HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes of May 26, 2022
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING – 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Weigand III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Lee Lowrey, Vice Chair Lauren Kleiman, Secretary Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: Commissioner Rosene Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, Assistant Planner David Lee, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Benjamin Zdeba, and Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None
VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 12, 2022 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Kleiman and seconded by Secretary Ellmore to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2022, meeting with Mr. Mosher's proposed edits. AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, and Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Rosene Vll. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 NEWPORT BEACH TENNIS CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION (PA2022-038) Site Location: 1602 East Coast Highway Summary: The City and Golf Realty Fund, Managing Owner (“GRF”), entered into a Development Agreement (“Agreement”) in 2012 to ensure the orderly redevelopment of the Newport Beach Tennis Club site overtime with a replacement tennis facility, visitor accommodations, and 5 single-family homes (“Approved Project”). The term of the Agreement is 10 years, and it will expire on September 23, 2022, if no action is taken. The Agreement provides GRF the vested right to implement the Approved Project provided it is in compliance with the approved entitlements and development standards specified in the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community for the Tennis Club site. The Agreement also requires GRF to provide certain public benefits. GRF requests a 10-year extension.
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes May 26, 2022
2 of 5
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find all significant environment concerns for the Approval Project have been addressed in
a previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010-008 (SCH2010091025) and an Errata to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010-008 (together referred as “MND”), and that the City of Newport Beach intends to use said document for the proposed First Amendment to Agreement, and further that there are no additional reasonable
alternative or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with the First Amendment to Agreement; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2022-008 recommending approval to the City Council of First Amendment to Development Agreement (DA2022-001), to extend the term of the Development Agreement by one year from September 23, 2022, to September 23, 2023
(Attachment No. PC 1). Assistant Planner Lee utilized a presentation to review the Newport Beach Tennis Club Development Agreement extension, vicinity map, first amendment development agreement approved in 2012, site plan, and extension request by the applicant.
In response to Commissioner Koetting’s questions, Assistant Planner Lee indicated changes in the hotel unit, tennis court, and single-family housing counts and confirmed acceptance by the applicant for a one-year extension. In response to Commissioner Klaustermeier’s questions, Assistant Planner Lee clarified that revisions will return to the Planning Commission as a full project with entitlements for review and Assistant City Attorney Summerhill confirmed a longer extension with the development agreement. In response to Commissioner Weigand’s questions, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill confirmed that the City is within its rights to approve the extension and consider property ownership dynamics with future entitlements. Commissioners reported no ex parte communication except Commissioner Weigand who reached out to the applicant. Chair Lowrey opened the public hearing. Jonathan Bailey, Project Manager for the applicant, clarified that Mr. O’Hill is the managing owner and has the authority to process the entitlements as per an arbitration hearing. Jim Mosher noted that the current entitlement is different than the current development. Chair Lowrey closed the public hearing. The applicant agreed to the Conditions of Approval within the resolution. Motion made by Secretary Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Koetting to approve the Newport Beach Tennis Club Development Agreement Extension (PA2022-038) as proposed. AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, and Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Rosene
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes May 26, 2022
3 of 5
ITEM NO. 3 SENATE BILL 9 IMPLEMENTATION CODE AMENDMENT (PA2021-277)
Site Location: Citywide Summary: Senate Bill 9 Implementation Code Amendment - Amendments to Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title
20 (Planning and Zoning) establishing regulations to implement Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 that went into effect on January 1, 2022. Specifically, the amendment would allow ministerial subdivisions and the construction of up to two units for lots that are designated for single-family use.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this amendment statutorily exempt from environmental review and not considered a
project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n) and further find that this amendment is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 and 15315 as set forth in Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations which categorically exempts the construction of a second dwelling unit in a residential zone and the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential use into four or fewer parcels; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2022-012 (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the City Council approve Code Amendment No. CA2021-007 implementing new state law requirements relating to SB 9 housing developments and urban lot splits. Senior Planner Zdeba and Principal Planner Murillo reviewed the background of Senate Bill (SB) 9, including SB 9 housing development projects and SB 9 urban lot split scenarios without and with an ordinance, proposed SB 9 housing development standards, proposed urban lot split development standards, additional requirements, and next steps. In response to Commissioner Klaustermeier’s query, Senior Planner Zdeba noted the parking requirements per State law and displayed a draft exhibit of high-quality transit areas to discuss parking exemptions and requirements. He also clarified the use of easements to access parking. In response to Commissioner Koetting’s questions, Senior Planner Zdeba confirmed that Homeowner Associations (HOAs) can enforce private Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to restrict SB 9 and not ADUs due to State law, off-site improvements, such as sidewalk construction, cannot be imposed through the City’s approval of SB 9 projects, provisions of public services relate to utility easements, tailored objective design standards to better guide the regulations must be clearly written, and owner occupancy requirements for a three-year period. In response to Vice Chair Kleiman’s queries, Senior Planner Zdeba relayed that he did not know an exact number of affected parcels in the Coastal Zone, but that approximately 17,500 parcels are eligible for SB 9 provisions. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill added that the Turner Institute prepared a study that estimates 10 percent of eligible parcels will actually take advantage of SB 9. Senior Planner Zdeba noted the January 1, 2022, was the effective date for SB 9 and no applications have been submitted to the City to date. He noted an affidavit signing requirement by the State to satisfy the owner-occupied requirement and clarified the intent of the affordability requirement for only one SB 9 unit noting that a higher inclusionary requirement would serve as an impediment to SB 9 development. He added that land values and development costs are high in Newport Beach, so the City views the affordability requirement as a way to produce affordable housing units.
Commissioners reported no ex parte communication.
In response to Commissioner Koetting’s questions regarding outreach, Senior Planner Zdeba disclosed informal conversations with home builders or real estate agencies and two study sessions that received no comments.
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes May 26, 2022
4 of 5
Community Development Director Jurjis noted the direction to staff by the City Council to proceed in this manner
and that tonight’s meeting was publicly noticed. Chair Lowrey opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher questioned SB 9 for Coastal Zone parcels while awaiting the Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment approval, expressed the opinion that the code amendment is written poorly and subject to lawsuits, and questioned the meaning and objective language in the amendment for “within one block” in the conditions where the City cannot
impose parking requirements.
Chair Lowrey closed the public hearing. In response to Mr. Mosher’s questions, Community Development Director Jurjis confirmed that the City’s LCP does not allow for SB 9 units in the Coastal Zone and the ordinance will be applicable for only outside the Coastal Zone
until the LCP amendment is complete. Motion made by Secretary Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Klaustermeier to support Item No. 3 Senate Bill 9 Implementation Code Amendment (PA2021-277). AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, and Weigand
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Rosene
VIII. 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. Community Development Director Jurjis announced four items planned for the June 9, 2022, Planning Commission meeting and the June 23, 2022, cancelled meeting. ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Secretary Ellmore requested an excused absence on November 18, 2022. Commissioner Klaustermeier requested excused absences on June 9, 2022, and July 7, 2022, and attendance by Zoom on July 21, 2022. IX. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. on June 9, 2022.
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes May 26, 2022
5 of 5
The agenda for the May 26, 2022, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, May
19, 2022, at 3:16 p.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
Thursday, May 19, 2022, at 3:39 p.m.
_______________________________
Lee Lowrey, Chairman
_______________________________
Curtis Ellmore, Secretary
June 9, 2022, Planning Commission Item 1 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 1. MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2022
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with corrections suggested in strikeout
underline format.
Page 2, paragraph 1 of narrative: “Assistant Planner Lee utilized a presentation to review the
Newport Beach Tennis Club Development Agreement extension, vicinity map, proposed first
amendment to the development agreement approved in 2012, site plan, and extension request
by the applicant.”
Page 2, paragraph 7 of narrative: “Jonathan Bailey, Project Manager for the applicant, clarified
that Mr. O’Hill O Hill is the managing owner and has the authority to process the entitlements
as per an arbitration hearing.”
Page 3, paragraph 3 from end, sentence 2: “Senior Planner Zdeba noted the that January 1,
2022, was the effective date for SB 9 and no applications have been submitted to the City to
date.”
Page 4, paragraph 3: “Jim Mosher questioned SB 9 for Coastal Zone parcels while awaiting the
Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment approval, expressed the opinion that the code
amendment is parts copied from SB 9 are written poorly and subject to lawsuits, and
questioned the objective meaning and objective language in the amendment for “within one
block” in the conditions where the City cannot impose parking requirements.”
[My comment was related to the supposedly objective standards promulgated in the text of
SB 9, some of which presumably had to be copied into the proposed code amendment. As
an example, without a definition the “within one block” standard has multiple possible
meanings, none of which a planner could be certain is objectively correct.]
Page 4, Item 5 report: “Community Development Director Jurjis announced that four items are
planned for the June 9, 2022, Planning Commission meeting and the June 23, 2022, meeting
will be cancelled meeting.”
Page 4, Section IX: “The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. on until June 9, 2022.”
[note: Past Planning Commission minutes are not consistent as to how they report the
adjournment. Most often they simply list the time without any words attached to it. Rarely do
they include an “until” part.]
Planning Commission - June 9, 2022 Item 1a - Additional Materials Received After Deadline Draft Minutes of May 26, 2022