HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-2023 - Planning CommissionPage 1 of 9
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2023 REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – 6:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Secretary Klaustermeier III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Curtis Ellmore, Vice Chair Mark Rosene, Secretary Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Brady Barto, Commissioner Tristan Harris, Commissioner Jonathan Langford, and Commissioner Lee Lowrey
ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Brad Sommers, Assistant Planner Jenny Tran, Associate Planner Joselyn Perez, and Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher recommended the Planning Commissioner Handbook prepared by the Institute for Local Government and highlighted the section on ex parte communications and site visits. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2023 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Langford and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the minutes of the May 18, 2023, meeting with Mr. Mosher’s edits.
AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, and Rosene NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Lowrey ABSENT: None VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 AERONUTRONIC FORD SOIL VAPOR REMEDIATION APPEAL (PA2022-0180) Site Location: Near 94 Hartford Drive Summary:
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s March 2, 2023, decision to approve a limited term permit for the construction and operation of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system. The project includes
construction of a 20-foot wide by 12-foot deep by 10-foot-high treatment system building, an underground pipe network of approximately 2,400 linear feet, and 13 extraction wells for soil gas remediation. The
applicant is requesting a limited term permit to operate the soil vapor extraction and treatment system for a term of approximately 12 months. A limited term permit is requested to allow a 3.2-foot separation
between the treatment system building and nearest residential structure where the required separation is
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1EE0153B
Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023
Page 2 of 9
8 feet between buildings, and to allow the treatment system building to encroach into the 5-foot front setback. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a de novo public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15330 under Class 30 (Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate
the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Water or Hazardous Substances), Section 15308 under Class 8 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment), and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect
on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-023 denying the appeal and upholding and affirming the Zoning Administrator’s Approval of a Limited Term Permit for a soil vapor extraction and treatment system filed as PA2022-0180.
Chair Ellmore announced that this item was continued from the May 18 Planning Commission meeting to
understand from the Homeowners Association (HOA) how the proposed location was chosen. He asked for new information and indicated that the Planning Commission supports the remediation effort.
Assistant Planner Tran provided a brief recap of the appeal and noted the purpose of the continuance to further
address safety concerns, alternate locations, and additional input from the HOA Board regarding the location selection.
With the exception of Vice Chair Rosene who met with the applicant to discuss alternative locations and the
appellant and Commissioners Harris and Langford who spoke with the applicant’s representative, the remaining Commissioners had no ex parte communications.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Kenn Conner, WSP, introduced the team and members of the Bayridge HOA, reviewed the key points related
to the permit, application, location determinants, community outreach, and urgency. Furthermore, he shared a remediation area map and Bayridge Park soil vapor extraction (SVE) system outline, key responses to
comments/questions, location justification, alternative #4 location map, location analysis, and community support. Mr. Connor agreed to the conditions of approval.
Jessica Law, Santa Ana Regional Water Board, clarified their authority as a State agency.
Enrique Sanchez, Bayridge HOA President, apologized for not attending the May 18 Planning Commission
meeting. In response to Commissioner Langford’s questions, Mr. Sanchez provided an overview of the location selection process and authority, structure, and election rules of the HOA.
Commissioner Harris utilized the Bayridge Park SVE system slide to question an alternative parking area
location, and in response to his inquiries, Mr. Sanchez indicated that backlash from residents at the HOA meetings, inconvenience, and the best recommendation are what stopped the alternative location in the parking area from being a viable alternative. He noted unit counts and configurations of those units within complex.
Commissioner Barto noted a narrow versus distributed community impact approach by using the proposed location and, in response to his inquiry, Mr. Conner indicated that the location selection was driven by
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1EE0153B
Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023
Page 3 of 9
engineering issues, trench size, utility conflicts, and space requirements and multiple locations would only take care of a small number of extraction wells.
Amy Santella, appellant, indicated that the original proposal by the engineers included five sites and was turned down by the HOA due to the impact on parking. She believes it remains a viable alternative, reviewed the HOA parking policy, clarified her support of the remediation, disclosed conversations with WSP and the Santa Ana Regional Water Board and HOA responses to her outreach, suggested alternate site feasibility is not being considered, reported having not received the requested residential treatment system evidence-based example and data, utilized slides to show photos of residential treatment systems, and asked the City to support
evidence-based research and data before agreeing to the location. Kevin Santella utilized a presentation to review the alternative analysis summary, address infeasibilities, discussed the Bison Avenue, Country Club Drive, Bayridge Park, Brittany/Hartford locations and configuration
options, and replayed proposed location details.
Mr. Sanchez indicated that the HOA is focused on remediation and what is best for the neighborhood, noted a temporary one-year permit, and relayed interest in resolving the matter as soon as possible for 22 families. Leslie Pratt believed that the HOA had not made any effort to contact the residents involved and hoped the
Commission would consider all the reasons provided to make the best decision.
Mr. Conner indicated that the original five locations were proposed with the understanding that a power drop location would be closely located, the current proposed location is the only spot where the power drop location
is available, current mitigation efforts are short term, SVE is a long-term remedy to lowering risks of vapor intrusion, and analysis revealed engineering, utility, clearance, and trench size and depth challenges for every
other location.
In response to Chair Ellmore’s questions, Mr. Conner relayed community outreach details and noted the proposed location decision came down to the power drop location indicated by SoCal Edison and power drop
feasibility is a result of COVID and post-COVID challenges, and timeline to change locations.
In response to Commissioner Harris’ questions, Mr. Conner clarified that the alternative locations were provided at a time when WSP thought more power drop locations were an option, but in July 2022 SoCal
Edison came back with one feasible location. He noted that the power drop on Belcourt Drive will be shared by a trench with another treatment system running under Country Club Drive to the fire lane area. Mr. Conner
clarified that the HOA never stated that the parking spaces could not be used for the project.
In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s question, Mr. Conner indicated that WSP is working with SoCal Edison and an electrical engineer to stamp the drawings. Vice Chair Rosene expressed his disbelief that by using the
alternative parking lot located approximately 98 feet from the proposed location it would delay the project three years.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Barto questioned the incongruity from an electrical perspective, thought the matter has a high impact on a specific residence for a general good and wondered if Ford has taken the opportunity to discuss this with residents, and struggled with the matter. Vice Chair Rosene recognized the remediation is necessary, the current proposed location is what remains after the “right thing” to do passed, changing the location would not take three years, and no guarantee for a one-year remediation. He thought that no review took place, and the appellant and Planning Commission are in a difficult position. Secretary Klaustermeier concurred with Vice Chair Rosene and thought the matter was outside the purview of the Planning Commission and perhaps better passed to the City Council.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1EE0153B
Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023
Page 4 of 9
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill stated, and Chair Ellmore concurred, that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a decision for health and safety reasons and the matter can be appealed or called for a review by the City Council.
Commissioner Harris echoed the same sentiments as the other Commissioners, noted that it is not the job of the Planning Commission to make value judgments, thought the decision by the HOA is convenient for the majority and within their purview, expressed disappointment with the HOA decision, and indicated he cannot vote against the permit.
Commissioner Langford thought the HOA deliberated accordingly and supported the permit approval. Chair Ellmore stated that the information about the power drops was new information to the Planning Commission, expressed disappointment for the proposed location choice, and supported the permit to address
the health and safety issues. Motion made by Chair Ellmore and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the item as recommended by staff. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Langford, and Rosene NOES: Harris and Klaustermeier RECUSED: Lowrey ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 3 MILLER RESIDENCE (PA2023-0017) Site Location: 22 Bay Island Summary: A coastal development permit (CDP) to allow the demolition of an existing single-unit dwelling and the construction of a new, 4,566-square-foot, three (3)-story single-unit dwelling, adjustment to the off-street parking requirements with a parking management plan, and an increase to the allowed building height to 28 feet for flat portions of the roof and 33 feet for the sloped portions of the roof in accordance with Use Permit No. UP3618. The design includes hardscape, drainage facilities, and landscaping. With approval of the height allowance, the project complies with all applicable development standards. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-024 approving a Coastal Development Permit for the demolition and reconstruction of a single-unit dwelling (PA2023-0017). Assistant Planner Tran utilized a presentation to introduce the proposal for a Coastal Development Permit, Parking Management Plan, and height increase up to 33 feet and noted the proposal is not a variance and the Use Permit allows for a height increase. She reviewed the vicinity map, building sites, Use Permit Development Standards, height increase with Planning Commission approval (west and south elevations), Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan Development Standards, Parking Management Plan, offsite parking aerial photo, building site map that is part of the approved use permit and proposed site plan, encroachment condition of approval, and recommended action.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1EE0153B
Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023
Page 5 of 9
In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell relayed the parking requirements for Title 20 and Title 21 and golf cart parking accommodations to satisfy on-site
compliance with Title 21. No ex parte communications were reported by the Commission. Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Nicole Thompson, Brandon Architects, indicated that they will comply with the setback/encroachment requirement and agreed to the conditions of approval. Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
Motion made by Vice Chair Rosene and seconded by Secretary Klaustermeier to approve the item as
recommended by staff.
AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 4 NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (PA2023-0082) Site Location: Generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, Birch Street and Bristol Street North Summary: An amendment to Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan (PC-11) to change the minimum affordable housing percentage of the Residential Overlay from thirty percent (30%) to fifteen percent (15%). Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this Amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-025 recommending approval of a Planned Community Development Plan Amendment to modify the minimum inclusionary affordable housing percentage to the City Council. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell used a slide presentation to introduce the public hearing to modify the Newport Place Planned Community text requested by the City Council that is related to a reduced Affordable Housing inclusionary percentage to from 30 percent to 15 percent. He reviewed the vicinity map, Newport Place background, residential overlay and Land Use Plan, proposed amendment details, California Environmental Quality Act exemption, recommended actions, and next steps. In response to Secretary Klaustermeier’s question, Deputy Director Campbell relayed that lower affordable housing is defined by State law and the area median income (AMI) and clarified that the amendment would reduce the required amount of affordable housing without changing the affordability level.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1EE0153B
Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023
Page 6 of 9
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill reviewed the AMI amounts for very low income, low income, and moderate income based on a four-person family.
In response to Secretary Klaustermeier’s question, Deputy Director Campbell explained the State Density Bonus Law parameters to achieve a 15 percent minimum affordability, as per State law. In response to Commissioner Langford’s question, Deputy Director Campbell thought that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) would agree that 15 percent is compliant with the Housing Element.
No ex parte communications were reported by the Commissioners. Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher relayed that no discussion on the matter took place with the City Council, no order was given to
the Planning Commission, a request was made by Council Member Weigand, the Council issued an amendment related to the affordability percentage, and his interpretation that the item is about whether the percentage should be lowered and to what percentage. Furthermore, he suggested that the amendment would create an inconsistency with the Housing Element and the airport area.
Nancy Scarbrough reviewed the 2022 Keyser Marston Associates Inclusionary Housing Financial Evaluation
which states that 15 percent is the most mathematically, efficient, and advantageous percentage to use to get the 50 percent density bonus; however, she thought that more sites would be needed for planning or building
by reducing the percentage, the total unit development would double, and HCD approved the Housing Element with 30 percent affordable housing. As a result, she questioned if lowering the percentage to 15 percent is in
the best interest of the City.
Deputy Director Campbell indicated that the study revealed that 30 percent is likely infeasible for most projects and creates a hurdle and thought 15 percent affordable is supported by the analysis, eliminates an impediment,
and boosts future production in the Newport Place area above the Density Bonus Law on its own. He noted the related challenges and a good balance for the community and recommended the action.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
Motion made by Commissioner Langford and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the item as
recommended by staff.
AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Langford, and Rosene NOES: None RESUSED: Harris and Lowrey ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 5 NEWPORT VILLAGE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (PA2023-0071) Site Location: 1550 Avocado Avenue at the corner of Avocado Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road Summary: Consistent with the City Council’s initiation on April 25, 2023, the proposed amendment to the Newport Village Planned Community (PC-27) Development Plan would add “recreational facilities” as an allowed use within the area designated as Area 1. Area 1 encompasses the 2.43-acre property at the corner of Avocado Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road that is developed with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) transit facility and surface parking lot. Recommended Action:
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1EE0153B
Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023
Page 7 of 9
1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find the amendment is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines). The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-026, recommending the City Council approve a Planned Community Development Plan Amendment allowing recreational facilities in Area 1 of the Newport Village Planned Community.
Associate Planner Joselyn Perez utilized a presentation to review a vicinity map, surrounding land uses, the existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) site, the proposed amendments to PC-27, staff
recommendation, and next steps. No ex parte communications were reported by Commissioners.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher noted two grammatical errors and questioned if Area 1 is truly large enough for a field as stated in Section 3, whether the night lighting of the courts would be consistent with the development plan and the
residential uses to the east, and if the amendment would be contrary to promoting alternative means of transportation by eliminating existing parking spaces at the transit facility.
Deputy Director Campbell clarified that night lighting is referring to security and overnight lighting and any
lighting to illuminate a sport court would be evaluated at the time a project comes forward. He agreed that a “field” may not be the right wording and suggested removing it. Mr. Campbell explained that as part of the
amendment, required parking for the transit facility and any future recreational use will be evaluated when a project comes forward. Lastly Mr. Campbell shared a conversation from his earlier meeting with OCTA
regarding the site and how current survey results indicate only a 30 percent utilization on average of the existing parking lot.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill noted that there are
exemptions that could and should apply in this scenario. Motion made by Commissioner Harris and seconded by Commissioner Langford to approve the item as recommended by staff. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 NEW VISITOR-SERVING ACCOMMODATIONS MU-W2 AND MU-CV/15TH ST Site Location: Various properties located in Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square and mixed-use areas on 15th Street, Agate Avenue, and Marine Avenue Summary:
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1EE0153B
Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023
Page 8 of 9
At City Council’s request on May 23, 2023, Planning Commission was directed to identify opportunities for to modify Titles 20 and 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to facilitate new visitor serving accommodation opportunities within the MU-W2 and MU-CV/15th Street zones. The
request also included several considerations: 1) applicability to multi-unit residential developments with 20 or more residential units under common ownership, 2) requirement for professional management, 3) requirement for project amenities, and 4) where there are no parking impacts that could reduce the availability of parking in residential neighborhoods. Recommended Action: 1. Receive public comment; 2. Find recommended actions exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
3. Form an ad hoc committee consisting of three Planning Commissioners appointed by the Chair to develop a recommendation for the Planning Commission to consider and forward to the City Council; or
4. Instruct staff to prepare a report focusing on the topic that will be reviewed by all the Planning
Commissioners at a future date.
Deputy Director Campbell utilized a presentation to provide an overview of the City Council’s direction to facilitate new visitor serving accommodation opportunities within the MU-W2 and MU-CV/15th Street zones, vicinity map, and background on the MU-W2 and MU-CV/15th Street zones. He asked the Planning Commission to either establish an ad hoc subcommittee or direct staff to prepare a report with code amendments.
Jim Mosher thought the Planning Commission does not have enough information to move forward and suggested the item be added to the City Council agenda for discussion and direction. Chair Ellmore, Vice Chair Rosene, and Commissioner Barto supported a report prepared by staff. Motion made by Commissioner Barto and seconded by Chair Ellmore to instruct staff to prepare a report focused on the matter for review by the Planning Commission at a future date. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None RECUSED: Langford ABSENT: None IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 8 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA Deputy Director Campbell reported that the July 6 Planning Commission meeting is the annual meeting with three items and officer elections scheduled, City Council will appoint two commissioners by the next meeting, three items are anticipated for the July 20 meeting, and City Council approved the VE Zone amendment with changes to the side yard encroachment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1EE0153B
Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2023
Page 9 of 9
ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Lowrey requested an excused absence on August 17th.
Commissioner Barto requested a possible excused absence on July 6th. Vice Chair Rosene requested a possible excused absence on July 20th. X. ADJOURNMENT - With no further business, Chair Ellmore adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m. The agenda for the June 22, 2023, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, June 15, 2023, at 12:28 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, June 15, 2023, at 12:15 p.m. _______________________________
Curtis Ellmore, Chair _______________________________ Tristan Harris, Secretary
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC2F3D1B-4597-493D-AC6C-E2FA1EE0153B