-250 From: Teresa <tmanni56@gmail.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 7:21 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; nblom@newportbeach.gov Subject: Terrible Ford Road project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom, I'm writing as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form. This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units —more than the 2019 proposal —and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern. While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. I know Mr. Blom was a chef in Costa Mesa and Newport, I grew up in Costa Mesa and have lived in Newport since 1987. I strongly feel Mr. Blom has no interest in my area, why would you cram an area with so many children around for a few small apartments. Have you even seen that area?? Sincerely Teresa Manni Sent from my iPad 35-251 From: Annie Sulentic <annesulentic@gmail.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 7:27 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development — Plan PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom, My name is Annie Sulentic. My family and I are residents of the Port Streets neighborhood and I'm writing with concerns about the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form. My main concerns are parking limitations and the already heavy congestion and traffic in the area. 27 units and a 47-foot-tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern. The current scale and density of the proposal are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. What gets approved will directly impact our neighborhood —traffic, safety, parking, noise, and overall character. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. Sincerely, Annie Sulentic 1836 Port Ashley Place 35-252 From: Catherine Bartz <cbartz99@gmail.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 7:36 PM To: Arregui, Jerry Subject: Proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui, I'm writing as a concerned homeowner and resident of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form. This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units —more than the 2019 proposal —and a 47-foot-tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to the concern. In addition, the current scale, style and density are not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. Sincerely, Catherine Bartz 2233 Port Carlisle Place 949-500-0605 35-253 From: Kristen Angle <kristen.edler@gmail.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 7:43 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development — Plan PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom, I'm writing as a resident and homeowner in the Port Streets neighborhood to express my concerns about the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose the project as it's currently proposed. This stretch of Ford Road already faces serious parking challenges and heavy traffic from park and field users. It is also a key access point in and out of our neighborhood. Adding 27 units and a 47-foot-tall building would only make these problems worse. I'm also concerned about safety and would urge that updated traffic studies be done before anything moves forward. The lack of clear ingress and egress plans —especially with the mention of using the AT&T driveway —is troubling. I also want to flag a growing concern among many of us: if this development were to fall under the Andersen Elementary school zone, it would add another layer of pressure, as class sizes there are already increasing simply from our local neighborhood enrollment and NMUSD transfer students. While I understand that some development may happen at this site, the current scale and density just don't fit with the character, community, and infrastructure of the surrounding neighborhood. I hope you'll work with our community to reconsider or scale back the proposal. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued service. Best regards, Kristen Angle 2427 Port Whitby 35-254 From: Laurie Fitzgerald <FitzgeraldLaurie@outlook.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 7:49 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development — Plan PA2025- [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom, I'm writing as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form. This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units —more than the 2019 proposal —and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern. While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. Sincerely, Laurie Fitzgerald-Letourneau 1927 Port Cardiff Sent from my iPhone 35-255 From: I neppell <nneppell@outlook.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 7:57 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development — Plan PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom, I'm writing as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form. This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units —more than the 2019 proposal —and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern. While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. Sincerely, LA Neppell 1848 Newport Hills Dr. E. Newport Beach, CA 92660 35-256 From: Nancy Gadol <nancygadol@gmail.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 8:44 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development — Plan PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom, I'm writing as a concerned resident/homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form. This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units —more than the 2019 proposal —and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern. While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. Sincerely, Nancy Gadol 1954 Port Seabourne Way Nancygadolggmail.com 35-257 From: Karol Hatch <karolhatch @gmail.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 8:59 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Ford Road development project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom, I'm writing as a concerned homeowner in the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025- 0056). I strongly oppose this project in its current form. This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units —more than the 2019 proposal —and a 47-foot- tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern . While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. We went through this in 2019, with the Hines development project and pointed out a number of issues for a big development project- for this specific area. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. Sincerely, Karol Hatch 1836 Port Ashley Place - Newport Beach 92660 Sent from my iPhone 35-258 From: David Verfaillie <david_verfaiIIie@yahoo.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 9:05 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development — Plan PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Councilman Blom and Mr. Arregui, I am a homeowner on Port Abbey and and writing to express my strong disagreement with the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units — more than the 2019 proposal —and a 47-foot-tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern. While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. Sincerely, David Verfaillie 1621 Port Abbey PI. Newport Beach, CA 92660 35-259 From: Polly Verfaillie <pollyverf@outlook.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 9:33 PM To: Arregui, Jerry; Blom, Noah Subject: Opposition to Ford Road Development — Plan PA2025-0056 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui and Councilman Blom, I'm writing as a concerned resident and homeowner of the Port Streets neighborhood regarding the proposed development on Ford Road (Plan Number: PA2025-0056). We live directly behind the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and would be impacted greatly if this project were to go through. I strongly oppose this project in its current form. This area on Ford Road has parking limitations, is already heavily impacted by traffic (by those using the community parks, athletic fields, and this being a main point of access in and out of the Port Streets). In addition, traffic studies and safety concerns should to be taken into consideration. Adding 27 units —more than the 2019 proposal —and a 47-foot-tall building will only worsen congestion and strain infrastructure. The lack of clarity around ingress/egress and the proposed use of the AT&T driveway adds to my concern. While I understand development may occur at this site, the current scale and density are simply not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to take community feedback seriously and reconsider or scale back the proposal. Thank you for your time and for representing our interests. Sincerely, Polly Verfaillie 1621 Port Abbey Place, Newport Beach CA 92660 35-260 From: Amy Hykes <amyhykes@hotmail.com> Sent: June 25, 2025 9:47 PM To: Blom, Noah Cc: Arregui, Jerry Subject: Plan Number: PA2025-0056 Input [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Councilmember Noah Blom, Planning Commission Members, and Mr. Jerry Arregui, As residents of the Port Streets, we are writing to express strong concerns regarding the proposed development project under Plan Number: PA2025-0056. The primary issues we and our neighbors are worried about are traffic safety and overdevelopment density. This project would significantly increase vehicular traffic in an area that is already congested, particularly at the intersections of Mesa Road & Bonita Canyon, and Mesa Road & Ford Road. During the school year, traffic regularly backs up for multiple light cycles as cars try to exit onto Bonita Canyon. The development's sole exit on Ford Road will only worsen these delays. In the afternoons, additional traffic from soccer practices, pickleball matches, and food trucks already strains the area. Many vehicles double park along Ford Road to pick up children from sports practices, creating unsafe conditions on a street not designed to handle such volume. The proposed development would only compound these issues. More importantly, this is a high -traffic corridor for children and teens on a -bikes and on foot, especially those attending CdM High School. The PTA recently invested in expanded bike parking due to the sharp rise in student ridership. Ford Road is a heavily trafficked route for these students, and placing the only entrance and exit of a 27-unit residential complex directly on this path significantly increases the risk of accidents. One of the reasons we chose to live in this community was the walkability and safety of these routes. We also have major concerns about parking. The proposal includes only two parking spaces per unit, including some in tandem garages. In practice, as you know many residents in Newport Beach use garages for storage, not parking. What's more, tandem spaces are often underutilized due to the inconvenience of moving cars to access the car parked in the inner space. This will likely lead residents to park along already limited street parking on Ford Road or in the heavily used park parking lot. The development includes only 13 guest spaces, two of which are designated for truck turnarounds, leaving just 11 true overflow spots. With 27 units, 8 of which with tandem spots, and limited enforcement mechanisms, this is not nearly sufficient. Without proactive planning and enforcement to prevent residents from using park parking, we will see significant spillover that disrupts both park access and neighborhood streets. What would the plan be for construction vehicle parking during the buildout? Will trucks occupy public park spaces or street parking that residents rely on? It's also worth noting that the last proposal for this lot in 2019 included only 21 units with a maximum height of 37 feet. This current proposal increases the density to 27 units and the height to 47 feet. This 35-261 proposed project seems wholly out of scale with the surrounding area and inappropriate for such a small lot. Please preserve the character, safety, and functionality of our neighborhood parks and streets. The recent addition of pickleball courts has transformed the park into a vibrant multi -generational hub where teens and seniors connect through casual sports. That's a rare and wonderful feature in our community, and one we should protect. Please don't over develop the "tiny lot" with an out of place looking three story building towering over our outdoor space while creating safety hazards and parking issues. We urge you to reject this proposal. Sincerely, Amy Hykes 35-262 Attachment E Resolution No. PC2025-012 35-263 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 RESOLUTION NO. PC2025-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CONSTRUCT 27 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED ON AN UNADDRESSED PARCEL ABUTTING 1650 FORD ROAD (PA2025-0049) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Ford Road Ventures LLC ("Applicant"), on behalf of the property owner Pacific Bell Telephone Company ("Owner") concerning property located at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02), and an undeveloped and unaddressed property abutting 1650 Ford Road (458-361-10), and legally described as Lot A and Lot B, respectively, of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2019-001 ("Properties"). 2. The Applicant proposes to develop a 27-unit, for sale, residential townhome complex upon the undeveloped and unaddressed property, near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection, northeast of the parking lot for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and west of the AT&T Facility located at 1650 Ford Road ("Project Site"). The proposed development includes two-, three-, and four -bedroom units ranging from 1,916 to 2,989 square feet. The development will include a two -car garage for each unit, 10 uncovered guest parking spaces and two uncovered delivery spaces for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces. Units will be distributed within four, detached, four-story buildings with a maximum structure height of 47 feet and 11 inches, above the established grade. The development will provide resident -serving amenities including an outdoor picnic area and an outdoor firepit area. Vehicular access to the Project Site will be taken from Ford Road, through a shared driveway with the adjacent AT&T facility. Pedestrian access will be provided to the adjacent Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail. The project also proposes improvements to the neighboring AT&T Facility property including the installation of a gate to restrict access to its parking lot, repaving of the parking lot, new landscaping, repainting the building, and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications monopole. Lastly, the project will subdivide the undeveloped and unaddressed Project Site and reconfigure the lot line between the Project Site and the AT&T Facility property. ("Project"). 3. The following approvals are required from the City of Newport Beach ("City) to implement the Project: Major Site Development Review ("SDR"): i. A SDR is required for projects proposing 5 or more units with a tract map. Though not required as discussed in Fact 5 below, the Applicant has requested a SDR to allow for an increase in maximum structure height pursuant to Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) of the Newport 35-264 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 2 of 38 Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") A SDR is also requested to allow deviations from four multi -unit objective design standards pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. Vesting Tentative Tract Map ("VTTM"): i. A VTTM is requested to adjust the easterly property line between the undeveloped Project Site and the AT&T facility to increase the lot to approximately 1.16 acres, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes within the undeveloped Project Site, to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units for condominium purposes. 4. On September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2024-16 and 2024-17, approving amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC to establish the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts in Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) ("Housing Overlay") and to create multi -unit objective design standards in Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. The new sections serve to implement Policy Actions 1A through 1 G and 3A in the 6t" Cycle Housing Element ("Housing Element") of the General Plan. The Project Site was identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141. 5. Subsequently, on June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, approving amendments to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments adjusted the height limitation for certain properties within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District to accommodate potential residential development with the intendent prescribed density range. Specifically, these amendments allowed for the base height limit of the Project Site to be increased from 37 feet to 48 feet. Independent of this amendment, pursuant to Section 20.30.060(C) (Height Limits and Exceptions — Increase in Height Limit) of the NBMC, the Project has the flexibility to increase the allowed base height limit of 37 feet up to 55 feet through the approval of a SDR. Facts in support of findings are included in Findings D through G. 6. The Project Site is located within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District ("HO-4 Subarea"). The Project Site is designated as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District. 7. The Project Site is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required. 8. The Project does not include the construction of affordable housing. However, the City's Sites Inventory within the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element contains adequate other sites suitable for affordable housing opportunities and therefore is consistent with the State's no net loss provisions. 07-29-24 35-265 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 3 of 38 9. A public hearing was held on July 3, 2025, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and its implementing guidelines set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50 on July 23, 2024, certifying Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023060699 ("PEIR"), approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC which are available at: Housing Implementation Program EIR. 2. The Project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code ("PRC") and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines because, inasmuch as the property involved is within the HO-4 Subarea, the Project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations; and would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial more adverse impact than addressed in the PEIR. 3. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines provides, in relevant part: a. Projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. b. In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; iii. Are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or 07-29-24 35-266 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 4 of 38 iv. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. c. If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. d. This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions: The project is consistent with: A. A community plan adopted as part of a general plan; B. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development; or C. A general plan of a local agency; and An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan. 4. As part of its decision -making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the Project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. Additional CEQA review is only triggered if the Project's new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in PEIR such that major revisions to the PEIR would be required. A detailed consistency analysis has been prepared by T & B Planning Inc., dated June 2025, which was peer reviewed and accepted by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference and the additional findings set forth in Section 4 below. 5. The Project is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by the City's General Plan Housing Implementation Program as analyzed by the PEIR, and the required determinations can be made, as detailed in Exhibit "A." Therefore, in accordance with Section 21083.3 of the PRC and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required to approve the Project. The Planning Commission determines: a. The Project is consistent with the development density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre established by existing zoning and general plan policies for which the PEIR was certified; 07-29-24 35-267 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 5 of 38 b. There are no significant environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project or the parcels on which the Project would be located; c. There are no significant environmental effects of the Project that were not analyzed as significant effects in the PEIR; d. There are no potentially significant off -site impacts or cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the PEIR; and e. There are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the PEIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior PEIR. 6. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Major Site Development Review In accordance with Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews — Findings and Decisions) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject Zoning District Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project Site is located within the HO-4 Subarea and is identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141. Pursuant to Section 20.28.050 (B) (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts — Uses Allowed) in addition to the uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted in the base zoning district, multi -unit residential development that meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement shall be permitted within the HO Overlay Zoning District. 2. Pursuant to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, the HO-4 Subarea requires a density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Based on the proposed 1.16-acre lot, the Project results in a density of 23.27 units per acre and meets the density requirement of the HO-4 Subarea. 07-29-24 35-268 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 6 of 38 3. The HO-4 subarea requires a zero -foot front, side, streetside and rear setback. However, footnote No. 3 of Table 2-16 requires that any portion of a building that is over 20 feet in height, which includes the Project's third and fourth floors, shall provide a 20- foot setback from the street right-of-way. The Project is bounded to the north by Bonita Canyon Drive and to the south by Ford Road. Though only the upper floors of required a 20-foot setback from the street right-of-way, the Project provides a varying streetside setbacks of 20 to 45-feet from of the entire height of the two buildings nearest to Bonita Canyon Drive and additional setbacks for the fourth -floor covered patios. The portion of Ford Road directly adjacent to the Project Site is dedicated as open space and not public right-of-way; therefore, the upper floor setback would not apply at this location. The Project also provides varying setbacks for the other setback areas including, a 6 to 56- foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west, and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project complies with setback requirements. 4. Table 2-16 establishes a maximum height for the HO-4 subarea consistent with the base zone of the property, which in this case, is 37 feet. However, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. The Project proposes a height of 47-feet, 11 inches to the highest ridge as measured from the established grade as indicated on the VTTM pursuant to Section 20.30.050 (13)(1) (Grade Establishment — Subdivisions) of the NBMC. Independent of the amendment, pursuant to Section 20.30.060(C) (Height Limits and Exceptions — Increase in Height Limit) of the NBMC, the Project has the flexibility to increase the allowed base height limit of 37 feet up to 55 feet through the approval of a SDR. Facts in support of findings are included in Findings D through G. 5. Table 2-17 (Residential Off -Street Parking Requirements for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) of the NBMC requires 1.8 spaces per unit that includes two bedrooms, 2.0 spaces per unit that includes three or more bedrooms and 0.3 spaces per unit for visitor parking. The Project proposes 27 dwelling units, eight with two bedrooms and 19 with three or more bedrooms, resulting in a requirement of 61 spaces. Project provides a two - car garage for each unit, 10 guest parking spaces and two delivery spaces for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces. The Project therefore complies with the minimum parking requirement. 6. Pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC, multi -unit objective design standards are applicable to any residential project with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. These standards ensure the highest possible design quality and provide a baseline standard for new multi -unit developments throughout the City. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference, the Project deviates from the following four objective design standards: 07-29-24 35-269 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 7 of 38 (1) Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone); (2) 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length); (3) 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation — Minimum Depth); and (4) 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Number) of the NBMC. The Project otherwise complies with the design standards and, in come some cases, exceeds the intent of the standards. Section 20.40.185(C) of the NBMC allows for deviations from any objective design standards through the approval of a SDR by the Planning Commission if the Applicant can demonstrate that strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the objective design standards and that the project possesses compensating design and development features that meets or exceeds the intent of the objective design standards. The facts in support of the required findings are included in Findings H through I. 7. The HO-4 subarea requires a minimum building separation of 10 feet. The Project proposes varying building separations of 22 feet to 33 feet. The Project therefore complies with the minimum building separation requirement. 8. The HO-4 subarea requires that at least 75 square feet of common space to be provided per dwelling unit throughout the Project Site with a minimum length and width of 15 feet. The Project is therefore required to provide a minimum of 2,025 square feet of common open space. Section 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defines common open space as the land area within a residential development that is not individually owned or dedicated for public use and that is designed, intended, and reserved exclusively for the shared enjoyment or use by all the residents and their guests including but not limited to areas of scenic or natural beauty, barbecue areas, landscaped areas, turf areas, and habitat areas. The Project provides a total of 2,857 square feet of common open area within an outdoor picnic area and firepit lounge area. The Project therefore complies with the minimum common open space requirement. 9. The HO-4 subarea requires that at least 5% of the proposed gross floor area per unit be dedicated to private open space. Qualifying areas of private open space shall have a dimension of at least 6 feet in length and width. Section 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defined private open spaces as outdoor or unenclosed areas directly adjoining and accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive private enjoyment and use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests including but not limited to a balcony, deck, porch or terrace. The Project requires between 96 to 150 square feet of private open space per unit. The Project provides between 139 to 156 square feet of qualifying private open space per unit in the form of balconies and covered decks and therefore complies with the minimum private open space requirement. The Project provides additional private open space for certain units in the form of additional balconies. While these areas do not count as qualifying private open space, as they do not meet the minimum width requirement, the balconies provide additional private open space areas for residents and furthers the intent of this requirement. 07-29-24 35-270 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 8 of 38 Finding: B. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the following applicable criteria: i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and A The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Site is categorized as Public Facilities (PF) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. However, as indicated in Land Use Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities) residential use of any property including within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category. In this case, the HO-4 subarea would allow residential development on the Project Site in addition to the uses allow in of the underlying PF land use category and zoning district. 2. The Project is consistent with the following General Plan Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Circulation Element policies that establish fundamental criteria for the formation and implementation of new residential development, including, but not limited to the following: a. Housing Element Policy 3.2. Encourage housing developments to offer a wide spectrum of housing choices, designs, and configurations. See finding LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices below. b. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.3 (Range of Residential Choices). Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. 07-29-24 35-271 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 9 of 38 Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element. The Project proposes a 27-unit residential condominium complex consisting of for -sale, attached single -unit dwellings offered in four distinct floor plan configurations ranging from two to four bedrooms and 1,916 to 2,989 square feet. This Project would diversify the City's housing stock, accommodate a variety of household sizes, respond to market demand, and support the City's efforts to increase the supply of housing throughout the City. c. Land Use Element Policy LU3.2 (Growth and Change). Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The Project is proposed on an undeveloped and underutilized property within an area of the City that is considerably developed. The Project will add 27 attached single -unit dwellings to the City's housing stock which furthers the City's efforts of increasing and diversifying the housing stock. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department reviewed the Project's projected traffic generation analysis and found that Ford Road would adequately serve the project. The Project is projected to produce 182 average daily trips, which does not exceed the 300 average daily trip threshold, and therefore, no additional traffic analysis is required. Additionally, the Public Works Department reviewed the submitted sewer and water demand study and found that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project, as adequate infrastructure is available and has sufficient capacity. d. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities). Residential use of any property included within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category or density limit established through Policy LU 4.1, Table LU 1 and Table LU 2, or any other conflict in the Land Use Element. A general plan amendment is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity zoning overlay district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay districts specified in Policy LU 4.4 is an average over the entire property or project site. For example, a portion of a development site may be developed at a higher density than specified by Policy 4.4 provided other portions of the site are 07-29-24 35-272 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 10 of 38 developed at lower densities such that the average does not exceed the maximum. Density calculations and total units identified in LU 4.4 do not include units identified as pipeline units or units permitted pursuant to State density bonus law. The Project is located within Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 and is located within the HO-4 Subarea. The Project proposes 27 residential condominiums on a 1.16-acre property which yields a density of 23.27 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the allowed density of the HO-4 Subarea. e. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.6 (Character and Quality of Residential Properties). Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized. While Policy LU 5.1.6 is intended for single-family detached and two -unit projects, the Project includes large setback areas that are thoroughly landscaped with drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species. While the HO-4 Subarea does not require any base floor setbacks along the front, side or rear property lines, the Project provides varying setbacks including a 20 to 45-foot streetside setback on the north, a 6 to 56-foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west, and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the Project Site. This setback design allows the Project to better reflect the character of a single-family neighborhood. Trash containers will be located within each dwelling unit's garage and screened from the public right-of-way. The visibility of driveway and parking paving has been minimized through use of landscaping to prevent an unpleasant visual experience to the surrounding neighborhood. f. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.9 (Character and Quality of Multi -Family Residential) Require that multi -family dwellings be designed to convey a high -quality architectural character in accordance with the following principles: Building Elevations Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal fagades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume Provide street- and path -facing elevations with high -quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes. Ground Floor Treatment 07-29-24 35-273 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 11 of 38 Set ground -floor residential uses back from the sidewalk or from the right-of- way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping. Raise ground -floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking space. Encourage stoops and porches for ground -floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways. Roof Design Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units' architecture. Open Space and Amenity Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference, the Project complies with the majority (48 of 52) of the applicable objective design standards and in some cases exceeds the intent of the standards. However, the Applicant requests minor deviations of four objective design standards. The Objective Design Standards were developed to implement Land Use Policy LU5.1.9, therefore compliance with these standards with negligible deviation ensures that the Project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU5.1.9. g. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.1 (Compatible Development). Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors Although the Project Site has an irregular shape, the Project design compactly arranges the four separate buildings to maximize site efficiency and preserve larger than required setbacks. The Bonita Canyon Sports Park unique parcel shape extends in front of the northwest portion of the Project Site, further setting back the proposed development up to 50 feet from the Bonita Canyon right-of-way in that location. The Project site design includes interior drive aisles and resident amenity areas which are screened from public view. The Project's large setbacks, landscaped edge conditions, and location of drive 07-29-24 35-274 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 12 of 38 aisles and residential amenities reduce the visual impact of the Project and ensures compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. h. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.2 (Form and Environment). Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. The contemporary coastal architectural style of the Project has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Harbor View community. Architectural articulations and high -quality materials including brick and wood siding are utilized to blend in with the character of the surrounding community. Additionally, the Project includes two color schemes: a coastal color scheme with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white. These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes throughout the City. i. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.3 (Ambient Lighting). Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan which shows that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. Land Use Policy LU 6.15.23 (Sustainable Development Practices). Require that development achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs -generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR, Title 24, Parts 6 — California Energy 07-29-24 35-275 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 13 of 38 Code) and the Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11 - CALGreen). Additionally, the Project would implement water -efficient landscaping, water quality best management practices and low impact development practices. The Project is within proximity to Newport Center commercial and office developments and would provide housing near this employment center. The Project includes pedestrian linkage to the Ford Road public sidewalk and Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail which offer provide pedestrian and bicyclist connections to nearby destinations such as Newport Center, approximately two miles away, and the Newport Hills Shopping Center, one mile away. The Project is also located in close proximity to the existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes provided along Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Drive. k. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.3 (New Development Maintained Responsibility). Ensure minimization of traffic congestion impacts and parking impacts and ensure proper roadway maintenance through review and approval of Construction Management Plans associated with new development proposals in residential neighborhoods. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. This ensures that any traffic congestion impacts associated with the construction process is minimized to the greatest extent possible. I. Circulation Element Policy CE 7.1.7 (Project Site Design Supporting Alternate Modes). Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. See finding LU 6.15.23 Sustainable Development Practices above. 3. Facts 1 through 9 in support of Finding A are hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The Project Site is not located within a Specific Plan Area. 5. The Project includes various intentional architectural design features including recessed balconies, varied rooflines, and material changes with a neutral, earthy and coastal color pallet. These design features result in well -articulated facades which reduce the visual bulk of the Project and allow each unit to appear as distinct homes rather than a single, unarticulated, building. Additionally, the Project is integrated with the Bonita Canyon Sports Park through the use of landscaping and pedestrian walkways. 6. The Project will utilize an existing curb cut for vehicular access from Ford Road. The curb opening will be shared between the Project Site and the adjacent AT&T facility property; however, a distinct drive aisle will be constructed for the Project. Offsite 07-29-24 35-276 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 14 of 38 improvements include the installation of a gate restricting access to the AT&T facility parking lot. 7. The Project landscaping complies with Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscaping) and Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping) of the NBMC. Additionally, the Project complies with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance ("WELO") which requires the installation and maintenance of drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species. The Project's varied setbacks, 6 to 56 feet, allows for substantial perimeter landscaping, with enhanced treatments along Bonita Canyon Drive to improve the view for motorists and residents to the north, and along Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail to enhance the pedestrians and park user experience. Landscaping is also integrated throughout the Project Site, including around the picnic and firepit areas to enhance the residential experience. 8. Pursuant to Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection) of the NBMC, projects shall preserve significant visual resources from public views and corridors including identified in Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views) of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan. The Project Site is not within the vicinity of any Public Viewpoints, nor any Coastal View Roads as identified in Figure NR3. The nearest designated public viewpoint is located at Big Canyon Park, over a mile west of the Project Site. The nearest designated coastal view road is MacArthur Boulevard, south of the San Joaquin Hills Road, over a mile south of the Project Site. Due to the distance and urbanized nature of the Project area, the Project is not anticipated to impact any public views. Finding: C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor will it endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of person residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project has been designed to minimize aesthetic impacts to the surrounding neighborhood to the greatest extent possible by providing an architecturally pleasing contemporary coastal architectural style design with articulation and high -quality materials. 2. The Project has been designed to have adequate, efficient, and safe pedestrian and vehicular access to and from the Project Site within driveways, parking, and loading areas. The Project includes the drive aisles that are located within the Project Site, behind the proposed buildings, which will significantly buffer any vehicle noise produced. The Project is also designed to accommodate and provide safe access for emergency vehicles, and refuse collection vehicles through the Ford Road access point. 3. The Project Site is adjacent to Bonita Canyon Drive, a four -lane primary arterial road with a central median and Ford Road, a two-lane connector road with a central median. 07-29-24 35-277 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 15 of 38 These two roads create large buffers between the Project and the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the north and south. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department reviewed the Project's traffic generation analysis prepared by Pirzadeh & Associates Inc, dated May 13, 2025, which projected 182 average daily trips. The Public Works Department found that found that Ford Road would adequately serve the Project, and no additional traffic analysis is required. 5. The Project requires 61 onsite parking spaces; however, the Project provides 66 onsite parking spaces, including a two -car garage for each unit, 10 guest parking spaces and two delivery spaces. The additional parking and individual unit garage parking will mitigate use of street parking on Ford Road or the adjacent parking lot within the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. 6. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan which shows that lighting values are 1" or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. 7. The Project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, along with all City ordinances and all conditions of approval which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Height Increase The HO-4 subarea limits heights to that of the base zoning district. The underlying zoning district is Public Facilities (PF) which is regulated by the Nonresidential, Nonshoreline Height Limit Area. In this height limit area, the base height limit for structures with flat roofs is 32 feet and the base height limit for structures with sloped roofs is 37 feet. However, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. Though the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, in accordance with Section 20.30.060(C)(3) (Height Limits and Exceptions - Required Findings) of the NBMC, the Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height only after making all the following findings in addition to the findings required pursuant to Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews — Findings and Decision)- Finding-. D. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Examples of project amenities include, but are not limited to: 07-29-24 35-278 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 16 of 38 i. Additional landscaped open space; ii. Increased setback and open areas; iii. Enhancement and protection of public views; Facts in Support of Findina: The HO-4 subarea is not subject to any minimum setback requirement for portions of a building that are below 20-feet in height, which is the Project's first and second floors. However, the Project voluntarily integrates varying setbacks of 6 to 56 feet at the first floor with additional setbacks on the higher levels. These setbacks help create more open areas throughout the Project Site than would otherwise be required by the NBMC. 2. The HO-4 subarea is not subject to any maximum lot coverage requirement. However, the compact site design of the Project is accommodated through the taller builder design which results in a lot coverage of approximately 45%. In comparison, properties located within the Multiple Residential (RM-6000) Zoning District are allowed a maximum lot coverage of 60%. The Project provides additional open area through its compact design and less horizontal massing to reduce the site coverage compared to what is allowed a RM-6000 District, accomplished with the additional height of each building. 3. Fact 9 in Support of Finding A is hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The provided setbacks, open areas, and lower lot coverage offer amenities beyond those otherwise required by the HO-4 subarea and contributes to a more visually appealing project for the neighborhood. Finding: E. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes; Facts in Support of Finding: Facts 5 in support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Architectural articulations and varied materials including high -end stone, brick and wood siding are provided to mirror the high -quality design of the neighborhood. 3. The Project is subject to comply with the City's Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards which ensure a high -quality design. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference, the Project deviates from four objective design standards but otherwise complies with the design standards and, in some cases, exceeds the intent of the standards. The facts in support of findings are included under Findings H and I. Finding: 07-29-24 35-279 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 17 of 38 F. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties. Facts in Support of Finding: The Project is surrounded by the Newport Bluff apartment complex to the north across Bonita Canyon Drive, a parking lot within the Bonita Canyon Sports Park to the west, the Harbor View community to the south across Ford Road and the AT&T facility to the east. 2. The Project is separated from the Newport Bluffs apartment complex by Bonita Canyon Drive, a four -lane primary arterial road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height, and approximately 185 feet from the Project's northmost structures. The Project has been conditioned to include perimeter landscaping along Bonita Canyon Drive, including trees, which will further buffer and soften the fagade of the Project and ensure scale compatibility is maintained. 3. The Project is separated from the Port Street neighborhood by Ford Road, a two-lane connector road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 45 to 60 feet in height. The nearest single unit dwelling within the Port Street neighborhood is approximately 230 feet from the Project's southmost structure. Homes within the Harbor View community consist of single -story to two-story structures and have an allowed maximum height of up to 32 feet. The adjacent AT&T building is approximately 35 feet in height. The changing scale of structures, intervening road with large street trees and distance provides a harmonious transition from the two-story Harbor View community to the Project. 4. The Project's westmost structure is separated from the usable area of the Bonita Canyon Sport Park by approximately 185 feet. Intervening uses include the large parking lot and landscape buffer with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height. In addition to the visual screen provided by the landscaping the setbacks and landscaping within the park adjacent to the Project site, the Project provides upper floor setbacks, balconies, covered decks, and varied rooflines which prevent the appearance of an overly bulky building oriented towards the parking lot and park beyond. 5. The Project height is otherwise allowed pursuant to Ordinance No. 2025-10 as adopted by the City Council on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC to allow for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. These amendments become effective on July 26, 2025. Finding: 07-29-24 35-280 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 18 of 38 G. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. Fact in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, the HO-4 Subarea does not have a floor area ratio (FAR) limitation. Muh-Unit Objective Design Standards Deviation In accordance with Section 20.48.185(A) (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards — Purpose) of the NBMC, the Project is seeking deviation from the following Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards: a) Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone) b) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length) c) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation — Minimum Depth) d) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Number) The Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow deviation of multi -unit objective design standards only after making all the following findings: Finding: H. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section. Facts in Suoaort of Findina: Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone (LPZ)) of the NBMC requires that a 4-foot minimum width zone abutting a building is required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping with a combination of vines, ornamental, grasses, shrubs, ground cover, and ornamental trees. The Project provides a 3-foot, 6-inch wide LPZ at most driveway areas which result from building offsets. The building offset contributes to enhanced building articulation, resulting in a more visually appealing facade. Increasing the LPZ zone to meet the four -foot width requirement would reduce the size of the building offsets and the open setback area in front of each building. The LPZ areas, however, are designed with more than the required 20% minimum landscaping. The narrower LPZ design maximizes the amount of landscaped open space in front of each building which provides more benefit to future residents than the negligible six inches of LPZ adjacent to garages. 2. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length) of the NBMC limits building length to 150 feet. The Project proposes two eight -unit buildings with a length of 155-feet. The intent of the building length requirement is to prevent lengthy unarticulated building masses. The Project addresses this by incorporating 07-29-24 35-281 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 19 of 38 varied rooflines, balconies, fagade projections and recessions, and material variation which creates the appearance of distinct units and breaks up the building's overall length and massing. The building provides more than the required articulation and upper floor setbacks which ensures the building length is less visually obtrusive. 3. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation —Minimum Depth) of the NBMC requires all building recesses or projections to be a minimum of 2 feet in depth. The Project proposes a variety of different recesses and projections including upper floor setbacks, balconies and covered patios which range from 6 inches to 12 feet. The intent of this requirement is to allow for sufficient depth of recesses and projections so that building lengths are sufficiently modulated. While some of the Project's recesses and projections are less than two feet in depth, the Project provides large upper floor setbacks, balconies, and patios between 5 and 12 feet. The Project provides additional depth for other recesses and projections features which ensures building length is less visually obtrusive. 4. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation - Maximum Number) of the NBMC require a maximum of two recesses or projections per fagade. The Project includes more than two recesses and projections in both of the largest buildings within the development. Due to their length, the additional recesses and projections allow for sufficient modulation to each unit. The intent of this requirement is to avoid lengthy and plain building faces. Limiting the design to only two recesses or projections would result in less modulation, less visual interest, and a building less reminiscent of townhomes. The Project is furthering the intent of this requirement by sufficiently modulating the eight-plex building, which results in a less visually obtrusive building length. Finding: The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards. Facts in Support of Finding: All facts in support of Finding H are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Facts 3 and 9 in support of Finding A are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. Section 20.48.185(D)(1)(a) (Muli-Unit Objective Design Standards — General Standards) of the NBMC requires that development with more than eight buildings to provide a minimum of two distinct color schemes. The Project includes only four buildings, however, the Project voluntarily provides two distinct color schemes. These include a coastal color scheme with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white. These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes throughout the City. 07-29-24 35-282 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 20 of 38 Vesting Tentative Tract Map In accordance with Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps) of the NBMC, the following findings, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: J. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: The Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) is for 27-unit residential condominiums. 2. Fact 1 and 2 in support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed VTTM and found it consistent with Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the NBMC and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 4. The Applicant will provide an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. The existing parcel is undeveloped; therefore, the in -lieu park fee will be required for 27 new dwelling units. 5. A preliminary application for residential development, filed as PA2025-0056, was deemed submitted on April 7, 2025 for this Project. The preliminary application prevents the Project from being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in Government Code Section 65589.5(o). Therefore, the Project will be subject to the in -lieu park fee in the amount of $38,400 per unit which was the fee in effect at the time the preliminary application was deemed submitted. Finding: K. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed 1.16-acre Project Site is irregular in shape, slopes towards the northeast, and is not within a zone seemed to be subject to seismically induced liquefaction potential. The Project Site is adequality sized to accommodate the proposed density in compliance with all applicable requirements of the HO-4 subarea. 2. The site is suitable for the type and density of the development in that the infrastructure serving the site has been designed to accommodate the proposed project. A sewer and 07-29-24 35-283 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 21 of 38 water demand study were prepared by PSOMAS dated May 14, 2025. The study concluded that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project. The Project does not result in more than 500 dwelling units; therefore, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is not required for Project. 3. The Project has been reviewed by the Building, Fire, and Public Works Department and must comply with all Building, Fire, and Public Works Codes and City ordinances. Finding: L. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision -making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report Facts in Support of Finding: 1. As detailed in the CEQA Consistency Memorandum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference, the site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or wetlands. The proposed Project would not have any specific effects which are peculiar to the proposed Project or the Project site. Additionally, there are no project -specific significant impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan Housing Implementation Program ("GPHIP") Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), no potentially significant off -site or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GPHIP PEIR, and no substantial new information not known at the time the GPHIP PEIR was certified that shows that the proposed Project's effects would be more severe than discussed in the GPHIP PEIR. Finding: M. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed VTTM is for a 27-unit condominium complex. All improvements associated with the Project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) of the NBMC and Section 66411 (Local agencies to regulate and control design of subdivisions) of the Subdivision Map Act. The Project will conform to all City ordinances and Conditions of Approval. 07-29-24 35-284 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 22 of 38 2. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures within GPHIP PEIR MMRP, as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Memorandum which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference. 3. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious health problems. Finding: N. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision -making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Fact in Support of Finding: The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed VTTM and determined that the design of the development will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of the Project Site within the proposed development because no public easements are located on the Project Site. Finding: O. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Fact in Support of Finding: The Project Site is not subject to the Williamson Act. The Project Site is not designated as an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres in area. 2. The Project Site is within the HO-4 Subarea which is intended for development of a multi -story residential project. The intended use is not for residential development that is incidental to a commercial agricultural use. 07-29-24 35-285 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 23 of 38 Finding: P. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (2) the decision -making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 has been repealed by the Legislature. However, this project site is not considered a "land project" as previously defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code because the project site does not contain 50 or more parcels of land. 2. The Project is not located within a specific plan area. Finding: Q. That, solar access, and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: The VTTM includes attached dwelling units with open space, private driveways, and walkways which separate the individual buildings. The proposed subdivision design allows for solar access and passive and cooling opportunities through the use of large window and slide doors and the east -west alignment of 21 of the 27 dwelling units. 2. The Project and any future improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code, which requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The City's Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: R. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Fact in Support of Finding: The proposed 27 dwelling unit project yields a density of 23.37 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the HO-4 subarea. The Project is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code as the Project results in a net increase in 27, for -sale, residential dwelling units which 07-29-24 35-286 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 24 of 38 contributes to the City's assigned 6t" Cycle RHNA. By developing vacant land with medium -density, ownership housing, the Project helps meet the City's housing goals while utilizing existing infrastructure and public services. Finding: S. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in SUDDort of Findina: Wastewater discharge from the Project into the existing sewer system has been designed to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB") requirements. 2. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the Project. 3. Fact 2 in support of Finding K is hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: T. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Fact in Support of Finding: The Project Site is not located in the Coastal Zone; therefore, compliance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Coastal Act is not applicable. SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS. 2 The Project Site is designated as a Housing Opportunity Site under the City of Newport Beach's certified 6th Cycle Housing Element, approved by the City Council and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Pursuant to that approval, a residential overlay was placed on the site, allowing for the development of the proposed 27 residential units. This overlay designation is supported by the certified PEIR, approving the MMRP, and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. The Project Site is located within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. The Project Site is designated as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District. ThE City Council's duly adopted Housing Element and 07-29-24 35-287 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 25 of 38 accompanying actions establish the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea as a valid residential zoning mechanism consistent with California Government Code Sections 65583 and 65583.2. At the time of project approval, the certified Housing Element and residential overlay are in full legal effect. 3. The Project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the Project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations; and would not result in new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. 4. Further, the proposed 27-unit residential project does not trigger Charter Section 423 (Greenlight) because it does not seek a General Plan Amendment. Furthermore, even if a General Plan Amendment was sought the amendment would not be considered "major" because the proposed project is less than 100 dwelling units, has less than 100 peak hour trips (traffic) and has no commercial component (thus, it is less than 40,000 square feet of floor area). Therefore, even without reliance upon the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea, no public vote is required for this proposed project under Greenlight. 5. In the event the Housing Element and General Plan amendments are invalidated by court order, the City nonetheless finds that the Project may be approved for the following reasons: • The certified PEIR, which is final and lawful, serves as a valid and independent basis for establishing the suitability of residential development at this site. • Under CEQA and California Government Code Section 65457 (exemption for residential projects consistent with a specific plan or general plan EIR), the certified PEIR's confers legal stability on the City's approval, including its reliance on the HO-4 subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District for land use purposes. • The City's approval advances the statewide interest in addressing housing needs, consistent with California Government Code Section 65589.5, and supports the City's good faith compliance with state law. Preventing the development of 27 residential units —already environmentally analyzed and approved —due solely to procedural uncertainty would run contrary to both local planning policy and state housing mandates. SECTION 5. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. In accordance with Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by the City's General Plan Housing Implementation Program as analyzed by the PEIR, and the required determinations can 07-29-24 35-288 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 26 of 38 be made as detailed in the CEQA Consistency Memorandum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 2. The Planning Commission finds that the Site Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the 27-unit residential project are validly approved under existing law. The project is consistent with the certified Housing Element, is not subject to additional environmental review, and does not trigger Charter Section 423 thresholds. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map filed as PA2025-0049, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "C", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 4. The action on the Major Site Development Review shall become final and effective 14 days following the date of this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC. 5. This action on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall become final and effective 10 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Council in accordance with the provision of Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the NBMC. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 AYES: Ellmore, Gazzano, Langford, Reed, Rosene, and Salene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Harris BY: Mark Rosene, Chair BY: Vm� SabAAA, David Salene, Secretary 07-29-24 35-289 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 27 of 38 Attachments: Exhibit "A" — CEQA Consistency Memorandum Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., Dated June, 2025 Exhibit "B" — Objective Design Standards Checklist Exhibit "C" — Conditions of Approval 07-29-24 35-290 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 28 of 38 EXHIBIT "A" CEQA Consistency Memorandum Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., dated June, 2025 File available via link due to size: https:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3171539&dbid=0&repo=CNB 07-29-24 35-291 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 29 of 38 EXHIBIT "B" OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS CHECKLIST File available via link: https:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3169605&dbid=0&repo=CNB 07-29-24 35-292 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 30 of 38 EXHIBIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) Planning Division The Project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, landscape plan, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). Minor changes to the approved development may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project). By way of example, a change to the number of stories of a unit (e.g., three-story product, etc.), floor plan redesign, and change to offered square footage ranges would be considered minor changes provided the project was within the allowed height limit, and in compliance with the Objective Design Standards and density range under the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. 2. Any substantial modification to the approved Site Development Review plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require an amendment to this Site Development Review application or the processing of a new application. 3. The Project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals approved by the City of Newport Beach ("City") and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval 4. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be caused the revocation of this approval. 5. This Major Site Development Review shall expire and become void unless exercised within seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012 to coincide with the expiration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 as provided in Condition No. 16. 6. On June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 approving a amendments to properties within the HO-4 Subarea including allowing a base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. To ensure consistency with that Ordinance, this resolution shall be become effective on July 26, 2025. 7. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "C" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits. 8. The proposed residential development shall consist of 27 townhome, condominium units. The number of condominium units may be reduced by the Applicant provided the total 07-29-24 35-293 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 31 of 38 number of units meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement under the HO Overlay Zoning District. 9. The maximum height of the residential structures shall be 48 feet as measured from the established grade. No building or any portion of structure, architectural feature or mechanical equipment shall exceed 48 feet. 10. The on -site residential amenities including the outdoor picnic area and firepit lounge area as illustrated on the approved plans shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the Project. The exact mix of amenities may be modified from the original approved plans subject to the approval by the Community Development Director. The Project shall maintain at least 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit on the Project Site as required by the HO-4 subarea. The square footage of on -site resident -serving amenities shall not be reduced so that the development no longer provides 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit 11. The residential structure shall be attenuated to provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less pursuant to Section 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards) of the NBMC. Use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double paned windows, advance insulation systems, or other noise mitigation measures, as deemed appropriate by the City shall be incorporated in the design of the new residential structure to provide adequate noise attenuation. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, and Chapter 15.42, Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Fair Share Traffic Fees and Transportation Corridor Agency fees shall be paid for the Project at the fee assessed at the time of payment. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable school fees for the Project. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable property development tax as required pursuant to NBMC Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax) for the Project. 15. A preliminary application for residential development, filed as PA2025-0056, was deemed submitted on April 7, 2025 for this Project. The preliminary application prevents the Project from being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in Government Code Section 65589.5(o). The Applicant shall provide an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. Therefore, the Project will be subject to an in -lieu park fee of $38,400 per unit which is the fee that was in effect at the time the preliminary application was deemed submitted. 07-29-24 35-294 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 32 of 38 16. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the developer shall pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIFs) in accordance with the adopted fee schedule. 17. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 shall expire seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012. Pursuant to Section 19.16.010(A) (Expiration of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, an approved tentative tract map expires 24 months after the date of its approval or conditional approval. Under Section 19.16.020(A) (Extension of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, the subdivider shall have the right to request an extension of the map for up to five years. The subdivider has submitted an application for an extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 and has requested that the extension be granted after the Planning Commission adopts Resolution No PC2025-012; thus, providing for an initial term of the vesting tentative tract map of 24 months, followed by extension of five years, for a total term of seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an access easement on the adjacent property (APN No. 458-361-02) shall be recorded to provide the Project access to Ford Road. 19. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.49.1210 (Removal of Telecom Facilities), the Applicant shall inform the Community Development Director by certified mail no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinued use of a telecom facility. 20. Any future proposed wireless telecommunication facilities, including but not limited to the relocation of the existing wireless telecommunications monopole, shall conform with Chapter 20.49 (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities) of the NBMC. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought -tolerant planting and water -efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 22. The Project shall include landscaping around the perimeter of the Project Site to adequately screen drive aisles, parking areas, and create a visual buffer between the public right-of-way and the Project. These plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 23. The covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall require that garages be used for vehicles and shall prohibit storage of personal items that would otherwise impede parking of vehicles within the required garage spaces. The CC&Rs shall prohibit residents from parking in guest parking spaces within the development and shall prohibit any parking within the parking lot in the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. 24. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained by the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be 07-29-24 35-295 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 33 of 38 kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 25. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 26. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. 27. Prior to the issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval. 28. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control), under Sections 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) and 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards), and other applicable noise control requirements of the NBMC. 29. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. 30. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. Upon approval of the plan, the Applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. 31. The exterior of the development shall be always maintained free of litter and graffiti. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris, and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 32. All trash bins shall be stored within each residential unit and screened from the view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The Applicant shall ensure that the trash receptacles are maintained to control odors. The Applicant shall ensure that the trash bins are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of periodic steam cleaning of the trash bin, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash bins shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 07-29-24 35-296 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 34 of 38 33. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 34. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures within the General Plan Housing Implementation Program ("GPHIP') Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR') Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP') as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Memorandum prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., dated June, 2025. 35. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current property owner or leasing agent. 36. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of Ford Road Townhomes including, but not limited to, Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (PA2025-0049). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit, or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Building Division 37. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required before the issuance of a building permit. 38. Exterior wall and opening protection shall comply with Chapter 705 of California Building Code (CBC). 39. The applicant shall employ the following best available control measures ("BACMs") to reduce construction -related air quality impacts: Dust Control • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. 07-29-24 35-297 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 35 of 38 • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Emissions • Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off -road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment Off -Site Impacts • Encourage carpooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Fill Placement • The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. • Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve a 10% soil moisture content in the top 6- inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 40. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the city with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 41. Before the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 42. A list of "good housekeeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of waste or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also 07-29-24 35-298 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 36 of 38 identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Real Property Administrator 43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall enter into a license agreement, easement or similar agreement approved by the City Attorney with the City for points of access across the City property. 44. Points of access to the City property shall not be used for code required path of travel or accessible route. 45. The City reserves the right to redevelop City property and remove one or more points of access to City property. 46. Bonds are required prior to construction if any work is to occur on City Property. 47. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall update plans to ensure runoff remains onsite or connects to a drain in the public right-of-way, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Public Works Department 48. A Tract Map shall be recorded prior to the sale of any residential units. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital -graphic file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 49. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 pf the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18. Monuments (one -inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 50. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, a Subdivision Agreement shall be obtained and approved by the City Council consistent with the Section 19.36.010 (Improvement Agreements (California Government Code Section 66462)) of the NBMC. 51. Prior to Final Map approval, the Applicant shall provide a Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond, each for 100% of the estimated improvement costs for the improvements in the public right-of-way, as prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer 07-29-24 35-299 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 37 of 38 and approved by the Public Works Director, for each of the following, but not limited to, public and private improvements, street improvements, monumentation, sidewalks, striping, signage, street lights, sewer systems, water systems, storm drain systems, water quality management systems, erosion control, landscaping and irrigation within the public right-of-way, common open spaces areas accessible by the public, fire access and off -site improvements required as part of the project. 52. Warranty Bond for a minimum of 10% of the engineers cost estimate (final percentage to be determined by the Public Works Director) shall be released 1-year after the improvements have been accepted. 53. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 54. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work activities within the public right- of-way. 55. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final construction management plan (CMP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer. 56. Parking layout shall comply with the City Parking Lot Standard 805. Dead-end drive aisle in public areas shall provide a dedicated turn around space and minimum 5-foot drive aisle extension. 57. The Applicant shall reconstruct all existing broken and/or otherwise damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Ford Road frontages per City Standards. 58. All deliveries and move-ins/move-out shall be accommodated on -site and prohibited from parking or stopping within the public right-of-way. 59. The on -site sewer and water system is planned to be a public system. Final Design of the water and sewer services is subject to further review by the Public Works Department during plan check. The public sewer and water system shall be designed according to the City of Newport Beach standards. All applicable sewer and water easements shall be dedicated to the City as part of the Tract Map. 60. The Project storm drain system shall be privately owned and maintained. The storm drain system shall be prohibited from discharging to the adjacent City lots and shall be redesigned accordingly. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final hydrology and hydraulic report shall be reviewed and approved. Any required improvements to downstream City infrastructure to accommodate the proposed project shall be designed and constructed by the proposed project. 61. The parking layout and gate operation within Lot 5 shall be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works Department. 07-29-24 35-300 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 38 of 38 62. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirements per City Standard 105. Fire Department 63. Onsite fire hydrants shall be required and a fire underground plan submital complying with the 2022 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 24 shall be a required as a deferred submittal. 64. Residential fire sprinklers complying with the 2022 NFPA Standard 13R shall be required. 65. Waterflow monitoring systems complying with the 2022 NFPA Standard 72 shall be required. 66. Fire master plan complying with the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) Guideline D.08 shall be required as a deferred submital. 67. Fire rescue opening and laddering pads complying with NBFD Guideline C.05 shall be required. 07-29-24 35-301 Attachment F July 3, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes 35-302 Docusign Envelope ID: 86A279AD-4DF8-4B8D-A132-D360F7C91528 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS —100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JULY 3, 2025 REGULAR MEETING — 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - 6:02 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Secretary Salene III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Mark Rosene, Secretary David Salene, Commissioner Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Michael Gazzano, Commissioner Jonathan Langford, Commissioner Greg Reed ABSENT: Vice Chair Harris Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jaime Murillo, City Traffic Engineer Brad Sommers, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, Assistant Planner Jerry Arregui, Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez, and Department Assistant Jasmine Leon New Commissioner Michael Gazzano introduced himself to the Commission, adding he has worked in the real estate industry for 20 years, currently under the employment of a real estate developer. IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF OFFICERS Summary: The Planning Commission's adopted rules require the election of officers at its annual meeting, which occurs at the first meeting of July each year. Officers include the Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary and they would serve a one-year term. Recommended Actions: 1. Find this action not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; 2. Nominate Planning Commission officers consisting of Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary; and 3. Appoint the officers by majority approval of a motion either individually or as one motion for all positions. Chair Rosene noted not all Commissioners are present due to the excused absence of Vice Chair Harris and thus recommended the election of officers be continued to the next meeting on July 17th Motion made by Chair Rosene and seconded by Commissioner Langford to continue the election of officers to the July 17, 2025, meeting. AYES: Ellmore, Gazzano, Langford, Reed, Rosene, and Salene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Harris 35-303 Docusign Envelope ID: 86A279AD-4DF8-4B8D-A132-D360F7C91528 Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2025 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None VI. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - None VII. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 2025 Recommended Action: Approve and file. Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Langford to approve the meeting minutes of June 19, 2025, including revisions recommended by Jim Mosher. AYES: Ellmore, Langford, Reed, Rosene, and Salene NOES: None ABSTAIN: Gazzano ABSENT: Harris Vill. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 FORD ROAD TOWNHOMES (PA2025-0049) Site Location: The unaddressed property abutting 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-10) identified as Site ID No. 141 in the Housing Element Sites Inventory and 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02) Summary: A request to authorize the development of a for -sale residential townhome community with 27 units on an undeveloped and unaddressed property near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection, northeast of the parking lot for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and west of the AT&T facility. The proposed development includes a mix of two-, three, and four -bedroom units ranging from 1,916 to 2,989 square feet, each with an attached two -car garage. Units would be distributed within four detached, four-story buildings with a maximum structure height of 47 feet and 11 inches, above the established grade. The development will provide 13 visitor parking spaces and a variety of private resident -serving amenities. Offsite improvements include the installation of a gate restricting access to the neighboring AT&T property and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications monopole onto the neighboring AT&T property. Lastly, the project includes subdividing the project site and reconfiguring the lot line between the project site and the AT&T property. The following approvals are required: Manor Site Development Review: Required for any project proposing five or more residential units with a tract map. The Major Site Development Review additionally allows for an increase in maximum structure height pursuant to Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) and deviations from specific multi -unit objective design standards pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi - Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. • Vesting Tentative Tract Map: Requested to adjust the easterly property line between the project site and the AT&T property, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes, and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units for individual sale (i.e., for condominium purposes). 2 of 9 35-304 Docusign Envelope ID: 86A279AD-4DF8-4B8D-A132-D360F7C91528 Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2025 Recommended Actions: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find that this project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of CEQA Guidelines because the Project is consistent with the previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023060699); and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2025-012 approving the Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map filed as PA2025-0049. Assistant Planner Jerry Arregui reported this item is for the Ford Road Townhomes located at a currently undeveloped site adjacent to an existing American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T) Corporation facility at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive. He added the site is also adjacent to the Newport Bluffs Apartments and Bonita Canyon Sports Park, while also near the Harbor View single family homes neighborhood. He noted the site was included in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element as a housing opportunity site and is zoned for between 20-50 dwelling units per acre. Assistant Planner Arregui reported that the AT&T facility has parking lot access from Ford Road and is a 35-foot-tall building housing telephone and electrical equipment, while the property also has a 50-foot wireless monopole. He noted there is also a park trail adjacent to the vacant lot connecting bicyclists and pedestrians from Ford Road to Bonita Canyon Drive. Assistant Planner Arregui reported that the proposed project is a 27-unit residential townhome community with units ranging from 1,900 square feet to 2,900 square feet, access to the property would come from a shared driveway off Ford Road with a gate to restrict access to the AT&T facility's parking lot, and each residential unit will have a two -car garage, while the project will also have uncovered guest parking spaces and delivery spaces for a total of 66 parking spaces. He added that the driveway will be large enough to accommodate any service and delivery vehicles, along with trash collection and the development will also have a picnic area and fire pit, along with access points to the adjacent park trail. Assistant Planner Arregui reported the project requires a lot line adjustment between the project site and AT&T facility, increasing the project site from 1.06 acres to 1.16 acres, and added that the applicant has volunteered to repave and slightly reconfigure AT&T's parking lot, along with improving AT&T's landscaping. Assistant Planner Arregui stated the project requires a Major Site Development Review as the project will include five or more units with a Tract Map. He added there is a request for a height increase as part of this item, but clarified this request would not be required next month due to height restriction changes in Ordinance No. 2025-10, which was approved by the City Council on June 24 and takes effect in 30 days. He reported that the item also includes a request for a deviation from some multi -unit objective design standards. He added that approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map is required to allow for the individual sale of townhome units and the adjustment to the lot line. He noted that Environmental Clearance is also requested and reported on the required findings of a Major Site Development Review. Assistant Planner Arregui confirmed the proposed project complies with the zoning requirements, including having 23.27 units per acre, noted the height limit has been amended to reflect the increases in Ordinance No. 2025-10, presented renderings of the project, noting landscaping along Bonita Canyon Drive, reported the site is 185 feet of distance from the closest existing residences and that due to the large distance, intervening roads, and change in scale of structures of surrounding developments, there is a harmonious transition in scale of the structures form the 3 of 9 35-305 Docusign Envelope ID: 86A279AD-4DF8-4B8D-A132-D360F7C91528 Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2025 surrounding developments to the Project. Assistant Planner Arregui reported the City Council's adopted Objective Design Standards for multi -unit developments in Section 20.48.185 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), noting that 48 of the 52 are met by the proposed development, with very minor deviations requested for the other four. He stated that staff believe the minor deviations are supportable. Assistant Planner Arregui reported that the Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts include a City Council -approved Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) requiring a Section 15183 CEQA consistency analysis for each project utilizing the Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning District. He added that the consistency analysis was prepared by the applicant's CEQA consultant and was peer reviewed by the City's CEQA consultants and found that there are no additional significant impacts. He noted the City Attorney provided a memo for the Commission to review regarding PRC Section 21080.66 as it related to environmental review. Assistant Planner Arregui reported that staff have received public comments in support of the development for providing needed housing. He added that there have also been many concerned public comments received focused on traffic, parking, and vehicular access. He noted staff has determined the project will add 182 average daily trips, which does not trigger the Traffic Phasing Ordinance's threshold of 300 to require a Traffic Study. He confirmed the project only requires 61 parking spaces, but it includes 66 in the proposal. Assistant Planner Arregui reported that staff is recommending an additional Condition of Approval, to require that the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) require that garages be used for vehicles as opposed to storage, a prohibition of residents parking in guest spaces, and a prohibition of using the Bonita Canyon Sports Park's parking lot. He added, addressing vehicular access concerns from the public, another Condition of Approval is recommended to ensure there will be an access easement on the adjacent property to ensure residential access from Ford Road. Staff also recommended adding a Condition of Approval stating the developer shall pay all applicable Development Impact Fees, improvements must comply with the City's sight distance requirements, and the applicant must update plans to ensure runoff either remains onsite or connects to a drain in the public right-of-way subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. In response to Chair Rosene's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Jaime Murillo confirmed that the intent of Condition of Approval No. 20 is to allow latitude for the City to work with the applicant regarding landscaping along Bonita Canyon Drive and elsewhere. All six Commissioners reported having ex Parte communications with the applicant and/or their consultant. Commissioner Gazzano added he visited the site. Chair Rosene opened the public hearing. In response to Chair Rosene's inquiry, Michael Torres, speaking on behalf of the applicant, confirmed he agrees with all the Conditions of Approval and confirmed that the applicant will comply with the Condition of Approval relative to relocating the monopole. Robert Lange lamented how the two halves of Bonita Canyon Sports Park were never connected as originally intended. He stated it is naive to think residents will not use the park's overloaded parking lot for personal use. He expressed safety concerns over the number of children who use the path along Ford Road to get to school, the toxicity of the outdated AT&T facility, and potential health hazards of living next to the monopole. 4of9 35-306 Docusign Envelope ID: 86A279AD-4DF8-4B8D-A132-D360F7C91528 Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2025 Harbor View Homes resident Saboohi Currim expressed concerns about the electromagnetic rays emitted by the monopole being hazardous to those living within 400 feet. She cautioned that the City could face legal exposure comparable to asbestos -based cases, as future health studies could reveal hazards of living near a cellular tower. She stated CEQA should better consider the tower's impacts. Harbor View Homes resident Craig Gordon expressed concerns about the project's parking impacts. He stated it is impractical to expect a CC&R to enforce restrictions on garage uses other than storing vehicles and noted the Bonita Canyon Sports Park's soccer fields and other amenities are extensively used by children and expressed concerns about increasing Ford Road traffic, as parents already double-park while picking up or dropping off their children. He added that the buildings will also create an echo effect, amplifying the noise coming from the pickleball courts. Harbor View Homes resident Gary Hunt criticized the noticing for the meeting, adding it is the night before Independence Day. He echoed the concerns of the previous public speakers, highlighting those pertaining to Ford Road traffic conditions. He stated the proposed development will be too tall for the community and would fit better in a different part of the City. Harbor View Homes resident Steve Robinson echoed the previous comments. He reported that Bonita Canyon Sports Park is already stressed by high usage and expressed concerns about adding to the traffic around children who already operate their eBikes dangerously. He encouraged the City to develop the lot as a park. Harbor View Homes resident Wade Womack stated the process is missing transparency and decried the applicant's lack of public outreach. He encouraged the Commission to continue the item until more community stakeholder meetings can be held. He expressed doubts about the City's ability to police parking restrictions. He stated the project is inconsistent with the community south of Bonita Canyon Drive, noting the many children who ride bicycles to school past the project site. He stated that postponing a decision for better public outreach will not hurt the project. Blair Walsh stated Newport Beach's mantra is to grow while honoring the unique charms of each community. He lauded the project for proposing smart growth while balancing community character. He commended the design for its familiar yet modern look. He noted the project will also upgrade the AT&T facility and create homeownership opportunities in a City lacking them. He encouraged the Commission to approve the development. Jim Mosher stated his understanding that these will be market -rate housing units, which will not help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) affordable housing goals. He added that the Housing Element identifies the site for 25 affordable units, making the proposed market -rate development inconsistent with the Housing Element. He inquired if the proposed in - lieu park fee of $38,400 per unit would be different had the application been filed later. He stated this site could be better used for the potential relocation of a fire station. Harbor View Homes resident Janice Grace called for a delay in the voting. She noted the site is landlocked and the discussion of an access easement is not sufficiently documented. She noted traffic backs up 20-30 cars deep on school days and questioned how a Traffic Study is not needed. She stated the environmental assessment is outdated. She added that the mailing list for the neighborhood did not hit enough homes, and the notice arrived too late. She noted that most written public comments are against the project and questioned the relevance of the written supporting comments. She added that the proposed height does not fit the aesthetic of the community, and that the project plan shows the project does not comply with the height requirement. She called for a delay to receive more community input. 5 of 9 35-307 Docusign Envelope ID: 86A279AD-4DF8-4B8D-A132-D360F7C91528 Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2025 Harbor View Homes resident Katie Drown stated she is speaking on behalf of multiple area families who did not receive enough notice to attend the night before Independence Day. She expressed concerns about the CC&Rs' garage parking restrictions being both unenforceable and easy to change. She stated there should be concerns about negative long-term health effects from living so close to the AT&T tower. She noted Mr. Walsh is a real estate agent and questioned the sincerity of his support of the project due to potential professional interests. Commissioner Ellmore encouraged public speakers to focus on matters not previously mentioned extensively, such as traffic, parking, the cellular tower, sound, and noticing. Harbor View Homes resident Karol Hatch noted there is just a stop sign directing traffic at the intersection of Newport Hills Drive and Ford Road, causing issues because park -goers often make illegal U-turns there while looking for parking. She added that a slight slope at the stop sign causes visibility dangers for residents on Newport Hills Drive. She echoed the comments of previous public speakers. She reported that the Bonita Canyon Sports Park only came to be because the same residents successfully fought a 1996 plan to use the land for affordable housing. She questioned how the City uses in -lieu fees. She theorized the proposed townhomes would not be priced as to be considered affordable housing, including Homeowners Association (HOA) dues. Eric Mickleton expressed his support for the project's smart growth. He lauded the thoughtfulness of the project, adding it meets zoning codes. He stated this is a better use of the eyesore AT&T site. Harbor View Homes resident Sam Miraban echoed the comments of earlier speakers and expressed concerns about the impact on local wildlife, which would lose its native vegetation and habitat to the development. He noted there has not been a Wildlife Impact Study and added the project could cause a loss in biodiversity. Robert Vise decried the proposed height of the development, expressing concerns that it will visually obstruct northbound drivers turning off MacArthur Boulevard onto Bonita Canyon Drive. Harbor View Homes resident Polly decried the meeting's timing and lack of notice. She expressed concerns about traffic and parking. She recommended an overnight parking ban on Ford Road. She reported that City enforcement promises about the pickleball courts at the time of their approval have not occurred, leading her to doubt parking enforcement promises around this proposed development. She called to reduce the Ford Road speed limit to 25 miles per hour and make the intersection with Newport Hills Drive a four-way stop. She inquired if children living in the development would attend Anderson Elementary School. Brian Sperry expressed his support for the project. He acknowledged he is a real estate agent and developer, but clarified he is not involved in the project. He stated he supports increasing the City's housing inventory. He added it is a good use for the vacant land next to the eyesore AT&T facility, adding value with beautiful townhomes affording families an opportunity to stay in Newport Beach as homeowners in a City without any available land to build on. He added that this well - designed project echoes the well -liked Isle at Mariner Shores project on Irvine Ave. He stated he rarely has parking issues when using the Bonita Canyon Sports Park's soccer fields. He noted that the Property Tax revenue will help City services. Harbor View Homes resident Debra Klein stated her opposition to the project and contradicted Mr. Sperry's comments about the availability of parking at the soccer field, noting it often spills over into her neighborhood streets, introducing strangers to her community. She stated residents on streets closer to the development will lose their privacy due to the taller structure. She decried how those specific homeowners were not properly notified of a meeting happening the night 6 of 9 35-308 Docusign Envelope ID: 86A279AD-4DF8-4B8D-A132-D360F7C91528 Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2025 before Independence Day. She encouraged a continuance so more residents can be heard. Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill reported on the City's requirement -meeting noticing efforts, adding that only residents within 300 feet of the development receive a direct mailer. She clarified that the monopole issue is not before the Planning Commission at this meeting. She added that telecommunications -related health issues are not within the zoning jurisdiction, and there are no distance requirements from a residential property. She added that when the project to move the monopole comes forward in the future, it will go through the appropriate procedures. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill reported that the City Council adopted the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, and this lot is included as a Housing Opportunity Site. She added that the General Plan and Zoning Code requirements are met here, which triggers the Housing Accountability Act, heavily constraining the City in terms of limiting the number of public hearings and significantly reducing options for the City to impose conditions and/or deny the project. She clarified that the approval of the Certified EIR ends the opportunity to raise CEQA-based concerns. She added that she has not heard anything during the discussion that warrants additional environmental review. In response to Commissioner Reed's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill stated that staff are unsure what school residents of the development will send their children to. Mr. Torres stated that the applicant's understanding is that the children of residents will go to Lincoln Elementary School and not Anderson Elementary School. Urban Arena, Inc. Founding Principal Michael Schrock clarified from an architectural standpoint how the proposed development is three stories but massed up to a fourth story. He lamented, as a Newport Beach resident, that part of why his children are moving out of state is a lack of housing options in their hometown, like what this one would be. He clarified that the project is not apartments but rather high-priced townhomes whose design was modeled after houses in the neighboring community. Mr. Schrock noted how the buildings along Bonita Canyon Drive were oriented sideways so there is less frontage to the street. He suggested changing Ford Road's parallel parking to a diagonal configuration to increase the number of available parking spaces on a sufficiently wide thoroughfare. He highlighted the use of extra -large lanais to assist with the open visual appearance of the structures and added that the fagade materials were chosen to match those found in the neighborhood. He noted every unit has a two -car garage, and the HOA will be able to enforce their proper usage for vehicle storage because the garages have windows, adding that this has been successful in other communities. Chair Rosene closed the public hearing. Commissioner Langford noted he was raised in this neighborhood and currently resides there, lauding the area's passion and thoughtful comments about this development. He stated the discussions around building the Port Carlow Circle, Port Tiffin Circle, and Port Stanhope Circle section of the community in the 1990s were similar to what is being said today about the townhomes, yet those new streets have been comfortably incorporated into the community for over 30 years. Commissioner Langford stated that the proposed project is thoughtful. He lamented that there are many portions of the Housing Element that are state -mandated and not the City's choice. He noted that raising some height limits to allow for needed density was a recent compromise with developers. He added that this is the best housing development he has seen before the 7 of 9 35-309 Docusign Envelope ID: 86A279AD-4DF8-4B8D-A132-D360F7C91528 Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2025 Commission so far during the current cycle. He stated that townhomes are preferable to apartments, and they are already close to the minimum density threshold of 20 units per acre. He noted electromagnetic frequency concerns are not in the Commission's jurisdiction. He stated that growth is not always easy, but this is being done in a thoughtful manner, and he will support the project. Chair Rosene reported he immediately took note of the height but added the ship has sailed with the City Council's action in approving Ordinance No. 2025-10. He lauded the project being for - sale housing instead of apartments. He commended the architecture and stated he would support the project. Commissioner Ellmore noted his children play sports at Bonita Creek Sports Park, and he fully grasps the traffic concerns there. He noted the differing roles between the Planning Commission and the City Council, with their role as Commissioners being to focus on NBMC compliance and how the City complies with its RHNA allocation. He added, from a Commission perspective, this is a technical black -and -white matter and less of a human condition issue, which is the Council's area. He reported that the height, traffic, and parking are all compliant with the NBMC. He noted the Commission's jurisdiction does not include health ramifications from the cellular tower. He added the noticing complies. He stated he will support the project as a Planning Commissioner. Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Reed to approve the Item with the Conditions of Approval as amended by staff and the statutory exemption. AYES: Ellmore, Gazzano, Langford, Reed, Rosene, and Salene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Harris IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 5 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA Deputy Director of Community Development Murillo reported there will be three public hearing items at the next meeting on July 171n ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Ellmore reported he will not attend the July 17t" meeting due to a new baby coming in his family. X. ADJOURNMENT — With no further business, Chair Rosene adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m. 35-310 Docusign Envelope ID: 86A279AD-4DF8-4B8D-A132-D360F7C91528 Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2025 The agenda for July 3, 2025, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, June 27, 2025, at 10 a.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City's website on Friday, June 27, 2025, at 10:10 a.m. TVisfxv, RAMS Tristan Harris, Chair Jonathan Langford, Secretary 9 of 9 35-311 Attachment G Appeal Application 35-312 Appeal Application City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949-644-3005 Clerk's Date & Time Stamp a Pe 7'25 ,M4 Appeals are time sensitive and must be received by the City Clerk within the specified time period from a decision or final �- action by a decision -maker. It is advisable to consult with the Department managing the issue if there is question with regards to appealing an action. This is an appeal of the: CD ❑ (CDD222) Community Development Director Action to the Planning Commission - $2116 ❑ (CDD222) Zoning Administrator Action to the Planning Commission - $2116 ❑ (CDD222) Coastal Development Application CDP Appeal from Zoning Admin to the Planning Commission (only if appeal is solely based on the CDP portion of the application) — No Fee ® (CDD222) Planning Commission Action to the City Council - $2116 ❑ (CDD222) Community Development Director Action to the Harbor Commission - $623 ❑ (CDD222) Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (CDD — Planning) - $498 ❑ (CDD222) Hearing Officer Action to the City Council - $2116 ❑ (CDD223) Building Official/Fire Marshal Action to the Building/Fire Board of Appeals - $1827 ❑ (CDD224) Chief of Police Action on an Operator License to the City Manager - $1033 ❑ (RSS073) City Manager Action on a Special Events Permit to the City Council - $1953 ❑ (HBR001) Harbormaster Action to the Harbor Commission - $622 ❑ (HBR001) Harbor Commission Action to the City Council (Harbor Department) - $498 ❑ (PBW018) Public Works Director Action to Harbor Commission - $1446 ❑ (PBW018) Harbor Commission Action to City Council (Public Works Department) - $691 ❑ Other - Specify decision -maker, appellate body, Municipal Code authority and fee: Appellant Information: Name(s): Save Our Sports Park Address: 139 S. Hudson Ave., Suite 200 City/State/Zip: Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (626) 314-3821 Appealing Application Regarding: Email: info@mitchtsailaw.com, omarc@mitchtsailaw.com, mitch@mitchtsailaw.com Name of Applicant(s): Ford Road Ventures, LLC Date Project No.: PA2025-0049 Activity No.: of Final Decision: July 3, 2025 Application Site Address: 1650 & 4302 Ford Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (APNs 458-361-10 & 458-361-02) Description of application: Major site development review and vesting tentative tract map for 27 townhome units on a vacant lot. Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): Please see Attachment A ,,..�..,� �. �~-~-- _,;•:, •t�� Signature of Appellant: July 17, 20 _ ,� Date: FOR OFFICE USE ON / t Dat ppeal I d and inistrative Fee received: / — / 20 City Clerk V cc: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff, File i pp/tc ed 9/17/20242024 35-313 0 P: (626) 314-3821 Mitchell M. Tsai 139 S. Hudson Ave., Suite 200 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Law Firm Pasadena, California 91101 VIA PROCESS SERVER July 17, 2025 City of Newport Beach City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: City of Newport Beach — Appeal of Planning Commission Action — Ford Road Townhouses Project (Planning Case No. PA2025-0049) (APNs 458-361-10; 458-361-02� Dear City Clerk, On behalf of Save Our Sports Park ("S.O.S. Park"), our Office is submitting this Appeal of the City of Newport Beach ("City") Planning Commission's ("Commission") action on July 3, 2025 authorizing the proposed development project filed as PA2025-0049 that is proposed to be located at 1650 and 4302 Ford Road in the City (APNs 458-361-02) and identified as the "Ford Road Townhouse" Project ("Project"). S.O.S. Park is an organization of Newport Beach residents committed to the protection of the City's natural environment and resources and promotion of responsible and thoughtful development and planning in the City. Individual members of S.O.S. Park live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and maybe directly affected by the Project. The City describes the proposed Project as "a for -sale residential townhome community with 27 units on an undeveloped and unaddressed property near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection, northeast of the parking lot for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and west of the AT&T facility. The proposed development includes a mix of two-, three, and four -bedroom units ranging from 1,916 to 2,989 square feet, each with an attached two -car garage." (See July 3, 2025 Newport Beach Planning Commission Agenda, Public Hearing Item No. 3) 35-314 CitV of Newport Beach — _appeal — P A2025-0049 July 17, 2025 Page 2of6 Pursuant to Chapters 21.64 and 24 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, our office asserts and raises the following grounds to support this appeal: The Project As Proposed Fails to Comply with the City's Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards The project, as currently proposed, fails to comply with at least four, but possibly more, of the City's adopted Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards ("MODS"), as codified in Section 20.48.185 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). These MODS are intended to ensure that new multi -unit residential development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and their stated purpose is to "ensure the highest possible design quality and to provide a baseline standard for all new multi -unit development in Newport Beach." NBMC Section 20.48.185. In its July 3, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, the Planning Commission acknowledged that the Project fails to satisfy at least four of the MODS, but nonetheless characterized these deviations as "minor" and explained that "[t]hough the project requests minor deviation of four objective design standards, the project still more than complies with the intent the objective design standards therefore the deviations are appropriate." (See July 3, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, p. 19). While the NBMC allows for deviations from the MODS in certain limited circumstances, as further explained below, here, the Commission has failed to perform the necessary findings supported by sufficient analysis and evidence to substantiate the permissibility of the Project's nonconsistency with the MODS. The Commission's justification is likely not consistent with the intent of the MODS or even with the State's housing laws, which generally require objective standards to be applied uniformly. II. Project's Site Development Review (SDR, Findings are Inadequate to justify Inconsistency with MODS The NBMC provides that deviations from MODS may only be approved if the reviewing authority performs a discretionary "Site Development Review" regarding the project's inconsistencies. Specifically, under NBMC Section 20.48.185.A., a Project that is inconsistent with the MODS must undergo a Site Development Review pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.080.F, prior to project approval. The reviewing authority's findings must be supported by evidence, which the applicant bears the burden of establishing. 35-315 City of Newport Beach — Appeal — PA2025-0049 July 17, 2025 Page 3 of 6 Here, while the Planning Commission purportedly performed the requisite Site Development Review, it failed to make all of the necessary findings and to substantiate those findings with sufficient evidence and analysis to permit the public to verify the veracity of its conclusions. For example, the findings are likely flawed in the following respects: 1. Neighborhood Compatibility: The project's scale, massing, and architectural character are incompatible and incongruous with the surrounding community and neighborhood, which currently consists primarily of two-story single-family residences or similar structures. 2. Architectural Design and Character: The project does not demonstrate superior architectural quality or design, fails to provide sufficient improvements, and detracts the neighborhood's current character, thereby failing to merit or justify multple deviations from the MODS. III. The Project Requires a Lot Line Adjustment Involving Privately Owned Property and Should be Subject to a 14-DayAppeal Period The project as currently proposed would require reconfiguring the lot line between the proposed Project site and the adjacent AT&T Facility Property, which would apparently increase the project site by approximately 0.1 acres from 1.06 acres to 1.16 acres. However, a key issue involving the requested reconfiguration of the lot lines is that it would entail an adjustment of property that the Project applicant does not yet have ownership of or hold title to. The July 3, 3035 Staff Report suggests that the Project applicant's acquisition of the property necessary for reconfiguration of the lot line is still contingent upon certain future project entitlements. Additionally, S.O.S. Parks is concerned that both the Public Notice for the July 3, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing and Resolution No. PC2025-012 do not clearly state the relevant appeal period for the lot line adjustment, which is typically ten (10) days, pursuant to NBMC Section 19.76.020.L. Instead, the Resolution indicates a fourteen (14) day appeal period. The Commission's lack of proper notice may invalidate the appeal deadline and constitutes a due process concern. Thus, S.O.S. Parks submits that the City should permit any appeals of the lot line adjustment based on a fourteen (14) day appeal period, to protect the public's interest and right to comment on such matters. 35-316 City of Newport Beach — appeal — P A2025-0049 July 17, 2025 Page 4of6 IV. The Project Requires a Vesting Tentative Tract Map That Is Unsupported and Based on Inadequate Findings The Project requires a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTIvl) that the Commission describes to "adjust the easterly property line between the project site and the AT&T Facility property, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes, and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the units for individual sale (i.e., for condominium purposes)." (See July 3, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, p. 12). As the Commission has acknowledged, the requested VTTM may not be approved unless the Commission establishes certain findings, pursuant to NBMC Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps). However, S.O.S. Parks is concerned that the Commission's findings regarding the VTTM are predicated and based upon environmental findings and conclusions that are speculative and uncertain at best because the Commission has also determined that further environmental review for the Project is unwarranted. For example, in the context of the required VTTM findings, the Commission's Staff Report makes several conclusory statements regarding several environmental phenomena at the Project site, including water supply, riparian habitats, wetlands, sensitive natural habitats, etc.. The Staff Report concludes that the Project and related VTTM will not negatively impact these environmental phenomena but does not provide sufficient supporting evidence or analysis to ascertain the credibility of such conclusions. Indeed, the VTTM findings appear to significantly rely on outdated environmental review, as explained further below, that would thus bring into question the VTTM findings themselves. If the City approved the VTTM based on reliance on outdated environmental review or defective findings, the VTTM approval may also be defective and legally vulnerable. V. New Information Regarding Environmental Factors Require Further Environmental Review for the Project under the California Environmental Qualiy Act (CE" A key issue with the Project's environmental review is that it improperly relies on outdated environmental review performed for the City's Housing Element rather than analyzing the proposed Project specifically, especially in light of relevant information regarding the Project site's environmental phenomena. Specifically, the City is relying on the Housing Implementation Program EIR (PA2022-0245) (SCH No. 2023060699), which was certified over a year ago, in February 2024. Further, the City 35-317 City of Newport Beach — appeal — P A2025-0049 July 17, 2025 Page 5 of 6 has apparently concluded that the Project is exempted from further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines, Sections 21083.3 and 15183. First, S.O.S. Park submits that reliance on an earlier environmental report for this Project would not comply with the requirements of CEQA, which generally favors informed decisionmaking and weighing of environmental factors prior to approving development. Instead, S.O.S. Park urges the City to require the preparation of an initial study or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project to fully account for any potential environmental impacts and to properly address the public's concerns regarding the Project's consequences. Second, S.O.S. Park believes several key facts and new information warrant additional environmental review under CEQA. For example, several community members and neighbors have recently observed and documented birds nesting in mature trees on the Project site, which are proposed for removal. These birds may include buds of prey and other nesting birds that are protected under both federal and state law, including, but not limited to, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish & Game Code Section 3503, which generally prohibit the unlawful taking of migratory birds. However, the Planning Commission's analysis of environmental review for the Project fails to consider or analyze the Project's impacts on migratory and nesting birds. Further, the Project would likely directly impact an endangered species that is present on the Project site and therefore requires additional environmental review. Specifically, the Southern Tarplant has been observed growing on the Project site, which is listed as a "rare and endangered plant in California and elsewhere" and "seriously endangered in California" by the California Native Plant Society and is therefore also likely subject to protection under the Endangered Species Act and California Department of Fish and Game Code. Moreover, the Project's threat to this endangered species would likely also contravene several of the City's General Plan goals, including the Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element Goal NR 10, which provides for "protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development" as well as General Plan Policy NR 10.4, which provides that "new Development Siting and Design require that the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values." 35-318 City of Newport Beach — Appeal — PA2025-0049 July 17, 2025 Page 6 of 6 The Project's potential impacts and threats to sensitive species at the Project site constitute "new information" of "substantial importance" under CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15164 that was not evaluated in any prior environmental review and therefore requires preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, at minimum. S.O.S. Park urges the City to direct Staff to prepare additional environmental review for the Project in accordance with CEQA. VI. Conclusion Based on the grounds presented herein, we respectfully request that the City Council conduct a full de novo appeal hearing for the Project pursuant to NBMC Section 20.64.030.C.4. (Review of an appeal from a decision of the Hearing Officer, Zoning Administrator, Commission, or the Director, including Director interpretations, shall be de novo."). At the appeal hearing, the City should consider and evaluate the following: 1. Project's Compliance with the Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards 2. Project's Site Development Review (SDR) and related Findings 3. Requested Lot Line Adjustment and Status of Property Ownership 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) and related Findings 5. The adequacy and need for additional environmental review under CEQA 6. Any other issue(s) concerning the Project that the City deems appropriate The Project, as currently proposed, presents serious procedural, environmental, and planning concerns that warrant careful reevaluation and consideration in light of community concerns, public input, and potential conflict with applicable state and local laws. Should the City have any questions or concerns regarding this appeal letter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, a Omar Corona Attorneys for Save Our Sports Park 35-319 •- .. NATIONWIDE LEGAL, LLC. CLIENT ADVANCE ACCOUNT CONFIRM ENCASHMENT BMO BANK N.A. 5126990 1609 JAMES M. WOOD BLVD, 2ND FLOOR OF OVER $200.00 W/ 320 South Carol street CHICAGO, IL 60606 LOS ANGELES, CA 90015 THE MAKER @ (213) 249-9999 02-2566 (213) 249-9999 1 1 Ito i L DATE O � 1 �y PAY TO THE ORDER OF- 00 $�� 1b. DOLLARS + r DR# OC90CLIENT NOT TO EXCEED $1,500.00 VOID AFTER 90 DAYS CONTROL# -1(9,216 1 Z PAY TO THE ORDER OF- 111512E990III 1:071025EEII: E843018011' NATIONWIDE LEGAL- ACAG4 LLC. COUNT CLIENT ADVANCE CONFIRM ENCASHMENT BMo BANK N.A. 5126989 CH 1609 JAMES M. WOOD BLVD, 2ND FLOOR OF OVER $200.00 W/ 32euth Carol Street CHICAGO, IL 60606 LOS ANGELES, CA 90015 THE MAKER @ (213) 249-9999 02-2566 (213) 249-9999 Ito % f DATE � t % 7 ' lj�2- J-11 v DR# Od/ LIENT NOT TO EXCEED $1,500.00 VOID AFTER §0 DAYS X # L7� 05 1 2E98911' 1:07 10 250E 0: E84 30 1801i' DOLLARS 35-320 City of Newport Beach Revenue 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-644-3141 Welcome 07/17/2025 04:33PM Jordan W. 022224-0002 000112612 Payment Effective Date 07/17/2025 MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING APPEALS (CDD222) 2026 Item: CDD222 1 @ $2116.00 PLANNING APPEALS (CDD222) $2,116.00 -------------- $2,116.00 Subtotal $2,116.00 Total $2,116.00 CHECK $2,116.00 Check Number BATCH -------------- Change due $0.00 Paid by: NATIONWIDE LEGAL, LLC. Comments: CH#5126989 & 5126990 Thank you for your payment CUSTOMER COPY DUPLICATE RECEIPT 35-321 Attachment H City Appeal Response Letter 35-322 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment July 21, 2025 DELIVER VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Omar Corona, Attorney for Save Our Sports Park Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm 139 S. Hudson Ave, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91101 RE: Status of Appeal Application — Planning Commission Approval of the Ford Road Townhomes Project (PA2025-0049) Dear Mr. Corona, The City of Newport Beach (City) has received your July 17, 2025, Appeal Application ("Application") of the Planning Commission's July 3, 2025, decision approving the Ford Road Townhomes Project (PA2025-0049). Although your Application requests appeal of both the Major Site Development Review and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, the City is rejecting your appeal of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map application due to its untimely submittal. Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 19.12.050 and 20.64.030(B)(1), appeals shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after the action of the Planning Commission. Due to the timing of the appeal, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is final and is not subject to appeal. As stated in your appeal, ten (10) days is typical for lot line adjustments, lot mergers, and subdivisions per the provisions in the City's Subdivision Code (Title 19 of the NBMC). NBMC Chapter 20.64 (Appeals), as referenced in the public hearing notice, also clearly Community Development Department states that Title 19 includes a ten (10) day appeal period for tentative tract maps. Furthermore, both the agenda for the July 3, 2025, Planning Commission meeting (Enclosure A) and the adopted signed Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 (Enclosure B) clearly state the ten (10) day appeal period for the tentative tract maps. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.64.030(B)(1), appeals of Major Site Development Review shall be filed with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days after the action of the Planning Commission. As a result, your appeal of the Major Site Development review has been accepted and will be processed for a future City Council review. Response to CEQA-Related Concerns and Reference to AB130 Your Appeal asserts that the Project requires additional environmental review under CEQA. The City disagrees. As detailed in Resolution No. PC2025-012 and the CEQA Consistency Memorandum prepared by T&B Planning Inc. (Exhibit A to the adopted resolution), the Project is exempt from further CEQA analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code §21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines §15183. Specifically: 1. Consistency with Certified PEIR: The Project is consistent with the development and use characteristics established by the City's General Plan Housing Element Implementation, for which a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (SCH No. 2023060699) was certified by the City Council in July 2024. The Project site is identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 and included in the adopted Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District as an eligible site. 2. No New Significant Impacts: The Project does not result in new significant impacts, nor does it have environmental effects that are peculiar to the site which were not analyzed in the PEIR. The CEQA consistency analysis —prepared by qualified consultants and peer -reviewed —confirmed that the Project: o Does not introduce significant environmental effects peculiar to the project site; o Does not involve new or more severe significant impacts than previously disclosed; o Does not contribute to new or greater off -site or cumulative impacts; o Does not contain new information indicating the PEIR's conclusions require revision. 35-324 3. Wildlife and Sensitive Species: The claim that the site supports sensitive avian species or rare plants was not substantiated with biological surveys or recognized regulatory data. The CEQA Consistency Memorandum prepared for the project relied upon a recent (June 25, 2025) site -specific Biological Resource Assessment Memorandum of the property, which concluded that the site lacks riparian or wetland habitats. The presence of sensitive species, including the Southern Tarplant, was not verified in a manner that would trigger supplemental CEQA documentation. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure B1O-1 included in the PEIR ensures no impacts to nesting birds occur during the implementation of the project. 4. CEQA Compliance Affirmed: The Planning Commission determined —based on the comprehensive consistency analysis —that no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. The City Council will have the opportunity to review these conclusions during its de novo consideration of the valid appeal portion. This exemption determination is fully supported by AB 130, which was enacted to expedite housing production and avoid repetitive CEQA reviews where comprehensive program -level environmental analysis has already occurred. The Planning Commission's findings reflect this legal framework. Sincerely, Jays Murillo, AICP Deputy Community Development Director Enclosures: 1. July 3, 2025, Planning Commission Agenda 2. Adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 35-325 Enclosure 1 35-326 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE TRISTAN HARRIS Vice Chair THURSDAY, JULY 3, 2025 REGULAR MEETING - 6:00 P.M. MARK ROSENE Chair CURTIS ELLMORE MICHAEL GAZZANO JONATHANLANGFORD GREG REED DAVID SALENE Secretary Planning Commissioners are citizens of Newport Beach who volunteer to serve on the Planning Commission. They were appointed by the City Council by majority vote for four-year terms. At the table in front are City staff members who are here to advise the Commission during the meeting. They are: SEIMONE JURJIS, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director JAIME MURILLO, Deputy Community Development Director YOLANDA SUMMERHILL, Assistant City Attorney BRAD SOMMERS, City Traffic Engineer CLARIVEL RODRIGUEZ, Administrative Assistant NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC Regular meetings of the Planning Commission are held on the Thursdays preceding second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 6:00 p.m. The agendas, minutes, and staff reports are available on the City's website at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov and for public inspection in the Community Development Department, Planning Division located at 100 Civic Center Drive, during normal business hours. If you have any questions or require copies of any of the staff reports or other documentation, please contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division staff at 949-644-3200. This Commission is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Among other things, the Brown Act requires that the Commission's agenda be posted at least 72 hours in advance of each meeting and that the public be allowed to comment on agenda items before the Commission and items not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission may limit public comments to a reasonable amount of time, generally three (3) minutes per person. All testimony given before the Planning Commission is recorded. Under the Levine Act, Section 84308 of the Government Code, a party to a proceeding before the City involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use is required to disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) made within the preceding 12 months by the party or the party's agent to any elected or appointed officer of the City. If you have made a qualifying contribution, please ensure to make this disclosure on the record. Please Note: You can submit your questions and comments in writing for the Planning Commission to consider by mailing or delivering them to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach CA, 92660. Alternatively, you can send them by electronic mail directly to Commissioners at planningcommission (a)newportbeachca.gov. Each Commissioner and staff will receive your message directly. Pursuant to Planning Commission procedures, please submit your written comments no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday the day before the meeting in order to give Commissioners adequate time to review your submission. It is the intention of the City of Newport Beach to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant of this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City of Newport Beach will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative Assistant, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible (949-644-3232 or crodriguez(a)newportbeachca.gov). APPEAL PERIOD: Use Permit, Variance, Site Plan Review, and Modification Permit applications do not become effective until 14 days following the date of approval, during which time an appeal may be filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Tentative Tract Map, Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Merger, and Lot Line Adjustment applications do not become effective until 10 days following the date of approval, during which time an appeal may be filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. General Plan, Zoning, and Local Coastal Program Amendments are automatically forwarded to the City Council for final action. 35-327 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JULY 3, 2025 REGULAR MEETING — 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF OFFICERS Summary: The Planning Commission's adopted rules require the election of officers at its annual meeting, which occurs at the first meeting of July each year. Officers include the Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary and they would serve for a one-year term. Recommended Actions: 1. Find this action not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; 2. Nominate Planning Commission officers consisting of Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary; and 3. Appoint the officers by majority approval of a motion either individually or as one motion for all positions. V. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments are invited on non -agenda items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Speakers must limit comments to three (3) minutes. Before speaking, please state your name for the record and print your name on the blue forms provided at the podium. VI. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES VII. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 2025 Recommended Action: Approve and file Page 2 of 4 35-328 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda July 3, 2025 Vill. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Speakers must limit comments to three (3) minutes on all items. Before speaking, please state your name for the record and print your name on the blue forms provided at the podium. If in the future you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues, which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing. ITEM NO. 3 FORD ROAD TOWNHOMES (PA2025-0049) Site Location: The unaddressed property abutting 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361- 10) identified as Site ID No. 141 in the Housing Element Sites Inventory and 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02) Summary: A request to authorize the development of a for -sale residential townhome community with 27 units on an undeveloped and unaddressed property near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection, northeast of the parking lot for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and west of the AT&T facility. The proposed development includes a mix of two-, three, and four -bedroom units ranging from 1,916 to 2,989 square feet, each with an attached two -car garage. Units would be distributed within four detached, four-story buildings with a maximum structure height of 47 feet and 11 inches, above the established grade. The development will provide 13 visitor parking spaces and a variety of private resident -serving amenities. Offsite improvements include the installation of a gate restricting access to the neighboring AT&T property and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications monopole onto the neighboring AT&T property. Lastly, the project includes subdividing the project site and reconfiguring the lot line between the project site and the AT&T property. The following approvals are required: Major Site Development Review: Required for any project proposing five or more residential units with a tract map. The Major Site Development Review additionally allows for an increase in maximum structure height pursuant to Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) and deviations from specific multi -unit objective design standards pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. • Vesting Tentative Tract Map: Requested to adjust the easterly property line between the project site and the AT&T property, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes, and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units for individual sale (i.e., for condominium purposes). Recommended Actions: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find that this project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines because the Project is consistent with the previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023060699): and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2025-012, approving the Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map filed as PA2025-0049. Page 3 of 4 35-329 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda July 3, 2025 IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ITEM NO. 5 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES X. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 of 4 35-330 Enclosure 2 35-331 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 RESOLUTION NO. PC2025-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CONSTRUCT 27 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED ON AN UNADDRESSED PARCEL ABUTTING 1650 FORD ROAD (PA2025-0049) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Ford Road Ventures LLC ("Applicant"), on behalf of the property owner Pacific Bell Telephone Company ("Owner") concerning property located at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02), and an undeveloped and unaddressed property abutting 1650 Ford Road (458-361-10), and legally described as Lot A and Lot B, respectively, of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2019-001 ("Properties"). 2. The Applicant proposes to develop a 27-unit, for sale, residential townhome complex upon the undeveloped and unaddressed property, near the southeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection, northeast of the parking lot for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and west of the AT&T Facility located at 1650 Ford Road ("Project Site"). The proposed development includes two-, three-, and four -bedroom units ranging from 1,916 to 2,989 square feet. The development will include a two -car garage for each unit, 10 uncovered guest parking spaces and two uncovered delivery spaces for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces. Units will be distributed within four, detached, four-story buildings with a maximum structure height of 47 feet and 11 inches, above the established grade. The development will provide resident -serving amenities including an outdoor picnic area and an outdoor firepit area. Vehicular access to the Project Site will be taken from Ford Road, through a shared driveway with the adjacent AT&T facility. Pedestrian access will be provided to the adjacent Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail. The project also proposes improvements to the neighboring AT&T Facility property including the installation of a gate to restrict access to its parking lot, repaving of the parking lot, new landscaping, repainting the building, and the relocation of an existing wireless telecommunications monopole. Lastly, the project will subdivide the undeveloped and unaddressed Project Site and reconfigure the lot line between the Project Site and the AT&T Facility property. ("Project"). 3. The following approvals are required from the City of Newport Beach ("City) to implement the Project: Major Site Development Review ("SDR"): i. A SDR is required for projects proposing 5 or more units with a tract map. Though not required as discussed in Fact 5 below, the Applicant has requested a SDR to allow for an increase in maximum structure height pursuant to Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) of the Newport 35-332 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 2 of 38 Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") A SDR is also requested to allow deviations from four multi -unit objective design standards pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. Vesting Tentative Tract Map ("VTTM"): i. A VTTM is requested to adjust the easterly property line between the undeveloped Project Site and the AT&T facility to increase the lot to approximately 1.16 acres, to create individual parcels for conveyance purposes within the undeveloped Project Site, to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units for condominium purposes. 4. On September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2024-16 and 2024-17, approving amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC to establish the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts in Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) ("Housing Overlay") and to create multi -unit objective design standards in Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. The new sections serve to implement Policy Actions 1A through 1 G and 3A in the 6t" Cycle Housing Element ("Housing Element") of the General Plan. The Project Site was identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141. 5. Subsequently, on June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, approving amendments to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments adjusted the height limitation for certain properties within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District to accommodate potential residential development with the intendent prescribed density range. Specifically, these amendments allowed for the base height limit of the Project Site to be increased from 37 feet to 48 feet. Independent of this amendment, pursuant to Section 20.30.060(C) (Height Limits and Exceptions — Increase in Height Limit) of the NBMC, the Project has the flexibility to increase the allowed base height limit of 37 feet up to 55 feet through the approval of a SDR. Facts in support of findings are included in Findings D through G. 6. The Project Site is located within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District ("HO-4 Subarea"). The Project Site is designated as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District. 7. The Project Site is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required. 8. The Project does not include the construction of affordable housing. However, the City's Sites Inventory within the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element contains adequate other sites suitable for affordable housing opportunities and therefore is consistent with the State's no net loss provisions. 07-29-24 35-333 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 3 of 38 9. A public hearing was held on July 3, 2025, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and its implementing guidelines set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50 on July 23, 2024, certifying Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023060699 ("PEIR"), approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC which are available at: Housing Implementation Program EIR. 2. The Project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code ("PRC") and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines because, inasmuch as the property involved is within the HO-4 Subarea, the Project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations; and would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial more adverse impact than addressed in the PEIR. 3. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines provides, in relevant part: a. Projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. b. In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; iii. Are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or 07-29-24 35-334 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 4 of 38 iv. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. c. If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. d. This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions: The project is consistent with: A. A community plan adopted as part of a general plan; B. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development; or C. A general plan of a local agency; and An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan. 4. As part of its decision -making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the Project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. Additional CEQA review is only triggered if the Project's new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in PEIR such that major revisions to the PEIR would be required. A detailed consistency analysis has been prepared by T & B Planning Inc., dated June 2025, which was peer reviewed and accepted by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference and the additional findings set forth in Section 4 below. 5. The Project is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by the City's General Plan Housing Implementation Program as analyzed by the PEIR, and the required determinations can be made, as detailed in Exhibit "A." Therefore, in accordance with Section 21083.3 of the PRC and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required to approve the Project. The Planning Commission determines: a. The Project is consistent with the development density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre established by existing zoning and general plan policies for which the PEIR was certified; 07-29-24 35-335 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 5 of 38 b. There are no significant environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project or the parcels on which the Project would be located; c. There are no significant environmental effects of the Project that were not analyzed as significant effects in the PEIR; d. There are no potentially significant off -site impacts or cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the PEIR; and e. There are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the PEIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior PEIR. 6. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Major Site Development Review In accordance with Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews — Findings and Decisions) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject Zoning District Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project Site is located within the HO-4 Subarea and is identified as Housing Opportunity Site No. 141. Pursuant to Section 20.28.050 (B) (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts — Uses Allowed) in addition to the uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted in the base zoning district, multi -unit residential development that meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement shall be permitted within the HO Overlay Zoning District. 2. Pursuant to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, the HO-4 Subarea requires a density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Based on the proposed 1.16-acre lot, the Project results in a density of 23.27 units per acre and meets the density requirement of the HO-4 Subarea. 07-29-24 35-336 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 6 of 38 3. The HO-4 subarea requires a zero -foot front, side, streetside and rear setback. However, footnote No. 3 of Table 2-16 requires that any portion of a building that is over 20 feet in height, which includes the Project's third and fourth floors, shall provide a 20- foot setback from the street right-of-way. The Project is bounded to the north by Bonita Canyon Drive and to the south by Ford Road. Though only the upper floors of required a 20-foot setback from the street right-of-way, the Project provides a varying streetside setbacks of 20 to 45-feet from of the entire height of the two buildings nearest to Bonita Canyon Drive and additional setbacks for the fourth -floor covered patios. The portion of Ford Road directly adjacent to the Project Site is dedicated as open space and not public right-of-way; therefore, the upper floor setback would not apply at this location. The Project also provides varying setbacks for the other setback areas including, a 6 to 56- foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west, and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project complies with setback requirements. 4. Table 2-16 establishes a maximum height for the HO-4 subarea consistent with the base zone of the property, which in this case, is 37 feet. However, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. The Project proposes a height of 47-feet, 11 inches to the highest ridge as measured from the established grade as indicated on the VTTM pursuant to Section 20.30.050 (13)(1) (Grade Establishment — Subdivisions) of the NBMC. Independent of the amendment, pursuant to Section 20.30.060(C) (Height Limits and Exceptions — Increase in Height Limit) of the NBMC, the Project has the flexibility to increase the allowed base height limit of 37 feet up to 55 feet through the approval of a SDR. Facts in support of findings are included in Findings D through G. 5. Table 2-17 (Residential Off -Street Parking Requirements for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) of the NBMC requires 1.8 spaces per unit that includes two bedrooms, 2.0 spaces per unit that includes three or more bedrooms and 0.3 spaces per unit for visitor parking. The Project proposes 27 dwelling units, eight with two bedrooms and 19 with three or more bedrooms, resulting in a requirement of 61 spaces. Project provides a two - car garage for each unit, 10 guest parking spaces and two delivery spaces for a total of 66 onsite parking spaces. The Project therefore complies with the minimum parking requirement. 6. Pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC, multi -unit objective design standards are applicable to any residential project with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. These standards ensure the highest possible design quality and provide a baseline standard for new multi -unit developments throughout the City. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference, the Project deviates from the following four objective design standards: 07-29-24 35-337 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 7 of 38 (1) Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone); (2) 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length); (3) 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation — Minimum Depth); and (4) 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Number) of the NBMC. The Project otherwise complies with the design standards and, in come some cases, exceeds the intent of the standards. Section 20.40.185(C) of the NBMC allows for deviations from any objective design standards through the approval of a SDR by the Planning Commission if the Applicant can demonstrate that strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the objective design standards and that the project possesses compensating design and development features that meets or exceeds the intent of the objective design standards. The facts in support of the required findings are included in Findings H through I. 7. The HO-4 subarea requires a minimum building separation of 10 feet. The Project proposes varying building separations of 22 feet to 33 feet. The Project therefore complies with the minimum building separation requirement. 8. The HO-4 subarea requires that at least 75 square feet of common space to be provided per dwelling unit throughout the Project Site with a minimum length and width of 15 feet. The Project is therefore required to provide a minimum of 2,025 square feet of common open space. Section 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defines common open space as the land area within a residential development that is not individually owned or dedicated for public use and that is designed, intended, and reserved exclusively for the shared enjoyment or use by all the residents and their guests including but not limited to areas of scenic or natural beauty, barbecue areas, landscaped areas, turf areas, and habitat areas. The Project provides a total of 2,857 square feet of common open area within an outdoor picnic area and firepit lounge area. The Project therefore complies with the minimum common open space requirement. 9. The HO-4 subarea requires that at least 5% of the proposed gross floor area per unit be dedicated to private open space. Qualifying areas of private open space shall have a dimension of at least 6 feet in length and width. Section 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defined private open spaces as outdoor or unenclosed areas directly adjoining and accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive private enjoyment and use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests including but not limited to a balcony, deck, porch or terrace. The Project requires between 96 to 150 square feet of private open space per unit. The Project provides between 139 to 156 square feet of qualifying private open space per unit in the form of balconies and covered decks and therefore complies with the minimum private open space requirement. The Project provides additional private open space for certain units in the form of additional balconies. While these areas do not count as qualifying private open space, as they do not meet the minimum width requirement, the balconies provide additional private open space areas for residents and furthers the intent of this requirement. 07-29-24 35-338 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 8 of 38 Finding: B. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the following applicable criteria: i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and A The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Site is categorized as Public Facilities (PF) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. However, as indicated in Land Use Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities) residential use of any property including within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category. In this case, the HO-4 subarea would allow residential development on the Project Site in addition to the uses allow in of the underlying PF land use category and zoning district. 2. The Project is consistent with the following General Plan Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Circulation Element policies that establish fundamental criteria for the formation and implementation of new residential development, including, but not limited to the following: a. Housing Element Policy 3.2. Encourage housing developments to offer a wide spectrum of housing choices, designs, and configurations. See finding LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices below. b. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.3 (Range of Residential Choices). Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. 07-29-24 35-339 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 9 of 38 Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element. The Project proposes a 27-unit residential condominium complex consisting of for -sale, attached single -unit dwellings offered in four distinct floor plan configurations ranging from two to four bedrooms and 1,916 to 2,989 square feet. This Project would diversify the City's housing stock, accommodate a variety of household sizes, respond to market demand, and support the City's efforts to increase the supply of housing throughout the City. c. Land Use Element Policy LU3.2 (Growth and Change). Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The Project is proposed on an undeveloped and underutilized property within an area of the City that is considerably developed. The Project will add 27 attached single -unit dwellings to the City's housing stock which furthers the City's efforts of increasing and diversifying the housing stock. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department reviewed the Project's projected traffic generation analysis and found that Ford Road would adequately serve the project. The Project is projected to produce 182 average daily trips, which does not exceed the 300 average daily trip threshold, and therefore, no additional traffic analysis is required. Additionally, the Public Works Department reviewed the submitted sewer and water demand study and found that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project, as adequate infrastructure is available and has sufficient capacity. d. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities). Residential use of any property included within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category or density limit established through Policy LU 4.1, Table LU 1 and Table LU 2, or any other conflict in the Land Use Element. A general plan amendment is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity zoning overlay district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay districts specified in Policy LU 4.4 is an average over the entire property or project site. For example, a portion of a development site may be developed at a higher density than specified by Policy 4.4 provided other portions of the site are 07-29-24 35-340 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 10 of 38 developed at lower densities such that the average does not exceed the maximum. Density calculations and total units identified in LU 4.4 do not include units identified as pipeline units or units permitted pursuant to State density bonus law. The Project is located within Housing Opportunity Site No. 141 and is located within the HO-4 Subarea. The Project proposes 27 residential condominiums on a 1.16-acre property which yields a density of 23.27 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the allowed density of the HO-4 Subarea. e. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.6 (Character and Quality of Residential Properties). Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized. While Policy LU 5.1.6 is intended for single-family detached and two -unit projects, the Project includes large setback areas that are thoroughly landscaped with drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species. While the HO-4 Subarea does not require any base floor setbacks along the front, side or rear property lines, the Project provides varying setbacks including a 20 to 45-foot streetside setback on the north, a 6 to 56-foot, side setback on the northeast, a 4 to 6-foot side setback on the west, and an 11 to 24-foot rear setback on the southeast of the Project Site. This setback design allows the Project to better reflect the character of a single-family neighborhood. Trash containers will be located within each dwelling unit's garage and screened from the public right-of-way. The visibility of driveway and parking paving has been minimized through use of landscaping to prevent an unpleasant visual experience to the surrounding neighborhood. f. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.9 (Character and Quality of Multi -Family Residential) Require that multi -family dwellings be designed to convey a high -quality architectural character in accordance with the following principles: Building Elevations Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal fagades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume Provide street- and path -facing elevations with high -quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes. Ground Floor Treatment 07-29-24 35-341 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 11 of 38 Set ground -floor residential uses back from the sidewalk or from the right-of- way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping. Raise ground -floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking space. Encourage stoops and porches for ground -floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways. Roof Design Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units' architecture. Open Space and Amenity Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference, the Project complies with the majority (48 of 52) of the applicable objective design standards and in some cases exceeds the intent of the standards. However, the Applicant requests minor deviations of four objective design standards. The Objective Design Standards were developed to implement Land Use Policy LU5.1.9, therefore compliance with these standards with negligible deviation ensures that the Project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU5.1.9. g. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.1 (Compatible Development). Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors Although the Project Site has an irregular shape, the Project design compactly arranges the four separate buildings to maximize site efficiency and preserve larger than required setbacks. The Bonita Canyon Sports Park unique parcel shape extends in front of the northwest portion of the Project Site, further setting back the proposed development up to 50 feet from the Bonita Canyon right-of-way in that location. The Project site design includes interior drive aisles and resident amenity areas which are screened from public view. The Project's large setbacks, landscaped edge conditions, and location of drive 07-29-24 35-342 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 12 of 38 aisles and residential amenities reduce the visual impact of the Project and ensures compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. h. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.2 (Form and Environment). Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. The contemporary coastal architectural style of the Project has been designed to portray the character and quality of the nearby Harbor View community. Architectural articulations and high -quality materials including brick and wood siding are utilized to blend in with the character of the surrounding community. Additionally, the Project includes two color schemes: a coastal color scheme with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white. These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes throughout the City. i. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.3 (Ambient Lighting). Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan which shows that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. Land Use Policy LU 6.15.23 (Sustainable Development Practices). Require that development achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs -generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR, Title 24, Parts 6 — California Energy 07-29-24 35-343 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 13 of 38 Code) and the Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11 - CALGreen). Additionally, the Project would implement water -efficient landscaping, water quality best management practices and low impact development practices. The Project is within proximity to Newport Center commercial and office developments and would provide housing near this employment center. The Project includes pedestrian linkage to the Ford Road public sidewalk and Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail which offer provide pedestrian and bicyclist connections to nearby destinations such as Newport Center, approximately two miles away, and the Newport Hills Shopping Center, one mile away. The Project is also located in close proximity to the existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes provided along Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Drive. k. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.3 (New Development Maintained Responsibility). Ensure minimization of traffic congestion impacts and parking impacts and ensure proper roadway maintenance through review and approval of Construction Management Plans associated with new development proposals in residential neighborhoods. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. This ensures that any traffic congestion impacts associated with the construction process is minimized to the greatest extent possible. I. Circulation Element Policy CE 7.1.7 (Project Site Design Supporting Alternate Modes). Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. See finding LU 6.15.23 Sustainable Development Practices above. 3. Facts 1 through 9 in support of Finding A are hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The Project Site is not located within a Specific Plan Area. 5. The Project includes various intentional architectural design features including recessed balconies, varied rooflines, and material changes with a neutral, earthy and coastal color pallet. These design features result in well -articulated facades which reduce the visual bulk of the Project and allow each unit to appear as distinct homes rather than a single, unarticulated, building. Additionally, the Project is integrated with the Bonita Canyon Sports Park through the use of landscaping and pedestrian walkways. 6. The Project will utilize an existing curb cut for vehicular access from Ford Road. The curb opening will be shared between the Project Site and the adjacent AT&T facility property; however, a distinct drive aisle will be constructed for the Project. Offsite 07-29-24 35-344 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 14 of 38 improvements include the installation of a gate restricting access to the AT&T facility parking lot. 7. The Project landscaping complies with Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscaping) and Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping) of the NBMC. Additionally, the Project complies with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance ("WELO") which requires the installation and maintenance of drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species. The Project's varied setbacks, 6 to 56 feet, allows for substantial perimeter landscaping, with enhanced treatments along Bonita Canyon Drive to improve the view for motorists and residents to the north, and along Bonita Canyon Sports Park Trail to enhance the pedestrians and park user experience. Landscaping is also integrated throughout the Project Site, including around the picnic and firepit areas to enhance the residential experience. 8. Pursuant to Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection) of the NBMC, projects shall preserve significant visual resources from public views and corridors including identified in Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views) of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan. The Project Site is not within the vicinity of any Public Viewpoints, nor any Coastal View Roads as identified in Figure NR3. The nearest designated public viewpoint is located at Big Canyon Park, over a mile west of the Project Site. The nearest designated coastal view road is MacArthur Boulevard, south of the San Joaquin Hills Road, over a mile south of the Project Site. Due to the distance and urbanized nature of the Project area, the Project is not anticipated to impact any public views. Finding: C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor will it endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of person residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project has been designed to minimize aesthetic impacts to the surrounding neighborhood to the greatest extent possible by providing an architecturally pleasing contemporary coastal architectural style design with articulation and high -quality materials. 2. The Project has been designed to have adequate, efficient, and safe pedestrian and vehicular access to and from the Project Site within driveways, parking, and loading areas. The Project includes the drive aisles that are located within the Project Site, behind the proposed buildings, which will significantly buffer any vehicle noise produced. The Project is also designed to accommodate and provide safe access for emergency vehicles, and refuse collection vehicles through the Ford Road access point. 3. The Project Site is adjacent to Bonita Canyon Drive, a four -lane primary arterial road with a central median and Ford Road, a two-lane connector road with a central median. 07-29-24 35-345 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 15 of 38 These two roads create large buffers between the Project and the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the north and south. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, the Public Works Department reviewed the Project's traffic generation analysis prepared by Pirzadeh & Associates Inc, dated May 13, 2025, which projected 182 average daily trips. The Public Works Department found that found that Ford Road would adequately serve the Project, and no additional traffic analysis is required. 5. The Project requires 61 onsite parking spaces; however, the Project provides 66 onsite parking spaces, including a two -car garage for each unit, 10 guest parking spaces and two delivery spaces. The additional parking and individual unit garage parking will mitigate use of street parking on Ford Road or the adjacent parking lot within the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. 6. The Project has been conditioned to require the Applicant to prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan which shows that lighting values are 1" or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. 7. The Project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, along with all City ordinances and all conditions of approval which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Height Increase The HO-4 subarea limits heights to that of the base zoning district. The underlying zoning district is Public Facilities (PF) which is regulated by the Nonresidential, Nonshoreline Height Limit Area. In this height limit area, the base height limit for structures with flat roofs is 32 feet and the base height limit for structures with sloped roofs is 37 feet. However, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC. These amendments allowed for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. Though the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, in accordance with Section 20.30.060(C)(3) (Height Limits and Exceptions - Required Findings) of the NBMC, the Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height only after making all the following findings in addition to the findings required pursuant to Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews — Findings and Decision)- Finding-. D. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Examples of project amenities include, but are not limited to: 07-29-24 35-346 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 16 of 38 i. Additional landscaped open space; ii. Increased setback and open areas; iii. Enhancement and protection of public views; Facts in Support of Findina: The HO-4 subarea is not subject to any minimum setback requirement for portions of a building that are below 20-feet in height, which is the Project's first and second floors. However, the Project voluntarily integrates varying setbacks of 6 to 56 feet at the first floor with additional setbacks on the higher levels. These setbacks help create more open areas throughout the Project Site than would otherwise be required by the NBMC. 2. The HO-4 subarea is not subject to any maximum lot coverage requirement. However, the compact site design of the Project is accommodated through the taller builder design which results in a lot coverage of approximately 45%. In comparison, properties located within the Multiple Residential (RM-6000) Zoning District are allowed a maximum lot coverage of 60%. The Project provides additional open area through its compact design and less horizontal massing to reduce the site coverage compared to what is allowed a RM-6000 District, accomplished with the additional height of each building. 3. Fact 9 in Support of Finding A is hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The provided setbacks, open areas, and lower lot coverage offer amenities beyond those otherwise required by the HO-4 subarea and contributes to a more visually appealing project for the neighborhood. Finding: E. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes; Facts in Support of Finding: Facts 5 in support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Architectural articulations and varied materials including high -end stone, brick and wood siding are provided to mirror the high -quality design of the neighborhood. 3. The Project is subject to comply with the City's Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards which ensure a high -quality design. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference, the Project deviates from four objective design standards but otherwise complies with the design standards and, in some cases, exceeds the intent of the standards. The facts in support of findings are included under Findings H and I. Finding: 07-29-24 35-34 7 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 17 of 38 F. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties. Facts in Support of Finding: The Project is surrounded by the Newport Bluff apartment complex to the north across Bonita Canyon Drive, a parking lot within the Bonita Canyon Sports Park to the west, the Harbor View community to the south across Ford Road and the AT&T facility to the east. 2. The Project is separated from the Newport Bluffs apartment complex by Bonita Canyon Drive, a four -lane primary arterial road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height, and approximately 185 feet from the Project's northmost structures. The Project has been conditioned to include perimeter landscaping along Bonita Canyon Drive, including trees, which will further buffer and soften the fagade of the Project and ensure scale compatibility is maintained. 3. The Project is separated from the Port Street neighborhood by Ford Road, a two-lane connector road with a center median landscaped with trees ranging from 45 to 60 feet in height. The nearest single unit dwelling within the Port Street neighborhood is approximately 230 feet from the Project's southmost structure. Homes within the Harbor View community consist of single -story to two-story structures and have an allowed maximum height of up to 32 feet. The adjacent AT&T building is approximately 35 feet in height. The changing scale of structures, intervening road with large street trees and distance provides a harmonious transition from the two-story Harbor View community to the Project. 4. The Project's westmost structure is separated from the usable area of the Bonita Canyon Sport Park by approximately 185 feet. Intervening uses include the large parking lot and landscape buffer with trees ranging from 15 to 30 feet in height. In addition to the visual screen provided by the landscaping the setbacks and landscaping within the park adjacent to the Project site, the Project provides upper floor setbacks, balconies, covered decks, and varied rooflines which prevent the appearance of an overly bulky building oriented towards the parking lot and park beyond. 5. The Project height is otherwise allowed pursuant to Ordinance No. 2025-10 as adopted by the City Council on June 24, 2025, which approved an amendment to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC to allow for the base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. These amendments become effective on July 26, 2025. Finding: 07-29-24 35-348 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 18 of 38 G. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. Fact in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC, the HO-4 Subarea does not have a floor area ratio (FAR) limitation. Muh-Unit Objective Design Standards Deviation In accordance with Section 20.48.185(A) (Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards — Purpose) of the NBMC, the Project is seeking deviation from the following Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards: a) Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone) b) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length) c) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation — Minimum Depth) d) Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Number) The Planning Commission may approve a SDR to allow deviation of multi -unit objective design standards only after making all the following findings: Finding: H. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section. Facts in Suoaort of Findina: Section 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards - Landscape and Paving Zone (LPZ)) of the NBMC requires that a 4-foot minimum width zone abutting a building is required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping with a combination of vines, ornamental, grasses, shrubs, ground cover, and ornamental trees. The Project provides a 3-foot, 6-inch wide LPZ at most driveway areas which result from building offsets. The building offset contributes to enhanced building articulation, resulting in a more visually appealing facade. Increasing the LPZ zone to meet the four -foot width requirement would reduce the size of the building offsets and the open setback area in front of each building. The LPZ areas, however, are designed with more than the required 20% minimum landscaping. The narrower LPZ design maximizes the amount of landscaped open space in front of each building which provides more benefit to future residents than the negligible six inches of LPZ adjacent to garages. 2. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length) of the NBMC limits building length to 150 feet. The Project proposes two eight -unit buildings with a length of 155-feet. The intent of the building length requirement is to prevent lengthy unarticulated building masses. The Project addresses this by incorporating 07-29-24 35-349 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 19 of 38 varied rooflines, balconies, fagade projections and recessions, and material variation which creates the appearance of distinct units and breaks up the building's overall length and massing. The building provides more than the required articulation and upper floor setbacks which ensures the building length is less visually obtrusive. 3. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(c) (Horizontal Modulation —Minimum Depth) of the NBMC requires all building recesses or projections to be a minimum of 2 feet in depth. The Project proposes a variety of different recesses and projections including upper floor setbacks, balconies and covered patios which range from 6 inches to 12 feet. The intent of this requirement is to allow for sufficient depth of recesses and projections so that building lengths are sufficiently modulated. While some of the Project's recesses and projections are less than two feet in depth, the Project provides large upper floor setbacks, balconies, and patios between 5 and 12 feet. The Project provides additional depth for other recesses and projections features which ensures building length is less visually obtrusive. 4. Section 20.48.185(R)(1)(d) (Horizontal Modulation - Maximum Number) of the NBMC require a maximum of two recesses or projections per fagade. The Project includes more than two recesses and projections in both of the largest buildings within the development. Due to their length, the additional recesses and projections allow for sufficient modulation to each unit. The intent of this requirement is to avoid lengthy and plain building faces. Limiting the design to only two recesses or projections would result in less modulation, less visual interest, and a building less reminiscent of townhomes. The Project is furthering the intent of this requirement by sufficiently modulating the eight-plex building, which results in a less visually obtrusive building length. Finding: The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards. Facts in Support of Finding: All facts in support of Finding H are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Facts 3 and 9 in support of Finding A are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. Section 20.48.185(D)(1)(a) (Muli-Unit Objective Design Standards — General Standards) of the NBMC requires that development with more than eight buildings to provide a minimum of two distinct color schemes. The Project includes only four buildings, however, the Project voluntarily provides two distinct color schemes. These include a coastal color scheme with whites, greys and light blues, and a neutral, earthy, color scheme with beige, brown, light green and light white. These color schemes allow for a natural and coastal feel which is consistent with the typical designs of new homes throughout the City. 07-29-24 35-350 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 20 of 38 Vesting Tentative Tract Map In accordance with Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps) of the NBMC, the following findings, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: J. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: The Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) is for 27-unit residential condominiums. 2. Fact 1 and 2 in support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed VTTM and found it consistent with Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the NBMC and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 4. The Applicant will provide an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. The existing parcel is undeveloped; therefore, the in -lieu park fee will be required for 27 new dwelling units. 5. A preliminary application for residential development, filed as PA2025-0056, was deemed submitted on April 7, 2025 for this Project. The preliminary application prevents the Project from being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in Government Code Section 65589.5(o). Therefore, the Project will be subject to the in -lieu park fee in the amount of $38,400 per unit which was the fee in effect at the time the preliminary application was deemed submitted. Finding: K. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed 1.16-acre Project Site is irregular in shape, slopes towards the northeast, and is not within a zone seemed to be subject to seismically induced liquefaction potential. The Project Site is adequality sized to accommodate the proposed density in compliance with all applicable requirements of the HO-4 subarea. 2. The site is suitable for the type and density of the development in that the infrastructure serving the site has been designed to accommodate the proposed project. A sewer and 07-29-24 35-351 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 21 of 38 water demand study were prepared by PSOMAS dated May 14, 2025. The study concluded that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project. The Project does not result in more than 500 dwelling units; therefore, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is not required for Project. 3. The Project has been reviewed by the Building, Fire, and Public Works Department and must comply with all Building, Fire, and Public Works Codes and City ordinances. Finding: L. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision -making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report Facts in Support of Finding: 1. As detailed in the CEQA Consistency Memorandum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference, the site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or wetlands. The proposed Project would not have any specific effects which are peculiar to the proposed Project or the Project site. Additionally, there are no project -specific significant impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan Housing Implementation Program ("GPHIP") Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), no potentially significant off -site or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GPHIP PEIR, and no substantial new information not known at the time the GPHIP PEIR was certified that shows that the proposed Project's effects would be more severe than discussed in the GPHIP PEIR. Finding: M. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed VTTM is for a 27-unit condominium complex. All improvements associated with the Project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) of the NBMC and Section 66411 (Local agencies to regulate and control design of subdivisions) of the Subdivision Map Act. The Project will conform to all City ordinances and Conditions of Approval. 07-29-24 35-352 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 22 of 38 2. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures within GPHIP PEIR MMRP, as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Memorandum which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference. 3. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious health problems. Finding: N. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision -making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Fact in Support of Finding: The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed VTTM and determined that the design of the development will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of the Project Site within the proposed development because no public easements are located on the Project Site. Finding: O. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Fact in Support of Finding: The Project Site is not subject to the Williamson Act. The Project Site is not designated as an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres in area. 2. The Project Site is within the HO-4 Subarea which is intended for development of a multi -story residential project. The intended use is not for residential development that is incidental to a commercial agricultural use. 07-29-24 35-353 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 23 of 38 Finding: P. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (2) the decision -making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 has been repealed by the Legislature. However, this project site is not considered a "land project" as previously defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code because the project site does not contain 50 or more parcels of land. 2. The Project is not located within a specific plan area. Finding: Q. That, solar access, and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: The VTTM includes attached dwelling units with open space, private driveways, and walkways which separate the individual buildings. The proposed subdivision design allows for solar access and passive and cooling opportunities through the use of large window and slide doors and the east -west alignment of 21 of the 27 dwelling units. 2. The Project and any future improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code, which requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The City's Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: R. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Fact in Support of Finding: The proposed 27 dwelling unit project yields a density of 23.37 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the HO-4 subarea. The Project is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code as the Project results in a net increase in 27, for -sale, residential dwelling units which 07-29-24 35-354 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 24 of 38 contributes to the City's assigned 6t" Cycle RHNA. By developing vacant land with medium -density, ownership housing, the Project helps meet the City's housing goals while utilizing existing infrastructure and public services. Finding: S. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in SUDDort of Findina: Wastewater discharge from the Project into the existing sewer system has been designed to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB") requirements. 2. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the Project. 3. Fact 2 in support of Finding K is hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: T. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Fact in Support of Finding: The Project Site is not located in the Coastal Zone; therefore, compliance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Coastal Act is not applicable. SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS. 2 The Project Site is designated as a Housing Opportunity Site under the City of Newport Beach's certified 6th Cycle Housing Element, approved by the City Council and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Pursuant to that approval, a residential overlay was placed on the site, allowing for the development of the proposed 27 residential units. This overlay designation is supported by the certified PEIR, approving the MMRP, and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. The Project Site is located within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. The Project Site is designated as Public Facilities (PF) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District. ThE City Council's duly adopted Housing Element and 07-29-24 35-355 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 25 of 38 accompanying actions establish the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea as a valid residential zoning mechanism consistent with California Government Code Sections 65583 and 65583.2. At the time of project approval, the certified Housing Element and residential overlay are in full legal effect. 3. The Project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the Project does not change the underlying land use or zoning designations; and would not result in new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. 4. Further, the proposed 27-unit residential project does not trigger Charter Section 423 (Greenlight) because it does not seek a General Plan Amendment. Furthermore, even if a General Plan Amendment was sought the amendment would not be considered "major" because the proposed project is less than 100 dwelling units, has less than 100 peak hour trips (traffic) and has no commercial component (thus, it is less than 40,000 square feet of floor area). Therefore, even without reliance upon the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea, no public vote is required for this proposed project under Greenlight. 5. In the event the Housing Element and General Plan amendments are invalidated by court order, the City nonetheless finds that the Project may be approved for the following reasons: • The certified PEIR, which is final and lawful, serves as a valid and independent basis for establishing the suitability of residential development at this site. • Under CEQA and California Government Code Section 65457 (exemption for residential projects consistent with a specific plan or general plan EIR), the certified PEIR's confers legal stability on the City's approval, including its reliance on the HO-4 subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District for land use purposes. • The City's approval advances the statewide interest in addressing housing needs, consistent with California Government Code Section 65589.5, and supports the City's good faith compliance with state law. Preventing the development of 27 residential units —already environmentally analyzed and approved —due solely to procedural uncertainty would run contrary to both local planning policy and state housing mandates. SECTION 5. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. In accordance with Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by the City's General Plan Housing Implementation Program as analyzed by the PEIR, and the required determinations can 07-29-24 35-356 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 26 of 38 be made as detailed in the CEQA Consistency Memorandum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 2. The Planning Commission finds that the Site Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the 27-unit residential project are validly approved under existing law. The project is consistent with the certified Housing Element, is not subject to additional environmental review, and does not trigger Charter Section 423 thresholds. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map filed as PA2025-0049, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "C", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 4. The action on the Major Site Development Review shall become final and effective 14 days following the date of this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC. 5. This action on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall become final and effective 10 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Council in accordance with the provision of Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the NBMC. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 AYES: Ellmore, Gazzano, Langford, Reed, Rosene, and Salene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Harris BY: Mark Rosene, Chair BY: Vm� SabAAA, David Salene, Secretary 07-29-24 35-35 7 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 27 of 38 Attachments: Exhibit "A" — CEQA Consistency Memorandum Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., Dated June, 2025 Exhibit "B" — Objective Design Standards Checklist Exhibit "C" — Conditions of Approval 07-29-24 35-358 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 28 of 38 EXHIBIT "A" CEQA Consistency Memorandum Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., dated June, 2025 File available via link due to size: https:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3171539&dbid=0&repo=CNB 07-29-24 35-359 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 29 of 38 EXHIBIT "B" OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS CHECKLIST File available via link: https:Hecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3169605&dbid=0&repo=CNB 07-29-24 35-360 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 30 of 38 EXHIBIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) Planning Division The Project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, landscape plan, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). Minor changes to the approved development may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project). By way of example, a change to the number of stories of a unit (e.g., three-story product, etc.), floor plan redesign, and change to offered square footage ranges would be considered minor changes provided the project was within the allowed height limit, and in compliance with the Objective Design Standards and density range under the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. 2. Any substantial modification to the approved Site Development Review plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require an amendment to this Site Development Review application or the processing of a new application. 3. The Project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals approved by the City of Newport Beach ("City") and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval 4. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be caused the revocation of this approval. 5. This Major Site Development Review shall expire and become void unless exercised within seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012 to coincide with the expiration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 as provided in Condition No. 16. 6. On June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10 approving a amendments to properties within the HO-4 Subarea including allowing a base height limit of 48 feet for the Project Site. To ensure consistency with that Ordinance, this resolution shall be become effective on July 26, 2025. 7. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "C" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits. 8. The proposed residential development shall consist of 27 townhome, condominium units. The number of condominium units may be reduced by the Applicant provided the total 07-29-24 35-361 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 31 of 38 number of units meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement under the HO Overlay Zoning District. 9. The maximum height of the residential structures shall be 48 feet as measured from the established grade. No building or any portion of structure, architectural feature or mechanical equipment shall exceed 48 feet. 10. The on -site residential amenities including the outdoor picnic area and firepit lounge area as illustrated on the approved plans shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the Project. The exact mix of amenities may be modified from the original approved plans subject to the approval by the Community Development Director. The Project shall maintain at least 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit on the Project Site as required by the HO-4 subarea. The square footage of on -site resident -serving amenities shall not be reduced so that the development no longer provides 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit 11. The residential structure shall be attenuated to provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less pursuant to Section 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards) of the NBMC. Use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double paned windows, advance insulation systems, or other noise mitigation measures, as deemed appropriate by the City shall be incorporated in the design of the new residential structure to provide adequate noise attenuation. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, and Chapter 15.42, Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Fair Share Traffic Fees and Transportation Corridor Agency fees shall be paid for the Project at the fee assessed at the time of payment. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable school fees for the Project. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable property development tax as required pursuant to NBMC Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax) for the Project. 15. A preliminary application for residential development, filed as PA2025-0056, was deemed submitted on April 7, 2025 for this Project. The preliminary application prevents the Project from being subject to any City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the date of submission, except as specified in Government Code Section 65589.5(o). The Applicant shall provide an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. Therefore, the Project will be subject to an in -lieu park fee of $38,400 per unit which is the fee that was in effect at the time the preliminary application was deemed submitted. 07-29-24 35-362 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 32 of 38 16. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the developer shall pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIFs) in accordance with the adopted fee schedule. 17. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 shall expire seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012. Pursuant to Section 19.16.010(A) (Expiration of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, an approved tentative tract map expires 24 months after the date of its approval or conditional approval. Under Section 19.16.020(A) (Extension of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, the subdivider shall have the right to request an extension of the map for up to five years. The subdivider has submitted an application for an extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19396 and has requested that the extension be granted after the Planning Commission adopts Resolution No PC2025-012; thus, providing for an initial term of the vesting tentative tract map of 24 months, followed by extension of five years, for a total term of seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2025-012. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an access easement on the adjacent property (APN No. 458-361-02) shall be recorded to provide the Project access to Ford Road. 19. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.49.1210 (Removal of Telecom Facilities), the Applicant shall inform the Community Development Director by certified mail no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinued use of a telecom facility. 20. Any future proposed wireless telecommunication facilities, including but not limited to the relocation of the existing wireless telecommunications monopole, shall conform with Chapter 20.49 (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities) of the NBMC. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought -tolerant planting and water -efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 22. The Project shall include landscaping around the perimeter of the Project Site to adequately screen drive aisles, parking areas, and create a visual buffer between the public right-of-way and the Project. These plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 23. The covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall require that garages be used for vehicles and shall prohibit storage of personal items that would otherwise impede parking of vehicles within the required garage spaces. The CC&Rs shall prohibit residents from parking in guest parking spaces within the development and shall prohibit any parking within the parking lot in the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. 24. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained by the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be 07-29-24 35-363 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 33 of 38 kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 25. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 26. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. 27. Prior to the issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval. 28. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control), under Sections 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) and 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards), and other applicable noise control requirements of the NBMC. 29. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. 30. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. Upon approval of the plan, the Applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. 31. The exterior of the development shall be always maintained free of litter and graffiti. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris, and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 32. All trash bins shall be stored within each residential unit and screened from the view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The Applicant shall ensure that the trash receptacles are maintained to control odors. The Applicant shall ensure that the trash bins are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of periodic steam cleaning of the trash bin, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash bins shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 07-29-24 35-364 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 34 of 38 33. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 34. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures within the General Plan Housing Implementation Program ("GPHIP') Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR') Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP') as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Memorandum prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., dated June, 2025. 35. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current property owner or leasing agent. 36. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements, and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of Ford Road Townhomes including, but not limited to, Major Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (PA2025-0049). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit, or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing the such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all the City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages that which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions outlined in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City under the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Building Division 37. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required before the issuance of a building permit. 38. Exterior wall and opening protection shall comply with Chapter 705 of California Building Code (CBC). 39. The applicant shall employ the following best available control measures ("BACMs") to reduce construction -related air quality impacts: Dust Control • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. 07-29-24 35-365 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 35 of 38 • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Emissions • Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off -road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment Off -Site Impacts • Encourage carpooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Fill Placement • The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. • Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve a 10% soil moisture content in the top 6- inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 40. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the city with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 41. Before the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 42. A list of "good housekeeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of waste or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also 07-29-24 35-366 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59F05 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 36 of 38 identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Real Property Administrator 43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall enter into a license agreement, easement or similar agreement approved by the City Attorney with the City for points of access across the City property. 44. Points of access to the City property shall not be used for code required path of travel or accessible route. 45. The City reserves the right to redevelop City property and remove one or more points of access to City property. 46. Bonds are required prior to construction if any work is to occur on City Property. 47. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall update plans to ensure runoff remains onsite or connects to a drain in the public right-of-way, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Public Works Department 48. A Tract Map shall be recorded prior to the sale of any residential units. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital -graphic file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 49. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 pf the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18. Monuments (one -inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 50. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, a Subdivision Agreement shall be obtained and approved by the City Council consistent with the Section 19.36.010 (Improvement Agreements (California Government Code Section 66462)) of the NBMC. 51. Prior to Final Map approval, the Applicant shall provide a Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond, each for 100% of the estimated improvement costs for the improvements in the public right-of-way, as prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer 07-29-24 35-367 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 37 of 38 and approved by the Public Works Director, for each of the following, but not limited to, public and private improvements, street improvements, monumentation, sidewalks, striping, signage, street lights, sewer systems, water systems, storm drain systems, water quality management systems, erosion control, landscaping and irrigation within the public right-of-way, common open spaces areas accessible by the public, fire access and off -site improvements required as part of the project. 52. Warranty Bond for a minimum of 10% of the engineers cost estimate (final percentage to be determined by the Public Works Director) shall be released 1-year after the improvements have been accepted. 53. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 54. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work activities within the public right- of-way. 55. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final construction management plan (CMP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer. 56. Parking layout shall comply with the City Parking Lot Standard 805. Dead-end drive aisle in public areas shall provide a dedicated turn around space and minimum 5-foot drive aisle extension. 57. The Applicant shall reconstruct all existing broken and/or otherwise damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Ford Road frontages per City Standards. 58. All deliveries and move-ins/move-out shall be accommodated on -site and prohibited from parking or stopping within the public right-of-way. 59. The on -site sewer and water system is planned to be a public system. Final Design of the water and sewer services is subject to further review by the Public Works Department during plan check. The public sewer and water system shall be designed according to the City of Newport Beach standards. All applicable sewer and water easements shall be dedicated to the City as part of the Tract Map. 60. The Project storm drain system shall be privately owned and maintained. The storm drain system shall be prohibited from discharging to the adjacent City lots and shall be redesigned accordingly. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final hydrology and hydraulic report shall be reviewed and approved. Any required improvements to downstream City infrastructure to accommodate the proposed project shall be designed and constructed by the proposed project. 61. The parking layout and gate operation within Lot 5 shall be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works Department. 07-29-24 35-368 Docusign Envelope ID: FDOD1 E9C-32A9-4459-B6EA-F84592D59FO5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-012 Paae 38 of 38 62. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirements per City Standard 105. Fire Department 63. Onsite fire hydrants shall be required and a fire underground plan submital complying with the 2022 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 24 shall be a required as a deferred submittal. 64. Residential fire sprinklers complying with the 2022 NFPA Standard 13R shall be required. 65. Waterflow monitoring systems complying with the 2022 NFPA Standard 72 shall be required. 66. Fire master plan complying with the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) Guideline D.08 shall be required as a deferred submital. 67. Fire rescue opening and laddering pads complying with NBFD Guideline C.05 shall be required. 07-29-24 35-369 Attachment I Applicant Appeal Response Letter 35-370 N E W P O RT PAC 1 F I C 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, suite 150 L A W 1' C - Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.556.3909 newportpacificlaw.com August 6, 2025 DELIVERED VIAELECTRONICMAIL: JArregui@newportbeachca.gov Mr. Jerry Arregui, Assistant Planner Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 RE: Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) Applicant's Response to Appellant's Appeal to City Council Dear Mr. Arregui: This office represents the applicant, Ford Road Ventures LLC, with regards to the above referenced residential project ("Project"), which was unanimously approved by the Newport Beach Planning Commission on Thursday, July 3, 2025. This letter is submitted in response to the appeal submitted on July 17, 2025 seeking review of the Project by the Newport Beach City Council. As a preliminary matter, we understand the appellant missed the statutory deadline for a number of items referenced within its appeal letter, including, but not limited to, the vesting tentative tract map which is now final. As a result of this untimely appeal, the only item properly before the City Council at its August 26, 2025 hearing is the limited consideration of the Project's compliance with the Objective Design Standards provided in Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.48.185. The Objective Design Standards are intended to result in quality design of multi -unit residential developments to provide high quality and resilient buildings. As noted in the Planning Commission Staff Report, the Project complied with 48 of 52 of the Objective Design Standards and only sought minor deviations when necessary to improve the appearance of the development. Importantly, NBMC Section 20.48.185(C) allows the Planning Commission to waive any of the design and development standards upon finding that: (1) strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of NBMC Section 20.48.185; and (2) the Project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards. The Planning Commission made the required findings in Resolution No. PC2025-012 to allow the minor deviations to the Objective Design Standards sought by the Project. The findings and justifications were well reasoned and articulated. Rather than list out those findings again here, we direct the City Council to Findings H and I of Resolution No. PC2025-012, which lists out the facts in support of the findings. The Planning Commission fulfilled its duties, made the required findings, and complied with the NBMC. Following the Planning Commission's approval of the Project, the applicant has further revised the Project to comply with two additional Objective Design Standards, NBMC Sections 35-371 20.48.185(N)(2)(b) (Private Driveway Standards — Landscape and Paving Zone) and 20.48.185(R)(1)(a) (Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length). As to the "Private Driveway Standards — Landscape and Paving Zone," the Project's site plan has been adjusted to meet the four -foot minimum landscaping zone and as to the "Horizontal Modulation — Maximum Building Length," the Project's measurements have been clarified to show that the average building width across all levels is 143'-4", which is below the 150' standard. These two Project revisions were made in good faith by the applicant and now bring the Project into compliance with 50 of 52 Objective Design Standards. And the minor deviations of the remaining two Objective Design Standards are supported by Findings H and I of Resolution No. PC2025-012. We believe the record clearly demonstrates that these limited deviations are justified, consistent with the intent of the Objective Design Standards, and enhance both the functionality and visual quality of the Project. We respectfully request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous approval of the Project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ---- le- , Michael Torres For NEWPORT PACIFIC LAW, P.C. 35-372 Attachment J Office of City Attorney Supplemental Memorandum 35-373 NEWPORT BEACH ATTO R N EY'S DATE: July 3, 2025 TO: Newport Beach Planning Commission FROM: Yolanda M. Summerhill, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Public Hearing Item No. 3 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) CEQA Statutory Exemption On June 30, 2025, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 130, which provides an additional statutory exemption that would apply to the subject project. AB 130 added California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66, exempting housing projects that meet the following criteria: the project is within an incorporated municipality or urban area with a site size of 20 acres or less, meets certain infill criteria including at least 75% of the perimeter be adjoined with urban uses, is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, meets the minimum density requirement for the site's location, and does not require the demolition of historic resources. The project identified as Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) (Project) on the Planning Commission's agenda this evening meets the criteria prescribed by PRC Section 21080.66, as described below. The Project site is 1.16 acres, which is less than the 20-acres threshold; The Project site is surrounded by urban uses consisting of residential, parks and recreation, and public open space; The Project site was included in Appendix B of the City's adopted and certified 6t" Cycle Housing Element (Housing Element) as a housing opportunity site (Site ID No. 141) that could accommodate residential redevelopment. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 4.4 (Rezoning to Accommodate Housing Opportunities) supports residential uses at this site. Furthermore, the site was rezoned by way of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts and is included within the Newport Center Area (HO-4) Subarea; The Project would have a density of approximately 23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) which meets the minimum density of 20 du/ac for the site; and The Project is in compliance with the environmental standards outlined in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6). Additionally, PRC Section 21080.66 requires a special consultation with Native American tribes that are satisfied through the Housing Element Implementation Program EIR. 35-374 Public Hearing Item No. 3 Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) CEQA Statutory Exemption Supplemental Memo July 3, 2025 Page: 2 Specifically, the City is required to provide notification to the tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site. The tribe(s) then have 60 days to confirm whether they wish to consult. As detailed in the Housing Element Implementation Program EIR and CEQA Consistency Memo included with the project materials, during the Housing Element Implementation Program EIR process, the City requested a Sacred Lands File search for all sites within Appendix B of the Housing Element from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on March 5, 2023. On March 22, 2023, the NAHC responded that the findings of the search were positive and identified 19 Native American tribal representatives to contact for further information on potential tribal resources. To comply with both requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 18 and AB 52, the City mailed and emailed notices to all listed tribes on April 7, 2023. On April 13, 2023, the City received a response from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, who expressed no concerns regarding implementation of the Housing Element, but requesting consultation on future projects (Section 4.16 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Implementation Program Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.) Condition of Approval No. 31 requires compliance with all mitigation measures within the General Plan EIR, as follows: The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures within the General Plan Housing Implementation Program ("GPHIP') Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR') Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP') as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Memorandum prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., dated June, 2025. Notably, Standard Condition No. SC CUL-1 of the MMRP requires compliance with City Council Policy K-5 and requires creation of a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Discovery Plan (CRMDP) if Native American resources are encountered. Furthermore, a consulting Native American tribe shall be retained and compensated as a monitor for the Project site from the time of discovery to completion of ground disturbing activities. 35-375 ATTACHMENT K August 26, 2025 Agenda Item No. 35 Public Comments From: ALISON COTTRELL <alibabaloo@icloud.com> Sent: August 15, 2025 2:42 PM To: Arregui, Jerry Subject: Opposition of Proposed Development at 1650 One Ford Road [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui, Please pass this on to the Planning Director as a quotable objection. I am a 20+ year Newport Beach resident (Port Streets). I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02). I feel it is contrary to the general good and a hinderance to public safety. It is obvious the site at the end of Old Ford Road would be grossly affected by traffic if this condo project proceeds. Access to the public parking lot will disappear for local users since the condos have very little visitor parking. Traffic along Old Ford Road will become even more dangerous for Port Street residents entering / exiting the neighborhood at Newport Hills Drive West. This has been an ongoing and serious safety issue for residents consistently dodging cars and athletes supporting the park. Furthermore, the proximity, size and scale of the buildings proposed is grossly out of scale at this corner of MacArthur and Bonita Canyon. At present landscaping at that intersection is open and green - with a safe and pleasing open appearance at this gateway to Newport Beach. It has been a highlight of ours living here. We strongly oppose the high increase in traffic and limited visibility this will present to us. The Planning Dept. rightly rejected a previous similar development at this site some time back. It is extremely disappointing to find it back on the docket. Please register my strong opposition to this out -of -scale and inappropriately zoned development - and help protect the safety of our neighborhood and the common wellbeing of the City. Kind Regards, Alison Cottrell 35-376 From: Williams <dwilliams@bbi-interiors.com> Sent: 13, 2025 4:10 PM To: Jerry Subject: story- 48 unit condo Follow Up Flag: low up Flag Status: D��DD��DD��DDD��DD��DDD��DD��Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui. Please pass this on to the Planning Director as a quotable objection. I am a Newport Beach resident (Port Streets). I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development at 1550 Ford Road (APN 458-351-02). I feel it is contrary to the general good and public safety. It is obvious the site at the end of Old Ford Road Would be badly affected by traffic if this condo project proceeds. Access to the public parking lot will disappear for local users since the condos have very little visitor parking. Traffic along Old Ford Road will become more dangerous for Port Street residents entering 1 exiting the neighborhood at Newport Hills Drive West. Furthermore, the proximity, size and scale of the buildings proposed is badly out of scale at this corner of MacArthur and Bonita Canyon. At present landscaping at that intersection is open and green - with a safe and pleasing open appearance at this gateway to Newport Beach. The Planning Dept. rightly rejected a previous similar development at this site some time back. It is disappointing to find it back on the docket. Please register my opposition to this out -of --scale and inappropriately zoned development -- and help protect our neighborhood and the common wellbeing of the City. 35-377 Dacrey Williams 35-378 From: gina RABINOVICH <rabinovich@aol.com> Sent: August 14, 2025 9:53 PM To: Arregui, Jerry Cc: Stapleton, Joe; Barto, Michelle; Weigand, Erik; Grant, Robyn; Blom, Noah; Kleiman, Lauren; Weber, Sara Subject: Proposed development at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui, In an effort to save our green areas and allow spaces for our grandchildren to play and sports to be held, we ask that you please pass this on to the Planning Director as a quotable objection. We are Newport Beach residents for 40 plus years and want to preserve our children's future public play areas. We are writing to express opposition to the proposed development at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02). We feel it is contrary to the general good and public safety. It is obvious the site at the end of Old Ford Road would be badly affected by traffic if this condo project proceeds. Access to the public parking lot will disappear for local users since the condos have very little visitor parking. Traffic along Old Ford Road will become more dangerous for Port Street residents entering / exiting the neighborhood at Newport Hills Drive West. Furthermore, the proximity, size and scale of the buildings proposed is badly out of scale at this corner of MacArthur and Bonita Canyon. At present landscaping at that intersection is open and green - with a safe and pleasing open appearance at this gateway to Newport Beach. The Planning Dept. rightly rejected a previous similar development at this site some time back. It is disappointing to find it back on the docket. Please register our opposition to this out -of -scale and inappropriately zoned development - and help protect our neighborhood and the wellbeing of the city for ALL of it's residents. Thank you, 35-379 Gina and Jacob Rabinovich 35-380 From: Ina Shero Benhard <inabenhard@gmail.com> Sent: August 15, 2025 11:20 AM To: Arregui, Jerry [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui, Please pass this on to the Planning Director as a quotable objection. I am a Newport Beach resident (Port Streets). I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02). I feel it is contrary to the general good and public safety. It is obvious the site at the end of Old Ford Road would be badly affected by traffic if this condo project proceeds. Access to the public parking lot will disappear for local users since the condos have very little visitor parking. Traffic along Old Ford Road will become more dangerous for Port Street residents entering / exiting the neighborhood at Newport Hills Drive West. Furthermore, the proximity, size and scale of the buildings proposed is badly out of scale at this corner of MacArthur and Bonita Canyon. At present landscaping at that intersection is open and green - with a safe and pleasing open appearance at this gateway to Newport Beach. The Planning Dept. rightly rejected a previous similar development at this site some time back. It is disappointing to find it back on the docket. Please register my opposition to this out -of -scale and inappropriately zoned development - and help protect our neighborhood and the common wellbeing of the City. Sincerely, Ina Benhard 35-381 From: Kenneth A. Wong <kenwongcal@icloud.com> Sent: August 13, 2025 6:08 PM To: Arregui, Jerry Subject: Opposition to "1650 Ford Rd. Townhome Project" (...a copy & paste Itr to NB Planner -in -Charge, Mr. J. Arregui) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Attachment below authored & posted on NextDoor earlier today on Wed., 8/13, by local architect and longtime Port Streets resident, Niall Saunders —whom has welcomed copying & pasting. Ken Wong Newport Beach 35-382 Dear Mr, Arreg u i, Please pass this on to the Planr quotable objection. I am a New (Port Streets). I am writing to ex the proposed development at 458-361-02). I feel it is contrary and public safety. It is obvious the site at the end would be badly affected by tral project proceeds. Access to the disappear for local users since little visitor parking. Traffic alon become more dangerous for P entering exiting the neigh�,Qrl Ken Wong Newport Beach Sent from my Phone 35-384 From: Mark Ping <markping22@gmail.com> Sent: August 13, 2025 9:02 PM To: Arregui, Jerry Subject: Objection to proposed development at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui, I am a Newport Beach homeowner in the Port Streets. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02). 1 feel it is contrary to the general good and public safety. It is obvious the site at the end of Old Ford Road would be badly affected by traffic if this condo project proceeds. Access to the public parking lot will disappear for local users since the condos have very little visitor parking. Traffic along Old Ford Road will become more dangerous for Port Street residents entering / exiting the neighborhood at Newport Hills Drive West. Furthermore, the proximity, size and scale of the buildings proposed is badly out of scale at this corner of MacArthur and Bonita Canyon. At present landscaping at that intersection is open and green - with a safe and pleasing open appearance at this gateway to Newport Beach. The Planning Dept. rightly rejected a previous similar development at this site some time back. It is disappointing to find it back on the docket. Please register my opposition to this out -of -scale and inappropriately zoned development - and help protect our neighborhood and the common wellbeing of the City. Mark Ping 714-276-7239 35-385 From: Niall Saunders <niall@architectsoc.com> Sent: August 06, 2025 2:34 PM To: Arregui, Jerry Subject: Ford Road Townhomes (PA2025-0049) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui, Please pass this on to the Planning Director as a quotable objection. I am a 30 year Newport Beach resident (Port Streets) and business owner. In fact as an architect frequently work with your office on what I consider sustainable and suitable developments or remodel work within our City. I am not anti -development; but rather in favor of a well - considered and beneficial approach to development in our City. I'm sure the entire Community Development department feels the same and simply needs to hear it from the residents. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02). This is the second time in the last 10 years or so, when this small site has become the subject of overzealous and out -sized development ambitions. It amounts ro another case of private greed in the face of the general good and public safety. It is very apparent the site at the very end of Old Ford Road would become clogged with traffic if this condo project proceeds. Access to the sports park parking lot will disappear for local users of that park; and the traffic along Old Ford Road will become untenable for Port Street residents entering / exiting the neighborhood at Newport Hills Drive West. Furthermore the proximity, size and scale of the buildings proposed is completely out of scale at the highly traffic -heavy corner of MacArthur and Bonita Canyon. At present all 4 corners of that intersection are open and green - with a safe and pleasing open appearance at this gateway to Newport Beach. We fought off the previous incursion into our single-family neighborhood (known as the port streets) at this site; it is disappointing to find it back on the docket. Please register my opposition to this out -of -scale and inappropriatly zoned development - and help protect our neighborhood and the common wellbeing of the City. Sincerely, Niall Saunders AIA Niall F. Saunders AIA RIBA Saunders + Wiant Architects 35-386 2700 West Coast Highway, Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA. 92663 Tel: (949) 7210730 Fax: (949) 7210767 www.architectsoc.com 35-387 From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: pmak@aol.com August 13, 2025 12:44 PM Arregui, Jerry 1650 Ford Road Development Follow up Flagged I[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is I safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. J Dear Mr. Arregui, Please pass this on to the Planning Director as a quotable objection. I am a Newport Beach property owner (Port Streets). I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02). 1 feel it is contrary to the general good and public safety. It is obvious that the site at the end of Old Ford Road would be badly affected by traffic if this condo project proceeds. Access to the public parking lot will disappear for local users since the condos have very little visitor parking. Traffic along Old Ford Road will become more dangerous for Port Street residents entering/exiting the neighborhood at Newport Hills Drive West. Furthermore, the proximity, size, and scale of the buildings proposed are badly out of scale at this corner of MacArthur and Bonita Canyon. At present, landscaping at that intersection is open and green, with a safe and pleasing open appearance at this gateway to Newport Beach. The Planning Dept. rightly rejected a previous similar development at this site some time back. It is disappointing to find it back on the docket. Please register my opposition to this out -of -scale and inappropriately zoned development - and help protect our neighborhood and the common well-being of the City. Pat Makris 630-660-4099 35-388 From: Robert Danese <robert@theicngroup.com> Sent: August 14, 2025 11:51 AM To: Arregui, Jerry Subject: Opposition to Proposed Development at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mr. Arregui, Please forward this to the Planning Director as a quotable objection. I am a Newport Beach resident (Port Streets) and am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development at 1650 Ford Road (APN 458-361-02), which I believe is contrary to the general good and public safety. The site at the end of Old Ford Road would be significantly impacted by increased traffic if this condominium project proceeds. Access to the public parking lot would be lost for Local users, as the proposed condos offer very limited visitor parking. Traffic along Old Ford Road would also become more dangerous for Port Streets residents entering or exiting the neighborhood at Newport Hills Drive West. Furthermore, the proximity, size, and scale of the proposed buildings are wholly out of character with the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon. The existing Landscaping at this intersection is open and green, creating a safe and visually pleasing gateway to Newport Beach. The proposed project would replace that with a dense, oversized development, undermining the character and appeal of this entry point to the city. The Planning Department rightly rejected a similar development at this site in the past. It is disappointing to see this proposal resurface. I respectfully request that you register my opposition to this out -of -scale and inappropriately zoned project, and help protect our neighborhood and the common wellbeing of the City of Newport Beach. Warm regards, Robert Danese, CEO Innovative Channel Network Group (C) 949-500-4815 (0) 949-269-3265 robert@theicngroup. Com OThe ICN Group 35-389