Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends reduced for‑sale inclusionary requirement in Newport Place, adds moderate‑income option
Summary
The Planning Commission voted March 19 to recommend City Council approve an amendment lowering the inclusionary requirement for for‑sale housing in the Newport Place/airport overlay from 15% to 6% (low/very‑low) and to add an alternate 8% option for moderate‑income units; staff relied on a Kaiser Marston feasibility study and the measure moves to council for final action.
The Newport Beach Planning Commission voted March 19 to recommend that City Council approve a community‑plan amendment for the Newport Place (airport) area that would lower the inclusionary requirement for for‑sale housing from 15% to 6% for low‑ and very‑low‑income households and to allow an alternative compliance option of 8% at the moderate‑income level.
Staff explained the amendment was initiated by the City Council and supported by a financial-feasibility analysis prepared by Kaiser Marston Associates. The consultant’s addendum assessing for‑sale housing concluded that a 6% requirement for low/very‑low units was feasible in the airport focus area, while an 8% requirement would be feasible for moderate‑income units. "The proposed amendment…would be reduced from 15% to 6% for for‑sale housing projects only," staff said during the presentation.
At the public hearing, long‑time planning observer Jim Moer urged caution and criticized the logic of lowering the percentage, arguing that mandatory inclusionary requirements are a primary tool to produce affordable units. "If there is no requirement…why would you do it?" Moer said, warning that reducing the mandate could reduce built affordable housing.
Commissioners discussed the study’s findings and the overlay’s original intent — to incentivize lower‑income housing in an area that historically had limited development opportunities. Commissioners ultimately moved to approve staff’s recommendation while adding an explicit alternate compliance path: developers could either provide 6% low/very‑low units or 8% moderate units. Commissioner Casso made the motion to approve the staff recommendation with the modification; the motion passed unanimously.
Next steps: staff said the amendment will go to the airport land‑use commission for a consistency determination and then to City Council; the record shows the commission planned a council hearing in May and noted an ALUC consistency issue will require a notice of intent to override before a June public hearing if the council moves forward.
Why it matters: the amendment narrows the inclusionary requirement specifically for for‑sale housing in the airport overlay while preserving the 15% requirement for rental projects, changing the incentive and affordability mix for a key employment/airport‑area neighborhood.
