Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Staff presents REAP2 mixed‑use study; commission urges deeper look at land costs and targeted parking waivers

Newport Beach Planning Commission · May 22, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff presented a REAP2‑funded mixed‑use study that finds commercial parking requirements and small lot sizes hinder mixed‑use housing. Commissioners urged deeper breakdowns of land, hard and soft costs and recommended targeted code changes rather than blanket waivers.

Staff presented the results of a state‑funded REAP2 mixed‑use study May 21, concluding that current zoning and parking requirements limit financially viable mixed‑use housing in several Newport Beach districts.

Liz Westmoreland said the study—funded through a REAP (Regional Early Action Planning) grant administered by the Orange County Council of Governments—tested three conceptual sites (Dover Westcliff, Cannery Village, McFadden Square). Consultants modeled options and found that meeting nonresidential parking requirements on small lots often renders mixed‑use projects infeasible and that including affordable housing components adds complexity that further strains financial viability.

The proposed range of staff recommendations included allowing administrative approval for smaller projects (up to four units and under 10,000 sq ft commercial), permitting a minimum of two residential units on constrained lots, shifting residential parking calculations to a bedroom‑based metric, and narrowly waiving nonresidential parking for selected visitor‑serving uses. Staff did not support blanket commercial parking waivers or removing coastal discretionary review where Coastal Act considerations apply.

Commissioners pressed staff on development economics. “If the land is actually going to cost you another $10 million, now it’s not viable,” Commissioner Guzzano said, urging the report explicitly break out land cost from hard and soft costs. Commissioners also suggested overlay zones or targeted relief to preserve important commercial frontage while enabling housing where it makes sense.

Staff said the item was a study session for feedback and that any changes would return to the commission and then the City Council; staff plans additional outreach to property owners and to refine land‑cost assumptions before the council study session in June.

Because this was a study session, no formal action was taken.