[0:02] Good

[0:09] for you,

[0:22] everyone.

[0:26] You guys?

[0:30] I think a lot. I told you, I've been trying to get this guy out on it.

[0:51] That's right, that's right, that's right, that's right, that's right, that's right,

[0:53] well thankfully it's the only way to get it on that, so yeah, just a little bit here for sure.

[0:59] Yeah.

[1:00] If they're gonna, you know, we're getting a pretty serious.

[1:05] No, you know, we're getting serious.

[1:06] They're gonna be happy, slipped anymore.

[1:09] They just called for public comment.

[1:11] Full of inhibiting, it's one of the coolest walk-up stories.

[1:14] So, I don't know if that was the way you got it.

[1:15] But, you see, you got the tissue mark.

[1:17] Yeah, I'll show you.

[1:20] You

[1:28] got

[1:36] the

[1:44] tissue mark.

[1:51] What do you think, Schaeke?

[1:53] What do you think, Schaeke, please?

[1:53] I love you so much.

[1:56] I love you so much.

[2:52] Hey, I'll see you, chair.

[2:59] Oh my, I don't get a cushion.

[3:02] Wow.

[3:02] Good thing you got one.

[3:04] I'm here early.

[3:05] That's all ladies on the couch.

[3:06] Good thing I'm not last.

[3:08] Yeah.

[3:08] Great.

[3:10] I'll do that.

[3:25] No.

[4:10] Okay, thanks for your patience, everyone, a couple of minutes to start you today.

[4:17] But I'll call the February 5th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order.

[4:23] Will everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and will commission a resin, please

[4:27] as we just in the flag slip.

[4:29] So

[4:34] it's a flag of the United States from America.

[4:38] And I look for which is saying, one nation,

[4:41] under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[4:47] Thank you.

[4:50] Staff roll, call please.

[4:54] All commissioners are present with the exception

[4:56] of commissioners, Gazano, and Elmore,

[4:58] who are excused this evening.

[5:02] Okay, public comments.

[5:03] This is the time we take public comments

[5:05] and items that are not on the agenda tonight, but are generally within the purview of the Planning Commission.

[5:11] If you wish to speak, please keep your comments to three minutes or less.

[5:14] So are there any public comments on non-agenda items?

[5:25] Chair Harris, the members of the Planning Commission, my name is Jim Mosher.

[5:29] Since you last met the City Council, had a planning session, which they held here.

[5:36] I don't know how many of you were able to attend or review that meeting.

[5:40] but one of the slides that was presented by the city staff gave us an update on our progress

[5:45] meeting or obligations under our housing element that we currently have. And I found that interesting.

[5:54] As you may know, under our current rena cycle, we have an obligation to plan for

[6:00] the addition of about 3,000 affordable housing units in Newport Beach. And under our plan,

[6:06] Then we are promising that we can accomplish that by approving about 8,000 units under

[6:14] the assumption that those will redevelop at about 40% affordable.

[6:19] What the slide showed were currently halfway four years into the six-rena cycle and the housing

[6:28] overlays that were counting on to develop to produce those have so far produced only about

[6:36] 200 out of the 3,000 we're supposed to produce and the disturbing thing about it is that they're being produced at about a rate of

[6:44] 1 affordable unit for 20 market rate units and the math is not too complicated at that rate of production.

[6:55] We would have to add to our city 60,000 market rate units to meet our Renault requirement.

[7:02] But it sounds to me like we do not have a realistic plan.

[7:14] And I think you're from your tentative agenda.

[7:18] I saw at your first meeting in March, you're going to see a more definitive report from

[7:22] the city about this.

[7:25] But I think the lack of affordable housing production is going to come back to haunt us.

[7:33] And I think the caps that we have are currently not too realistic and we may be forced to raise those.

[7:40] We certainly will have to meet this in our next rena cycle and add into the complication if you've not heard.

[7:47] There's a recent California appeals court opinion which the last week the Supreme Court of California decided to not review.

[7:56] so it is now the law and it makes overlays not in an acceptable way of meeting the affordable

[8:07] housing requirements and the city will face having to actually zone properties for those so that

[8:13] if they redevelop they won't have the option of an overlay but will actually have to redevelop in

[8:18] that way and so I think it should give us all pause when we are considering more housing with

[8:26] An adequate affordable units.

[8:29] Thank you.

[8:32] Thank you.

[8:33] Any other speakers for non-agenda items?

[8:37] Okay.

[8:38] Moving on to the next item.

[8:41] Request for Continuances, staff.

[8:42] Are there any requests for continuances?

[8:44] Either no request.

[8:47] Okay.

[8:48] Item number one, the minutes of the January 2022.

[8:52] 20, excuse me, January 22, 2026, planning commission hearing.

[8:57] Would anyone like from the audience like to comment on the minutes from the January 22nd,

[9:04] 2026 meeting?

[9:05] So, nobody?

[9:06] Call for a motion.

[9:07] I'll make a motion to approve.

[9:10] I'll second.

[9:12] Call for a vote.

[9:29] The motion carries 4-0 with Commissioner Rosy and Epstein.

[9:36] Okay.

[9:37] Thank you.

[9:37] On to item number two.

[9:39] Dover Town Homes.

[9:40] It's PA 2025-0135.

[9:43] 5, the site location is 601 Dover Drive, staff?

[9:48] One at please.

[9:48] Good evening.

[9:49] Proceed with your presentation.

[9:51] Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners.

[9:52] Melinda Whalen, Planning Division.

[9:55] This is the Dover Town Homes.

[9:57] The location is at the corner of Dover Drive and Cliff Drive.

[10:01] The existing site is developed with medical offices.

[10:05] And it's downslope from the Cliff Haven residential neighborhood,

[10:08] across from Castaway's Park and Newport Bay.

[10:11] The site was identified in the housing element as an opportunity site and has an housing overlay within the 803 Dover Drive among 9 other sites with the intent to provide a variety of additional units for the city.

[10:33] The project will demolish the existing medical offices and construct a 33 unit for cell town homes.

[10:40] They will be within seven to attach three-story buildings, approximately 38 feet tall and provide two, three, and four bedroom units with two car garages, trash areas will be within the garages outside of the minimum garage dimensions.

[10:59] Here's the layout of the proposed project.

[11:02] It includes landscape buffers along the exterior property lines, public plaza towards the rear of the lot.

[11:11] It includes two amenity areas for the residents, and it will utilize an existing driveway, and

[11:23] it includes a hedge and landscape buffer adjacent to the existing residential.

[11:30] Required approvals are a major site development review, a variance requested to encroach into

[11:38] the street setbacks, a track map for condominiums, and it qualifies under

[11:46] sequender AB 130 statutory exemption.

[11:53] The HO3 sub area has specific

[11:56] development standards. The project complies with all of these development

[12:01] standards except for requesting the variance to encroach into the street setbacks.

[12:12] The design of the site provides interior drive aisles, amenity areas that are

[12:17] screen from public view. The larger rear setback with the publicly accessible plaza.

[12:26] The existing

[12:27] medical office has about 231 greater trips, so this is a significant lower trip generation.

[12:35] It's well below the height limit and it meets the minimum density. It's well below the maximum

[12:41] allowed density and provides greater setbacks and landscaping.

[12:50] A driveway analysis was provided by

[12:52] LSA Associates. It provided a Cueing Analysis for the proposed driveway operations and a site distance analysis for the safety of the project driveway.

[13:05] A condition of approval is included where if traffic issues do arise at the driveway, that the developer will have to implement a right in, right out only design.

[13:19] design. And the design was reviewed and approved and included in the LSA analysis. And this

[13:28] shows the design of the right turn right out.

[13:36] This is the view from the neighboring residential

[13:39] and it shows with the low height limit and the large slope and the landscape area. It provides

[13:47] a lesser impact if then if it were to maximize the development standards.

[13:57] This provides a view

[13:58] from Dover sidewalk. It shows the landscape buffer, the entry courtyards and the entries

[14:07] to each unit, which mimic typical residential throughout the city.

[14:18] It shows the public plaza,

[14:20] which provides a seating and viewing area for residents and the public alike. It also

[14:26] shows the hedge adjacent to the residential neighborhood to the side of the property.

[14:32] The

[14:37] project complies with 47 of the 52 objective design standards.

[14:43] Minor deviations are requested, but the intent of all the standards are still met.

[14:54] Here's the project rendering for the 16-minute building alone dover.

[15:04] Variance is requested due to the physical constraints of the property, to the side property line down slope of the residential above. There is a required slope stability step back that cuts into the buildable area. For a typical lot, this would be a zero setback.

[15:25] There's a site distance safety corner on Dover and Cliff Drive.

[15:34] The rear yard exceeds the minimum required setback and provides the required publicly accessible open space.

[15:40] Since

[15:44] the site is on the corner, it has two front setbacks,

[15:50] there are ten feet.

[15:52] Additionally, it has 20 foot setbacks for the upper levels.

[15:57] A typical site would have one front setback.

[16:03] So these constraints greatly cut into the buildable area of the site.

[16:07] Additionally, it was a priority for the design to provide the minimum 26 foot wide drive

[16:14] aisles for fire access, circulation, and safety.

[16:17] The alternative designs were explored to maximize the development standards up to the 65 foot height limit.

[16:25] But the goal was to be more compatible with the neighborhood and the encroachments were less impactful compared to a different design with the higher height limit.

[16:42] The Vesting tentative track map is for condo purposes and a park in Luffy will be charged per unit.

[16:50] The

[16:56] project was found to be statutorily exempt from CEQA, pursuant to AB 130.

[17:01] It meets the requirement, the criteria for AB 130 meets the zoning, land use, and no significant environmental resources on site.

[17:12] Tribal consultation concluded on December 22, 2025, and there are tribal monitoring conditions for two consulting tribes included in the resolution.

[17:22] There

[17:28] are some updated conditions, minor changes to conditions of approval that I would

[17:32] like to go through.

[17:34] So this adds a time limit or a time frame for recording the track map for the condominiums.

[17:41] They are required to be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit.

[17:50] And this adds some language if the right turn, right out lane is required.

[17:55] And I would like to read that.

[17:57] But it says if not installed prior to the developer transferring the project to the homeowner association,

[18:03] the developer shall pre-fund the HOA reserves for this purpose.

[18:07] The fund shall be memorialized in the CCNRs.

[18:11] This condition shall expire five years from the date last unit sold and occupied.

[18:20] And there were some corrections to some fire conditions that were worked out post-distribution of the staff report.

[18:27] staff

[18:34] recommends conducting a public hearing and finding this project's

[18:38] statutorily exempt from CEQA, pursuant to AB 130,

[18:43] and it recommends the Planning Commission to adopt the resolution number PC

[18:47] 2026-003, approving the site development review variants and besting tentative track map.

[18:55] The applicant is here and has a presentation, and I'm available for questions.

[19:00] Thank you.

[19:00] Thank you, Ms. Wellen.

[19:02] Commissioner, is there any questions for staff?

[19:05] Mr. Rosey?

[19:10] Thank you for the presentation.

[19:13] Just quickly in regard to the traffic and especially this condition, 71.

[19:20] If I understand correctly, the location of the curb cut is generally the same location as where the existing curb cut is.

[19:32] and if the traffic count is significantly less why are we requiring this condition?

[19:43] Good evening Chair and members of the Commission. My name is Kevin Riley. I'm the City Trappin Engineer.

[19:48] To answer your question, Commissioner Rosene.

[19:53] This is this condition 71 is based on the queuing at the eastbound approach.

[20:01] Where the driveway is proposed is actually, it's going to be maybe 20 feet west of the existing driveway based on LSA report.

[20:12] And what that does is it provides, if you have four vehicles queuing in the eastbound left turn lane, it blocks the ability of a driver exiting the private property to turn left, so they have to turn right.

[20:29] This will likely happen during the morning peak hour, because the morning peak hour

[20:35] aligns more with the hours of the school drop off at Ensign, but in other cases we

[20:43] feel comfortable that the left turn pocket will operate well with the with the

[20:51] proposed driveway curve cut. But we want to have the condition 71, just in case we

[20:59] be something different in the future.

[21:02] Okay, and thank you for adding that portion about the language for the mechanism for how this is going to work.

[21:08] You'll think that it's in a new show condition, but the 20 feet could be 20 feet and that makes the difference. So thank you.

[21:18] Commissioner.

[21:22] Thank you chair Harris.

[21:23] Yes, maybe I'll start with you, traffic engineer Riley, since we're on traffic.

[21:29] I had a question about the parallel parking on Dover Drive and Clifft Drive.

[21:37] Currently, neither of them have parking on them.

[21:40] Do you have plans to open them up for parking or keep them no parking zones?

[21:46] There's no plans to install offsite parking in the public right away.

[21:51] Okay, great. Thank you. Miss Whalen, a couple of questions for you if you don't mind.

[21:57] Is the publicly available, I think you call it a gazebo or park area, is that fulfill

[22:09] a portion of the applicant's public park land requirement?

[22:14] No, that is a development or design standard that's found in the multi-unit design standards.

[22:22] It requires amenities and it additionally requires a publicly accessible open space.

[22:28] But it's not part of the public part fee if that answers the question.

[22:33] That answers my question.

[22:35] Thank you.

[22:36] So, another question I have is there are often requirements for redevelopments to underground power if it happens to be in front of their property.

[22:47] Does this applicant have that requirement for this project?

[22:50] Yes, they will be undergrounding some utilities.

[22:53] Okay, that's good.

[22:56] And that is all I've got for now.

[22:59] Thank you.

[23:11] I

[23:16] have a meeting with the applicant.

[23:21] I spoke on the phone with the representative of the applicant.

[23:25] I briefly communicated with the applicant.

[23:30] Okay, I'll open the public hearing.

[23:34] Thank you. Good evening, Chair Harris, Planning Commissioners, staff. My name is Emily

[23:41] Samard, Director of Forward Planning with Shea Holmes. It's great to be here with you

[23:45] tonight. I first want to thank staff for all the work that they've done to get us to this

[23:49] point of the process. These housing element sites are still relatively new to all of us.

[23:55] They require quite a bit of work on these info sites and this one's no exception so I wanted

[24:00] wanted to give special thanks to Melinda Whalen, who has been our quarterback, no pundit-intended

[24:06] for Super Bowl Week, but she's really done great in guiding this application and this

[24:11] project forward. So thank you, Melinda. I'm joined tonight by my team at Shea and our

[24:17] consultants, so we'll be while we're presented for any questions that arise throughout

[24:21] the hearing tonight. Melinda did a great job covering the technical details, so my goal tonight

[24:27] is to give you some context on Shea Holmes and walk through the broader intent behind this community.

[24:35] I wanted to start off by giving a little history on Shea Holmes since we have such unique legacy.

[24:40] It began in 1881 with a small plumbing company in Oregon and over time the family expanded their construction business

[24:48] and were able to contribute to some major public works projects, most notably the Golden Gate Bridge as well as Parker and Hoover Dam's.

[24:56] In 1968, we entered the home building industry and today, Shea Holmes is one of the largest

[25:02] private home builders in the country operating across 11 states with our Southern California

[25:07] division based right here in Orange County.

[25:09] We're proud to be one of the nation's oldest and largest privately held builders with the

[25:14] Shea family now into its fourth generation of leadership.

[25:22] This slide is highlighting our most recent new port beach community, the K at Mariner Shores

[25:27] located off Urbinavenu and Mariners Drive, which was built out in early 2023.

[25:33] This is a 50-6 unit project that continues to be very well received by the community

[25:38] and reflects the type of thoughtful developments that we strive for.

[25:44] Bringing focus back to our current application, and just to reorient everybody,

[25:50] the sub-excite is outlined here in red.

[25:52] We're at the intersection of Dover and Cliff Drive.

[25:55] It's currently developed with a single-story medical office center

[25:58] and it's essentially positioned at the base of the Cliff Haven neighborhood and directly across from Castaway's Park,

[26:05] offering walkable access to trails, Newport Bay, retail and restaurants.

[26:10] You're probably noticing our West property line. We have seven existing homes directly abutting the site.

[26:17] These homes sit on average about 35 feet higher than our pad elevation and are separated by a 2-to-1 slope.

[26:27] Here's a ground level view of that condition.

[26:30] It's showing the existing wall and slope separating our site from the neighboring homes.

[26:40] On in full sites like this, especially when we have residential direct neighbors, like

[26:46] you just saw, outreach is very important to us.

[26:49] We take it as our responsibility to balance interests, not just for ourselves but for the local

[26:55] community in the city at large.

[26:57] We began engaging the Cliff Haven community about two months prior to our formal application

[27:03] into the city.

[27:05] In our intent of this was really just to open a line of communication early on in the process.

[27:11] So that neighbors had my direct telephone and email throughout the entire entitlement process with the city.

[27:18] At our first meeting with neighbors, this was in May of 2025.

[27:22] There were six neighbors that attended.

[27:24] and then from that point, our team has been consistent in communication with four direct

[27:29] neighbors on St. James Place and handling correspondence individually with them, just

[27:34] to better tailor to needs that come up or questions that arise.

[27:38] One of them even sends a letter of support this evening, which we really appreciate and

[27:42] I think speaks to the level of intimate communication that we've had this past year.

[27:51] When it came to site planning, like Melinda touched on, we were faced with several obstacles

[27:56] it's in a regular triangular parcel with street frontage on two sides and a slope

[28:02] condition on the third. Along Dover and Cliff City Code requires ten foot

[28:07] setbacks at grade and 20 feet for any portion of the building over 20 feet in

[28:12] height. Along the west side while zoning technically allows a zero setback

[28:16] California building code requires 15 feet from the toe of the slope. Once you

[28:22] layer in site distance requirements at the intersection the setbacks and so

[28:26] slope safety buffers, the buildable area shrinks dramatically.

[28:30] We go from about 1.6 acres to just over 1.1 buildable acres, which you can see here in

[28:37] gray.

[28:39] When it came to selecting product, we really wanted to plan this site with the neighbors

[28:44] and greater community in mind.

[28:46] Instead of shrinking the footprint and building taller, we were determined to make a more traditional

[28:52] road town home product work here. While the overlay would allow up to 65 feet in height

[28:58] and up to 81 units, we design this community out of minimum density of 20 units per acre

[29:03] and kept building heights below 38 feet with no rooftop decks here, specifically out of sensitivity

[29:10] to the adjacent homes and the greater community.

[29:16] I'll use this site plan to walk you through

[29:18] the layout of the site design. As you can see, although we have a tight footprint and minimum

[29:24] does city requirements to hit. The team did a really good job in laying out this community

[29:28] and utilizing space in a meaningful way. I'll bring you in off Cliff Drive. We are essentially

[29:35] utilizing the existing access point into the property as they touched on. We're actually shifting

[29:40] it west, so that's away from the intersection about 12 feet.

[29:47] You'll see enhanced paving and landscaping

[29:49] to create a vibrant sense of place for the sentence. The 33 units are arranged across seven buildings

[29:55] three of which front over drive and one

[29:57] orienting out towards cliff.

[30:00] This will really activate the street edge and introduce residential character to the corner. Along the west boundary, we essentially located our outdoor lounge space with seating, a fire pit and barbecue station. From here, there's a meandering landscaped walkway along the west project boundary, leading to passive open space with seating, landscaping, and a turf zone with benches and a waste receptacle. So for dog owners, sometimes you just appreciate not having to go on a full walk to get the job done.

[30:29] So, this space is really created for that convenience.

[30:33] And then at the northerly tip of the site, there's a public plaza which Melinda touched

[30:38] on.

[30:38] This is part of our 3% requirement of publicly accessible open space.

[30:43] So this is accessible directly off the right away as well as from the interior of the site.

[30:48] This space will be nicely landscaped with circular seating around a focal tree to create

[30:52] a scenic and relaxing environment for homeowners and the greater cleft haven community.

[30:57] I'll

[31:00] narrow focus a bit on project specifics and development standards.

[31:05] We went over most of this, but I'll restate that this site falls under the HO3 section

[31:11] of the Overly Zoning District in the Certified Housing Element.

[31:15] We're providing three distinct floor plans and meeting the minimum required density of

[31:20] 33 units.

[31:22] Despite the tight site constraints, we exceed open space and parking requirements, providing

[31:28] providing an intentional and refined environment for future homeowners.

[31:32] It's also worth noting that the land use change from commercial medical to residential

[31:37] generates much fewer daily trips.

[31:40] During peak hours, it will generate 13 a.m. and 17 p.m. peak trips.

[31:45] This overlay district allows for a 65-foot maximum height and a maximum density of 50 units per acre.

[31:52] As you now know, we're building to the minimum allowed density of 20 units per acre

[31:56] and are keeping building heights at an average of 35 feet with no rooftop decks.

[32:05] When we are deciding on architectural direction here, we drew inspiration from the surrounding context.

[32:12] The project was inspired by mid-century modern design principles,

[32:16] drawing direct inspiration from both the existing on-site commercial buildings

[32:20] and the nearby environmental nature center, which features that distinct butterfly reform.

[32:25] We

[32:28] liked the idea of continuing that roof design and elongating the visual interest as you pass the ENC and continue south-downed over.

[32:37] These mid-century influences are also expressed through clean horizontal and vertical massing, deep overhangs, large window groupings,

[32:45] and a soft material palette that reflects the simplicity and refinement of mid-century architecture while complementing the coastal luxury atmosphere of Newport Beach.

[32:54] I'll go through some site renderings.

[32:59] So here are a couple examples.

[33:01] These buildings are fronting Dover Drive.

[33:04] So you can see the layer landscaping, focal street trees,

[33:09] the gates coming to the private courtyards.

[33:15] And then here are some vignettes of these site details.

[33:19] So going from left to right, you'll see the community gathering space.

[33:23] So this is our outdoor lounge area in the center of the community for residents.

[33:26] has a fire pit, seating and a barbecue and then in the middle you'll see the

[33:33] open space that we're calling the dog release area but it's really just a

[33:38] passive open space with seating and landscaping and then you'll see the

[33:43] public courtyard that's accessible off the public right away and that's really

[33:48] for the greater community and our residents to enjoy.

[33:54] Here's some comparison

[33:55] in street seamen images, so this is at the intersection of cliff and over.

[34:01] And you can see here just for a point of reference of height, the street light on the corner

[34:07] of cliff and over, it's 35 feet tall, so you can see that building has a peak height

[34:17] of 34 feet 11 inches coming in, you know, pretty much right where that light is, and a lot

[34:24] of the street trees along Dover actually exceed the height of the buildings right now so just to give

[34:30] a little bit scale of massing here.

[34:35] Here's a closer image of that intersection photo rendered.

[34:45] Here is a comparison image coming southbound down Dover Drive. So you'll see on the right hand side of

[34:52] the rendered image that's our public plaza or portion of it. You'll notice the street trees going

[34:58] down-dover drive, just going in and out of the buildings, which really makes this a softened

[35:05] residential feel as you come down the corridor.

[35:09] Another height reference here, we are removing that power pole as Commissioner Linkford highlighted.

[35:17] There are four cross arms on that pole.

[35:20] The bottom cross arm is at 38 feet, and again, the buildings along-dover drive are 34 feet

[35:28] 11 inches so hard to assess scale there but I just wanted to point that out as

[35:32] you're looking out the street scene here.

[35:37] And then here's a focused image of

[35:40] that rendering as you're coming down Dover Drive.

[35:48] And that wraps up my

[35:49] presentation tonight. So on behalf of Shea Holmes thank you for your time and your

[35:54] engagement this evening. We hope that you agree that this project delivers

[35:57] housing in exactly the manner envisioned by the city housing element while

[36:02] While remaining sensitive to its residential surroundings, we're excited to bring another

[36:07] great community to new port beach, and I'll open it up for any questions now.

[36:11] Thank you.

[36:12] Do you agree with the conditions as changed and as presented?

[36:17] Yes, thank you, Chair Harris.

[36:19] We have worked on the conditions with staff and agreed to the resolution and conditions

[36:25] as modified.

[36:26] Thank you.

[36:27] Commissioner's questions for the applicant?

[36:31] I'll take the first few feet on mine.

[36:33] Thank you, Emily.

[36:34] A couple of questions for you.

[36:36] Number one, what was the thought process in pushing the project towards Dover and

[36:44] encroaching on the setbacks to request the variance?

[36:48] I'm sure there are variances.

[36:49] Yes, thank you for bringing that up.

[36:50] So a couple of things.

[36:52] And it wasn't necessarily a decision of moving it forward.

[36:55] It was kind of the opportunity cost that we landed on in picking product.

[37:02] So with the 15-foot setback that we needed off the toe of the slope, and then the unique

[37:07] situation that the site lent itself, since we have the major street frontage on two sides,

[37:13] we had that 20-foot setback requirement for anything over 20 feet, and then had the unique

[37:19] condition to have the 15-foot setback, whereas I'll use Ford Road as an example, just because

[37:24] as it had just come before you over the summer,

[37:27] they had two zero setbacks,

[37:29] Ford Road being one of them.

[37:31] So they had a six foot setback off

[37:34] of what would their advantage would be,

[37:36] but since it wasn't technically on an arterial street,

[37:39] they didn't have the same requirement.

[37:41] So our footprint shrunk right away.

[37:44] And instead of building higher,

[37:48] we decided to work with the city

[37:50] on encroaching on the setback

[37:52] to keep the product as less dense as we can.

[37:55] So it really was a matter of constraint because of topography.

[38:02] And then we just worked with staff on what would make the most sense for the site and product.

[38:06] So it was really product driven.

[38:09] Got it.

[38:10] And the second question, was there ever discussion to add a secondary exit on to Dover or to make

[38:17] Make that the primary versus exiting onto cliff, because as the city highlighted, it's a little unique in that if you're trying to go left, you can only get three or four cars backed up before you can't go left.

[38:28] So, it gets this particular intersection can get really crowded at certain times and backed up.

[38:34] We did, so when, again, when we were planning site, our preference was to utilize the existing access as Commissioner Rosine pointed out.

[38:46] If you have a less impact with residential use and lesser daily trips and it's a full access drive right now, why not preserve that?

[38:54] But in looking at the site with fresh eyes, I mean, we really did a litany of traffic studies to make sure that that access point was the safest condition

[39:03] for the community, our community that we're building

[39:07] and then the community at large.

[39:09] So we did assess going in off Dover,

[39:12] which would have been a right out access,

[39:14] not a full access.

[39:17] And ultimately it came down to safety

[39:19] with the traffic speed going southbound down Dover

[39:24] since we're downgrade.

[39:26] It did not pass as a primary access point.

[39:30] We would have to have a right lane to de-escalate traffic to turn into the site, to make that feasible, and so our primary access is actually most safe where it currently is, and then we've shifted it a stated 12 feet west, which creates a little bit looser of a condition since we're moving further from the intersection, and it just didn't lend itself space or requirement to have two points for a 33 years.

[40:00] in that project.

[40:01] Thank you.

[40:02] Thank you.

[40:02] Appreciate it.

[40:05] Thank you, Chair Langford.

[40:07] Thank you, Chair.

[40:09] Ms. Samard, appreciate all your outreach to the Newport Heights and the Cliff Haven communities.

[40:15] I'm curious in those communications and open houses and whatnot, what they believed their

[40:23] preference was for the architectural inspiration if they pointed you towards the mid-century

[40:28] modern as something to replicate from ENC, whether they like the idea if there was consensus

[40:34] there.

[40:35] I'm just curious.

[40:36] Sure.

[40:38] The architecture elevation style was not a main part of conversation with the neighbors.

[40:44] It was mainly height and really just direct impact them individually, and that's really why

[40:52] a lot of our conversation with the neighbors ended up more individual approach.

[40:57] because they all had individual concerns with their property and it wasn't

[41:04] surrounding architectural style. More so, height and impact in that way.

[41:11] Okay. Yeah, my personal read on it and I'd be curious eventually with all of us

[41:17] and maybe from the audience what they thought about it. To me it seemed like it was

[41:21] kind of lending itself. This style made it seem more like part of the commercial

[41:26] quarter instead of part of the, you know, coastal Cape Cod cliff haven feel. So, I was just

[41:34] curious if that was intentional, unintentional, you thought you were trying to match the

[41:39] ENC look, which is its own kind of like goofy use case.

[41:44] Yeah. No good question. We felt the corner is a pretty transitional part of the town kind

[41:53] of marrying both commercial and residential, which is upgrade from us.

[41:58] So when we were playing with elevation styles and the density of the buildings to see

[42:03] really what would lend itself best to a rotown home style here and fitting coastal kind

[42:12] of contemporary, new port beach, we met with staff and went over multiple iterations of

[42:18] this project, and this is what we felt would resonate best for this corner.

[42:24] Okay, thanks, Mr. Martin.

[42:25] I really liked the manner of shores, by the way.

[42:27] I think it looks great.

[42:28] Thank you.

[42:30] Can I share?

[42:34] Do you mind walking through a little bit more of some of the feedback and how it's implemented

[42:38] in the site plan and the position of buildings or based off communication with neighbors?

[42:45] You walk us through some of that, or a little more of the back and forth, or some compromises

[42:49] is potentially that. Yeah absolutely. So just giving an example and if you

[42:55] don't mind I'll pull up a site plan just so it might be easier to follow the

[42:58] context of the neighbors or I'll pull up an aerial.

[43:07] So some of the neighbors have

[43:10] been utilizing the property because it has been partially vacant for some time.

[43:15] They've been utilizing that to access the back of their slopes and some have had

[43:21] gates put in and things for maintenance. So we've been working individually with homeowners to

[43:28] have something embedded in our CCNRs that would allow them access via pathway to the back of their

[43:37] slopes to facilitate landscaping. We have a neighbor who didn't necessarily have a suggestion for

[43:46] site planning for us but since you know we've been collaborating and we're you

[43:53] know a direct conduit to city staff at this point they have voiced certain

[43:57] concerns which I can share with you. We mentioned the power poles so we're

[44:02] conditioned to underground the pole that's directly in front of our property we're

[44:07] not conditioned to underground poles that are north on Dover and so that's

[44:13] something that was asked by a neighbor, if there's anything we can do to remove the

[44:19] poll in front of their property.

[44:21] So we're in design right now with so-called Edison and it's something that we asked

[44:25] Edison as if they can evaluate that as part of the design.

[44:30] What does that do, if we're moving that poll, what does it do to remove the second one?

[44:37] Is it going to cause us to have to dig up Dover because there's a switch and a transformer

[44:43] we're on that poll. So it might be more cumbersome than we would think. It's not just removing

[44:48] a second poll, but the question was asked. So I should know that information soon. And we're

[44:53] in direct conversation with the neighbors keeping them in a loop on that. Another thing that they

[45:00] What brought up is the sick of more trees in the center median. The city recently redid that center median on Dover.

[45:08] The sick of more trees get pretty tall. And when they have all their leaves, it does impede views of the neighbors that are up on St. James Place. So that was another request if we could talk to the city about maybe selecting a more thoughtful type of tree in the median.

[45:27] So those are the kind of personal things that come up.

[45:31] There is a home that you see at 702 St. James Place.

[45:34] It's a new construction.

[45:36] They're building down the slope.

[45:38] So that's a unique situation because all the other homes,

[45:42] a lot of them are original.

[45:44] They have very mature vegetation on the slopes.

[45:47] That one in particular, they're building down the slope.

[45:49] And so we've been working closely with them as they work with buyers

[45:52] on really just messaging and giving them, you know, what we have as we work through the entitlement process.

[46:00] Thank you. Can you compare the heights on this project to Mariner Shores?

[46:07] Yes, Mariner Shores, I believe, hit a peak at about 33 feet.

[46:16] 33 feet, it had a wider footprint.

[46:19] We actually initially tried to plot that product here.

[46:23] We did not come close to the yield that we needed to hit the minimum density required for this overlay district.

[46:30] But we're at about 33 feet at Mariners and then five of our buildings hit a max height of 34 feet 11 inches.

[46:39] We have two buildings at the interior of the site where the butterfly roof form hits a peak of 37 feet 1 inch.

[46:50] Thank you. Any other questions, commissioners?

[46:53] Okay. Thank you.

[46:55] Oh, I'm sorry.

[46:56] So it sounds like one of the letters that was sent from the neighbors, they had the two

[47:00] comments, one on the electrical and the poles, it sounds like you're undergrounding that.

[47:04] The other was to the sick and more trees.

[47:06] Were you able to work with the city to do something there or not?

[47:10] We had risen the question, and the feedback that we got was that it was newly landscaped

[47:19] and planted, you know, pretty intentionally as part of the city beautification project.

[47:24] And so that's where it rested.

[47:28] And you know, we'll keep raising the question and see.

[47:31] But we did renew the second more trees from our project because we initially had plotted

[47:37] a couple just for consistency bringing in the new port city selected trees into our site

[47:46] to have kind of that mirrored effect as you drive down Dover, but because it's a hot

[47:50] button for the neighbors, we elected to remove those from our site and pick a different

[47:54] species.

[47:55] Got it.

[47:56] Thanks.

[48:00] Okay.

[48:00] Thank you.

[48:01] Thank you.

[48:05] Okay.

[48:06] Does anyone from the audience wish to speak on this item?

[48:12] Please come forward.

[48:13] If you'd like to give your name, it's just a reminder of three minutes, typically, and it's

[48:21] Not a time for questions to Q&A, just a reminder, that's all.

[48:23] Got it, thanks.

[48:25] Thanks, Chair and commissioners.

[48:27] My name's Tom Delafi.

[48:30] You get more time, just give us a second.

[48:32] Perfect.

[48:33] I don't need much, so I live at 2532 Vista Drive,

[48:38] which is just south of this project.

[48:40] I've been driving and walking by this site

[48:42] when I'm heading up to walk my dogs at the park

[48:45] for the last 20 plus years.

[48:47] It's always looked to me like an obsolete medical office building,

[48:50] a little out of place with where it's at, and I think that this project is a great reuse

[48:56] for it. I think adding new housing stock to the city is really important and the ripple

[49:00] effect for the city with people being able to buy more affordable homes. Maybe the folks

[49:05] who buy homes here are leaving houses somewhere else and more residents can come into the city.

[49:11] Well, I could probably never afford to buy my house again. Maybe I could at least hope that my kids

[49:17] to get some day fined by the house

[49:19] of someone that moved into this house.

[49:21] So I think that's real important.

[49:22] A lot of great amenities in the area for it.

[49:24] I really like how the front doors face dover.

[49:29] So it doesn't have just the kind of like the wall look

[49:31] like you see in a lot of new projects

[49:32] or existing projects throughout Orange County.

[49:36] It's really kind of open and I think friendly.

[49:38] So I'm a big fan of it.

[49:40] I think it's a great reuse.

[49:41] I'd love to see more stuff like this happening in the city.

[49:44] Thanks.

[49:44] Thank you.

[49:47] Speaker.

[49:47] here.

[49:53] My name is Morgan Craig. I live at 624. It's my grandparents old house. They built

[49:59] in 1973 and my first point, I didn't want to say anything to Emily that she couldn't

[50:05] rebuttal, but I was going to bring up, I was going to ask which neighbor wrote a letter of

[50:10] support because I wouldn't expect anybody to support this really in the neighborhood, but

[50:14] I'm apparently wrong because the gentleman before me just made a statement in support of

[50:19] which I don't really understand.

[50:22] I've grown up in this neighborhood, I grew up in this neighborhood, lived here almost

[50:26] my whole life.

[50:30] And, you know, first of all, the traffic that it'll produce, the traffic numbers that

[50:35] Emily presented to me don't seem correct.

[50:37] The amount of cars that are going in and out of it now are, the volume is very low.

[50:42] And I think with that many residences there, it'll go up quite a bit.

[50:46] and with Ensign and Newport Harbor right there.

[50:49] And the amount of kids and riding bikes, the amount of people running,

[50:53] the amount of people walking, the amount of cars every morning going up and down that hill.

[50:57] I think it'll create quite a problem.

[51:01] They talk about, you know, shea homes talks about wanting to work with the community.

[51:06] The third level at 35 feet or whatever it's at, to me.

[51:11] Sit luckily I get to sit on a beautiful deck and look over the bluffs.

[51:14] but that level is pretty much right at eye level for all of us there and it's

[51:19] going to block a lot and she compared she was pointed out the trees being

[51:25] at pretty much that height and you can't really compare something in nature

[51:30] to a constructed building a condo in an area that is just surrounded by beautiful

[51:37] home so to me it's that's pretty disappointing and like I said in its

[51:45] unfortunate for the gentleman who built the house that beautiful home right

[51:49] next to us who dug case on spent a lot of money securing that hill to build a

[51:56] pool at a level that is now basically going to be staring at the back of these

[52:02] of these homes and I understand that there's a mandate by the state and all that

[52:05] sort of thing. But in this situation, people that have been there for 40 years, 30 years,

[52:12] all my neighbors, it breaks my heart, and it's really hard to see happen. And in such a beautiful

[52:20] area, it doesn't, to me, it doesn't make a lot of sense. A compromise, which would be, I would

[52:28] understand, is two levels and not three of these, of these homes that don't look like they belong

[52:34] there and completely stand out, and we'll just create more traffic and with more traffic, more accidents, and more kids in danger with Newport Harbor High School and

[52:44] an incident right there, and that's all I have to say, so thank you for your time.

[52:50] Thank you.

[53:00] Good evening commissioners, my name's Nick.

[53:04] I'm here to speak in support of building these homes.

[53:08] I moved to Newport Beach from Manhattan Beach a few years ago, my family.

[53:13] probably for work, the jobs are down here, but honestly it was more than that.

[53:18] I heard Newport Beach is where all the young families were, that if I wanted to raise

[53:23] a family that was similar to the place that I grew up, good schools, safe streets, real

[53:31] communities, that Newport Beach was the place to go.

[53:34] So I started house hunting, being a renter now down here, and quickly dawned upon me that

[53:41] But that was not going to be an option.

[53:44] It was not an option for me to put down roots, buy a home, move here with my family, unless

[53:49] I was from here and inherited or lived in my parents' home.

[53:53] So I started getting creative, then desperate, started trolling through listings that I just

[53:59] didn't think fit for me and my family.

[54:02] I even started getting on planning department websites and looking at development pipelines.

[54:06] That's how desperate I was getting to find something.

[54:08] Then I come across this project and it's perfect.

[54:12] It's not a mega mansion, it's not tiny condos.

[54:15] It's just exactly what I was looking for, good, honest, fair, price housing.

[54:24] It looks like it actually belongs in the community.

[54:28] It fits in terms of size, it fits in terms of parking, it fits in terms of open space that you can actually use.

[54:36] It feels like somebody actually thought about what it would be like to live in these homes

[54:41] and wasn't just trying to maximize what the law legally allows them to build.

[54:47] Candidly I'm confused how anybody can in good faith oppose this project.

[54:52] The developer could have gone taller, they didn't, they could have gone denser, they didn't,

[54:57] they could have put roof decks on here, they didn't at every turn where they had the right

[55:02] to take more, they took less.

[55:04] Yes, so I'm asking the commission to support this project.

[55:08] This is exactly what a family like mine needs to put roots down here.

[55:12] Not just my family, but any family that wants to move to Newport Beach and be a part of this community.

[55:18] Otherwise, it's basically closed off to people like us.

[55:21] Thank you.

[55:23] Thank you.

[55:26] Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, not appropriate, guys.

[55:32] Good

[55:35] evening. My name is Cynthia and I live at 500 Kings Place.

[55:42] Can you speak in the microphone?

[55:43] Yeah, more.

[55:46] My name is Cynthia. Good evening.

[55:49] I live at 500 Kings Place, which is just up the street and around the corner from this development.

[55:58] My primary concern is the traffic problem.

[56:02] I understand that there's statistics on traffic and trips, but I also know that there's two entries.

[56:13] I walk my dog in that area, I'm in Castaway's Park regularly, and there's two entries into that medical office building.

[56:23] One off of Dover and one off of Cliff Drive.

[56:26] I also walk up and down Cliff Drive and I know how busy it is during the morning when

[56:36] school comes out the elementary school or the high school at lunch time for both the

[56:42] elementary and high school and at three o'clock.

[56:46] I also know that people use Cliff Drive for parking.

[56:50] not regularly residential parking, but they do come and park along cliff drive.

[56:58] And when you park there, if it's a no parking zone, it's not clear to many people.

[57:06] And so my concern really is that the traffic on a singular entry exit off of cliff drive

[57:17] is going to severely impact the traffic for anybody that lives in the immediate area.

[57:25] Those first few blocks.

[57:27] If you miss that entry off of Cliff Drive,

[57:33] you're going to come up and you're going to try to make a U-turn exactly on the corner of

[57:40] King's Place and Cliff Drive. When you make that U-turn, it's very blind.

[57:46] It's very difficult for anybody to see when people are crossing the street at that corner.

[57:53] They're already risking a certain amount of danger because the traffic is very fast on that corner.

[58:04] That corner could really use a for-way stop in order to get people across it.

[58:09] And once you start to add the idea that people may be coming up there and doing a U-turn,

[58:16] or coming into the neighborhood because they miss the drive to come back down and get

[58:21] into the housing development, you see that there might be a significant problem.

[58:27] There also might be a lot of people with ten visitor parking spaces and everything else

[58:32] all the other sight parking in garages,

[58:36] the ten visitor parking spots may not be enough.

[58:40] This is my time is up, but my thought really is that it needs

[58:46] to be clear that you can't park along cliff drive up and down,

[58:53] so that people don't start parking there

[58:56] and then start parking into the neighborhood.

[58:58] I'm in terms of the, I'm sorry.

[59:03] Okay, that's good.

[59:04] Thank you so much.

[59:04] Thank you.

[59:06] Next speaker please.

[59:14] Chair Harris, members of the commission, my name is Jim Mosher.

[59:20] To follow up on my earlier comment about the housing element, I think we're all grateful

[59:26] that the developer is not proposing to put 81 units in 65 foot tall structures at this

[59:34] site.

[59:35] it would be very inharmonious with that neighborhood, however there does seem to be a state

[59:42] requirement that your resolution because we're not producing the 81 units that we promised

[59:49] is good should explain how that impacts our housing element because they have to go somewhere else.

[59:57] So I did not see that in the resolution.

[1:00:00] Any analysis of how we make up for the shortfall at this location and how it impacts our ability

[1:00:07] to complete our housing element. I agree with Cynthia that intuitively, this seems to be creating

[1:00:15] a parking problem. If there's many guests here, I don't know where they're going to park even

[1:00:22] and though it meets our technical requirement.

[1:00:25] There may be a condition in here if the home owners

[1:00:31] are not using their garage,

[1:00:32] we have something to keep them from parking

[1:00:34] in the dry vials and creating hazardous situations.

[1:00:39] And I personally do not live in the area

[1:00:41] so I do not understand the parking situation.

[1:00:44] On my bicycle, I noticed near the ENC,

[1:00:47] there is a sign saying on Dover

[1:00:49] that there is no parking along that whole block, but Cliff Drive seems to have some red zones which

[1:00:56] imply that the non-red zones you can park, and also if you continue downed over drive there's

[1:01:01] no sign, and there are some red zones and it applies you can park there, which I think would be a

[1:01:08] dangerous thing to do. As to the finding that this is harmonious with the area, it was good to see

[1:01:14] some renderings of what it looks like from some locations. I did not see anything from what it

[1:01:20] looks like from Castaways Park to the public. And the rendering I saw looking southbound on Dover,

[1:01:26] it is very imposing and very close to the street. And that is what they're asking for a variance for.

[1:01:35] And in your resolution there are claims that other sites with the same zoning

[1:01:42] are much bigger and non-constrained, but there's actually only two other sites.

[1:01:48] One at 1501, 16th Street, and the other at 747 Dover.

[1:01:53] And they're both smaller, and they're probably both marked and strained.

[1:01:57] So I'm not sure how you can grant the variance for that.

[1:02:00] So I would just ask they seem to have three floor plans,

[1:02:03] which are mislabeled incidentally on handwritten page 110 and 111.

[1:02:08] But to avoid the encroachment, they have another plan

[1:02:11] that just makes those units a little bit smaller so that they're not right up

[1:02:15] against overdrive. I agree with Commissioner Landford the style does not

[1:02:20] really fit in and finally I don't understand at all the trash plan that is on

[1:02:25] handwritten page 130. It has no explanation about the trash is going to be handled.

[1:02:31] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Measurer. Thanks, Baker, please.

[1:02:39] Hi, my name is

[1:02:40] Jody Young and I was born in Newport Beach.

[1:02:44] I grew up on Dover Drive at my parents' home

[1:02:47] and I live at 604 St. James Place,

[1:02:51] directly above this project,

[1:02:53] and we've lived there for 40 years.

[1:02:55] I have seen the traffic on Dover,

[1:02:58] the start with, there wasn't castaways or any place,

[1:03:02] and now there's just so many more people

[1:03:07] that use that thoroughfare to get to coast highway, they cut up a cliff drive oftentimes

[1:03:15] to avoid PCH. So it's not just students at a certain time, but it's people all the

[1:03:23] time in that traffic area. And it's going to be dangerous. There are people with their

[1:03:29] strollers, they're walking their dogs, Newport Harbor has their cross country team going

[1:03:35] up and down the hills. It just, and the project itself seems so out of character for single

[1:03:42] homes, family homes. And it's just, it makes me really sad. I feel like it's ruining where

[1:03:51] I live in my community. And that's all I have to say.

[1:03:56] Thank you.

[1:04:04] Good evening. My name is Tom. I live on 418. Snug Harbor Road. I've been a

[1:04:09] resident here for 40 years, we didn't get any notification on Snug Harbor,

[1:04:16] but I will say that I did use the buildings when the professional buildings,

[1:04:22] when the professionals were in those medical spaces.

[1:04:25] And it is practically impossible to exit and turn left.

[1:04:29] Number one, the cars coming down over are very fast and they make a very quick right turn on the cliff.

[1:04:35] just very fast. If you can get out and make a left turn on the cliff, trust me, it just doesn't happen.

[1:04:47] I have waited there 10 minutes when it's just at the simple medical building.

[1:04:51] You have to turn right, go up the hill, and you would have to make a turn like Cynthia said on that blind corner.

[1:04:58] And it is a blind corner. It's where everybody crosses with their dogs, the kids.

[1:05:01] Newport Harbor and the high school.

[1:05:07] Ensign, the kids are just impacting like crazy all the time.

[1:05:12] It's not just after school, it's during school hours, lunch hours,

[1:05:16] a cliff drive is now just impacted, very, very heavy with traffic.

[1:05:22] And it's backed up all the way to the top of the hill when the school lets out.

[1:05:27] And it goes very, very slow.

[1:05:28] So, the egress from this project is completely insufficient for this plan.

[1:05:39] And additionally, the people in this new development, they're going to have housekeepers.

[1:05:44] They're going to have construction trucks.

[1:05:46] There's going to be people that are working on their homes.

[1:05:49] And there's just no space for these contractors and housekeepers to park their cars.

[1:05:55] and it really is busy on my street alone on Stug Harbor.

[1:06:00] The whole street is full with just contractors working on homes, house keepers, all during the day.

[1:06:07] There's just almost no parking and this is a residential neighborhood with large homes.

[1:06:11] So I cannot imagine how this project is going to work packed in so tight with such limited parking.

[1:06:20] It's going to be a nightmare and you can just write off this left exit onto Clift Drive.

[1:06:28] It just doesn't happen.

[1:06:31] So, thank you for your time.

[1:06:33] Thank you.

[1:06:37] Good evening, Commissioner Harris, members of the commission.

[1:06:41] My name is Mark Shinuda.

[1:06:43] For the record, I live on 712 St. James Place in Newport Beach right above the project or

[1:06:50] just two houses to the north of the project.

[1:06:55] In light of the housing element, I will say I am not opposed to this project.

[1:07:04] Make no mistake.

[1:07:05] I am opposed that it's part of the housing element, but I realize that ship is sailed.

[1:07:12] And I understand that the commissioners, your hands are tied somewhat.

[1:07:15] But one of the things that I would have liked to see as a community benefit is

[1:07:26] undergrounding the power lines that are right on the over.

[1:07:30] It's a beautiful street.

[1:07:32] Now they're undergrounding the power line that's right in front of their

[1:07:37] proposed developments where there's another power line that is just right in front of ours.

[1:07:42] I'd like to see that.

[1:07:43] And I'd like to see that as a community benefit.

[1:07:45] We're not opposed to this project, again, as in light of what's going on.

[1:07:51] We like the shades, we like Emily.

[1:07:53] She's done a great job in reaching out to the neighbors.

[1:07:56] But I would like to see that.

[1:07:57] And more particularly, I'd like to see that as a condition of approval.

[1:08:01] I know she's doing the best she can to underground, talking with Edison.

[1:08:07] But we should get a lot more comfort if it's a condition of approval to do that.

[1:08:11] Thank you.

[1:08:15] speaker please.

[1:08:27] Good evening. My name is Kathy. I live in Newport Heights. I did not receive any

[1:08:32] notification of this project and only found out about it a couple of weeks ago and I know my

[1:08:36] neighbors did not either because I was telling them we're coming tonight and they didn't know anything

[1:08:41] about it. That's irrelevant. What I would say is that I would be very concerned about the traffic

[1:08:46] impacts as many people have said.

[1:08:50] Cliff Drive is a thoroughfare to avoid PCH people drive at great rates of speed up and down

[1:08:56] that hill.

[1:08:57] All the time I walk over to Castaway's Park on a regular basis almost probably three or

[1:09:02] four times a week.

[1:09:04] There are electric bikes and people speeding down Cliff Drive, there are cars speeding up Cliff

[1:09:09] Drive.

[1:09:10] There at Dover of course is a nightmare at any time of the day just about anymore.

[1:09:15] It's so busy.

[1:09:15] So, if this is going to happen and if the ship has sailed and this is unavoidable, there

[1:09:22] really doesn't need to be some consideration of a stoplight at the top of Cliff Drive

[1:09:27] where King's Place hits Cliff Drive because it's a completely blind corner as cars come

[1:09:33] from the opposite direction on Cliff Drive going down toward Dover and anybody who's trying

[1:09:39] to cross that intersection, you take your life in your hands, you have to run because you

[1:09:43] can't see and cars are coming so fast that, you know, it's dangerous.

[1:09:47] So I would really recommend that there be some consideration for a stop light there or

[1:09:51] a crosswalk, if not a stop light, at least a crosswalk, because with the increase in traffic

[1:09:58] that will come with this development, I can guarantee there's going to be some kind of accident.

[1:10:01] Somebody's going to get killed or hurt.

[1:10:05] I would hope that this project gets done and that our worst fears don't come to further

[1:10:13] but I fear that this is a done deal so at least take into consideration the

[1:10:19] impacts to neighbors with the parking and one other thing I don't know how all

[1:10:24] these big construction vehicles are were they're going to be parking or be

[1:10:28] situated while all of this is going on but someone should have a good plan for

[1:10:32] that because my home is under construction right now and I know all of the the

[1:10:37] crafts people and all the vehicles that they drive and the size of these

[1:10:42] vehicles and cement tracks and great halls and all of that. So someone needs to be thinking

[1:10:46] about how that's going to impact Cliff Drive as well while it's under construction. So that's

[1:10:51] my two cents. Thank you. Thank you. Speak please.

[1:11:03] Good evening. I'm at 1101 Kings Road and I think

[1:11:08] my neighbors are going to be pissed at me. But life comes full circle. I took my kids to that

[1:11:16] pediatric center when they were babies. So that means that that building is 25

[1:11:23] years old medical used to be medical. As far as I can tell I dry by there every day

[1:11:30] it has not changed one bit they've not paved the parking lot. It is a dying

[1:11:37] building that is at least 25 years old and medical office has moved to the

[1:11:42] hospital that is never going to be a medical office building and the truth is, my son

[1:11:48] lives in Houston and it was really interesting that the young man came up and he was right.

[1:11:54] He would be, if I lived on St. James Place, I would be not happy that this was happening.

[1:12:01] I'd be happy that it was in 65 feet.

[1:12:04] But and his idea of a second story is actually a great idea.

[1:12:09] The problem is the state mandates 20

[1:12:14] density units, 20 houses per acre.

[1:12:16] There is no way you're getting two

[1:12:18] story. It's just not physically possible.

[1:12:22] This is not possible.

[1:12:24] So there's this kind of thing.

[1:12:25] You have to meet the state and you have to do this.

[1:12:28] I actually like the elevations.

[1:12:30] It's interesting that someone was,

[1:12:31] you were saying that Christmas,

[1:12:33] you're right.

[1:12:34] Castaways is here, which is very kick-cud.

[1:12:36] But if you look just to the left, the actual houses that are all modern houses and on King's Road, and there's actually a new kind of duplex on Cliff, that's almost identical like type of architecture.

[1:12:48] So it's definitely drifting toward a modern architecture.

[1:12:53] But it was interesting. There was a lot of conversation about the front setback.

[1:12:57] The best thing about the frontseverk, the closer the houses, the units are to the streets,

[1:13:04] the farther they are away from the house and in the site plan wasn't pointed out, but

[1:13:09] it was the best thing about the site plan was the narrow side of the buildings are facing

[1:13:14] the existing residents.

[1:13:15] And so they're actually, it's about as amicable as you're going to get as opposed to putting

[1:13:21] the long buildings along the slope.

[1:13:25] So I actually really want my son to move back here, and that is just not possible unless

[1:13:34] this type of product is built, a starter housing, starter town home, it's just not possible,

[1:13:40] unless we build it in Newport.

[1:13:42] And I've lived in Newport Heights for, I don't know, 30 years or something.

[1:13:47] So, but, and if you remember, there isn't any of these none, except the mayor and square

[1:13:55] that they built, so we have to do it, we just have to.

[1:14:02] Thank you.

[1:14:06] Any other speakers?

[1:14:13] Good evening.

[1:14:13] My name is Georgia Fox.

[1:14:15] I live on the boundary of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, but I'm on Dover and Cliff all the time.

[1:14:22] And I'm attending this meeting basically to express my concern to the approval of this construction

[1:14:27] project and all these units. I think it's just too much. It's going to add to all the traffic on

[1:14:34] Dover and Cliff. And I think what people are not really talking about is in the event of a fire,

[1:14:44] how long would it take people to get out of this area? I mean, it would be a danger to the residents

[1:14:51] in the event of a fire. How would the residents be able to evacuate in time? Which way

[1:14:57] Where would they go?

[1:14:58] They would have limited ways.

[1:15:00] In and out of that area. So, really, did we not learn anything from the fires and Pacific

[1:15:06] Palisades and Los Angeles about a year ago? I'm hoping we did. I guess people have forgotten

[1:15:13] too soon about those fires, especially in Pacific Palisades. And there was 12 to 13 people

[1:15:20] that died in Pacific Palisades, simply because there was only one way in and one way out of the

[1:15:25] and I'm afraid this is going to happen in this area.

[1:15:29] That's why I'm speaking out.

[1:15:31] So I don't think we want this to happen in Newport.

[1:15:34] I think we want a safe area.

[1:15:36] And the problem with Dover is, especially on the weekends,

[1:15:40] especially on Friday nights and Saturdays,

[1:15:44] the traffic there is really congested.

[1:15:46] It's not gotten any better.

[1:15:48] If you put 33 units more in that area,

[1:15:50] it's just going to add to the traffic.

[1:15:51] And as somebody said, especially with construction people

[1:15:55] All in trucks and things like that, it's going to make it worse.

[1:15:58] So that's basically my opinion, thank you.

[1:16:03] Thank you.

[1:16:04] Any other speakers?

[1:16:07] The applicant, would you like to respond to anything or make any other comments?

[1:16:13] Okay.

[1:16:15] Okay, staff, any comments for the record?

[1:16:20] Just chair.

[1:16:22] Hi, my name is Leo, Community Development Director, so I just want to touch upon a couple points.

[1:16:27] Regarding notification, the project was notified and accordance with our municipal code.

[1:16:32] And so we have a minimum distance that we send out mail notices, but we also have other means of providing notice.

[1:16:40] With regards to potential construction impacts, we do have a condition of approval that does require the preparation and approval of a construction management plan prior to the issuance of building permits.

[1:16:52] With regards to parking concerns, the city's municipal code does prohibit the storage of materials or

[1:17:01] anything in a garage that's not a vehicle.

[1:17:04] To reinforce that, we do have conditions of approval that requires as part of the CCNRs.

[1:17:09] That prohibition being included in the CCNRs.

[1:17:12] And with regards to traffic, I know it's hard to compare under today's conditions,

[1:17:18] given that the medical office complex is kind of underutilized and

[1:17:22] a lot of the existing tenants are vacated.

[1:17:24] But based on what's allowed and peak usage of medical office,

[1:17:29] That complex is estimated to generate 453 trips per day.

[1:17:34] The residential project is projected to generate 222 trips, so it's actually 231 trips less than the law of medical office complex today.

[1:17:44] So, with regards to that, we believe there ought to be a reduction in traffic.

[1:17:54] Unless there are any specific questions with regards to the validity and happy to answer those.

[1:17:58] a question. One of the speakers asked about undergrounding and potentially a condition.

[1:18:07] Would we be able to, is that a possibility, you know, assuming that's approved by SC,

[1:18:13] if they've applied for it or whatnot?

[1:18:15] I think it would be beneficial to hear from the applicant and see if they're amenable

[1:18:18] to that condition.

[1:18:24] Thank you. So we do have a condition of approval that requires us to underground the power

[1:18:29] poll along the project frontage.

[1:18:32] So that has been submitted and it's similar conversations that we've had with the neighbors.

[1:18:38] So I hope I'm not beating a horse here, but when we submitted it into Addison for the

[1:18:44] evaluation of the removal of the poll in front of the project, they have to assess the circuit.

[1:18:53] So we had essentially rise on the most northerly pole, which is a subject pole in front of 6-12 St. James place.

[1:19:03] That pole has a transformer and a circuit on it.

[1:19:07] So while the request was made to Edison, what it would take to underground that pole,

[1:19:14] I still have not gotten that design back of what that would take.

[1:19:17] We're anticipated to get it, mid to end of next month, which will be shared with the neighbors and further the conversation on what the undergrounding is.

[1:19:29] It's hard to commit to a condition when we don't know how far we would need to chase it.

[1:19:35] The undergrounding of that poll, if it's something that we can realistically rope in with the removal of the one fronting our site, we'll do it.

[1:19:44] If we're having to chase a circuit, really far updover to West 16th Street, I just don't know what scope I'd be committing to at this time.

[1:19:56] So for that reason, it's hard to openly commit to broadening the condition, but I will commit that we will be in transparent communication with Edison, the neighbor, and the overall design as we look at removing that poll.

[1:20:12] This is a mark that that's very helpful.

[1:20:14] Would you be amenable to a condition that's contingent upon getting the information and

[1:20:20] if it is viable to underground that the applicant would be willing to approve that?

[1:20:26] I think it's something that we can work on with planning on just keeping it very open-ended

[1:20:31] and up to the discretion of the applicant.

[1:20:36] Well, up to the discussion of the applicant's subject to SEE's determination as to whether

[1:20:41] it can be underground reasonably.

[1:20:44] Correct.

[1:20:44] But I guess reasonable is a kind of an open end to terms, so I just want to make that

[1:20:55] clear.

[1:20:56] Yeah, I just don't want to extend expectations.

[1:20:58] It's something that we will be assessing transparently with the neighbors in the city as

[1:21:03] we get more information from Edison.

[1:21:05] So, however, we can word that as a condition, we're open to putting that as a condition

[1:21:11] as long as we are in control of that language.

[1:21:15] And would, if it were, let's say, we're talking about reasonableness, so if it were up

[1:21:19] to a certain amount of money, if we could kind of come to an agreement on a reasonable amount

[1:21:24] that it would cost for the under grounding, is that something the applicant would be

[1:21:27] amenable to?

[1:21:28] It's something we can speak further on, it's cost and scope, so it's hard to, I don't

[1:21:35] I don't know if any of you have worked with Southern California Edison, but it's very hard to predict what that's going to look like.

[1:21:41] So committing to something is difficult because the poll can move so quickly with them.

[1:21:51] So it's difficult to commit to language or a condition here.

[1:21:56] Anything that we commit to would be fairly open ended.

[1:22:02] Okay, thank you.

[1:22:05] Are there any other plans for traffic mitigation and cliff drive area?

[1:22:14] There are no other plans at this moment that's on our CIP schedule, but I did hear several

[1:22:22] little comments about parking on cliff drive.

[1:22:25] We can evaluate it to see if we can add more signs or to see what the actual impacts are

[1:22:35] initially maybe because you can't park in a bike lane.

[1:22:39] So, there's no parking east of Kings between Kings and Dover, so we can look at that.

[1:22:48] We can evaluate the intersection at Kings to see if we can add and always stop.

[1:22:55] So there's a clear warrant requirements for that, so that's something that I could take

[1:23:00] back to my office and we can take a look at that.

[1:23:03] Or even consider, you know, methods to slow people down a little bit or something to that effect?

[1:23:09] Yes, that's correct, yes.

[1:23:10] Thank you.

[1:23:12] Any other questions for staff at this time?

[1:23:14] Is that okay?

[1:23:15] Can we keep the public comment open for a minute?

[1:23:16] Yeah, I had two questions for staff.

[1:23:18] I think one's a little bit redundant on what you were saying, but just so we're clear,

[1:23:23] the visitor right now, the site has I think 66 parking spots, 10 visitor spots.

[1:23:29] I think we all know the project of this scale.

[1:23:31] You tend to go out of the ten guest spots rather quickly, and you tend to have sprawl

[1:23:36] of cars on both sides. In this case, it would be dover, and it would be cliff.

[1:23:41] But if I understand today, there is no parking on dover, there is no parking on cliff,

[1:23:45] correct? All the way up to the hill.

[1:23:48] There is existing parking west of King's Place.

[1:23:52] West of.

[1:23:54] So you have to get to the top of the hill, into the residential neighborhood, before

[1:23:58] you can have parking.

[1:23:59] That's got it.

[1:23:59] So down below, though, there's no, once those ten spots are full, there's no parking all the way up to the top, and there's no parking up and downed over, correct?

[1:24:07] That's correct.

[1:24:07] Okay, got it.

[1:24:09] That was my first question.

[1:24:10] The second question is the, I think you hit on it, but one of the speakers mentioned the stops.

[1:24:17] I think she said stoplight, but I think she meant stop sign at King's Place and Cliff.

[1:24:22] What is the process to evaluate that with the city?

[1:24:27] Time duration?

[1:24:28] So we follow the state guidelines to evaluate the intersection for always stop.

[1:24:37] So the process would be, so we already received the request here.

[1:24:43] And so I can work with the constituent or resident on that request.

[1:24:49] We need to obtain traffic counts at the intersection.

[1:24:53] and stop signs are based on meeting a certain amount of like value them through the intersection.

[1:25:01] I always stop.

[1:25:04] The idea is that you have an equal amount of traffic in both directions.

[1:25:09] So if that's the case then always stop with help with facilitating the right way at the intersection

[1:25:16] with the equal amount of traffic in both directions.

[1:25:20] Or it could be warranted based off of collision experiences,

[1:25:26] so we could look at the recorded collisions at the intersection.

[1:25:33] Type of collisions that are correctable by always stop,

[1:25:36] it's like a broad side collision, so that would be a type of collision

[1:25:39] that's correctable by always stop.

[1:25:42] And generally, it would require about five collisions

[1:25:44] within a 12-month period to warrant the, to always stop.

[1:25:47] So those are two ways you can warrant based on traffic

[1:25:50] values and based on a collision experience.

[1:25:53] Okay, got it.

[1:25:54] And just one final question, so I'm clear, as it stands today, if this is approved,

[1:25:59] and the 10 visitor spots are full, and you want to park, you're parking up in the

[1:26:03] residential community, walking down cliff into the project, because there's no other parking area.

[1:26:08] That's correct.

[1:26:09] Okay, thank you.

[1:26:17] Any other questions, commissioners?

[1:26:20] Okay, close the public hearing, thank you for all the speakers.

[1:26:26] Bring it back to the commission for discussion action.

[1:26:29] Many general comments or responses, commissioners,

[1:26:35] would you like for it, please?

[1:26:38] Thank you, Chair Harris.

[1:26:41] Yeah, I would have concerns, same concerns as everyone in the room, I think.

[1:26:47] For parking, I know one of our conditions of approval is including in the CCNRs or

[1:26:52] requirements that the garages are used for vehicles.

[1:26:58] And that's hard to police, us at policing it.

[1:27:01] So that ends up being on the HOA to enforce.

[1:27:05] But now I understand new HOA caps that the state has set.

[1:27:12] And maybe that's something that we should put on a future agenda is to understand how

[1:27:15] those HOA caps will influence our decisions on how we condition projects for future approval.

[1:27:25] But it didn't, it said the CCRs would be in there, it didn't necessarily say the HOA would require it or enforce it or something.

[1:27:34] Which would give me a little bit more comfort.

[1:27:36] I forget how we ended up writing it into the Ford Road project, but we had the same concerns there.

[1:27:43] that being my neighborhood in the port streets, so I had special attention on that one also, but it was the same philosophy you would apply here.

[1:27:54] And then, as far as architectural style, I alluded to it earlier.

[1:27:58] If it was my neighborhood, and I used to drive to Newport Harbor every day from the port streets, so this would be my entrance into Cliff Haven and Newport Heights.

[1:28:09] And I find it strange and maybe it's okay because no one brought it up.

[1:28:15] Maybe it's just me that it wasn't really an entryway into the neighborhood to reflect the style of the neighborhood.

[1:28:23] And I know with the for road project that we approved that applicant specifically included design elements as like Port Street style because you wanted it to reflect that neighborhood and

[1:28:38] be kind of and to immediately be part of the neighborhood instead of like this is the commercial

[1:28:44] corridor like multi-family housing project that's outside of the neighborhood and then you get

[1:28:51] into the neighborhood. So to me it doesn't seem completely congruous. It kind of reminds me of some of

[1:28:56] these west side Costa Mesa multi-family projects. Not that there's anything wrong with that it just

[1:29:08] This site being so high profile and you know dover and cliff drive is like such you know everyone's gonna drive by all the time

[1:29:16] It's an entryway into the neighborhood. So

[1:29:19] But if anyone else feels that way then that's fine

[1:29:21] But it's there would be my note to the applicants and and perhaps part of it is you can't design that same

[1:29:28] You know coastal Cape Cod

[1:29:31] style

[1:29:33] And get the same amount of square footage

[1:29:35] I think that's what I heard you saying, trying to match the manner of short look onto this site didn't quite pencil, but those would be my thoughts.

[1:29:46] Yes.

[1:29:47] Thank you.

[1:29:50] Oh.

[1:29:51] You're good.

[1:29:52] Thank you.

[1:29:52] Sorry.

[1:29:55] Forward to start.

[1:29:56] First of all, I think the, I think the, uh, uh, epic.

[1:30:00] It's done a really nice job on the design of it. It's a very constrained site. So I think from an access point, it's really tough to do anything other than what's proposed. Coming down to over, I don't think would be realistic to put an entrance on the dover from a parking perspective. We're offering, I think it's 10 more spaces that are required for the code. You know, certainly based on the underlying zoning, this could be much more aggressively planned. So I appreciate the restraint that the applicant has.

[1:30:30] used in designing this, you know, from a design perspective, you know, I like the diversity

[1:30:38] of doing different things, not just having, you know, it's just an herbine.

[1:30:44] So I mean, I think this is a well thought out, well designed project, and you know, I

[1:30:49] think it's going to be, you know, while I respect the concerns of the people right above it,

[1:30:53] Let's certainly understand that, this is allowed here.

[1:30:58] It's been proposed, it's been known, and I think it's a well-designed project and I'm in support of it.

[1:31:12] So first of all, I heard a couple things tonight that I think we should really consider.

[1:31:16] Number one, there is no nexus for asking the applicant to underground the line further up the hill.

[1:31:24] If you've dealt with Edison, I think that this is unreasonable.

[1:31:31] It's easily a million dollars that you're asking them to absorb.

[1:31:34] And so I think it's dangerous to have that as a potential condition of approval and would not support that.

[1:31:42] Additionally, they were meeting our parking requirements.

[1:31:46] So those are our parking requirements and we need to be comfortable with that.

[1:31:51] that they've been, they've met those guidelines.

[1:31:54] And so I think we need to be aware that we're not talking

[1:31:59] about anything other than the code here.

[1:32:05] Additionally, I'd like to commend the applicant

[1:32:07] because I think that this is a good looking project.

[1:32:11] I think that this architectural style is achievable in construction.

[1:32:16] And I also think that this architectural style protects

[1:32:20] the height limitation with the butterfly roofs that otherwise you're going to end up with a taller building.

[1:32:28] I think it's appropriate and it will be a good looking project.

[1:32:33] The applicant could have gone to a higher density, they could gone to a higher height limitation.

[1:32:40] They had a lot of leeway and they showed what was appropriate for the neighborhood.

[1:32:46] that's our code remember so they're meeting our code and then I do think that

[1:32:53] this will fit into the context of the neighborhood and will be a good looking

[1:32:57] project. On top of that we're bringing four sale housing into our city that

[1:33:04] isn't much more achievable price point so I think that's a fantastic thing and

[1:33:11] I think this is going to be a great project, and I will be supporting it.

[1:33:18] Make sure you read.

[1:33:19] Sure, I'll go.

[1:33:22] Let's see, I'll start off with, I've been a resident of the Heights community for 18 years.

[1:33:27] So I very much know and appreciate the community's concerns.

[1:33:33] I appreciate everyone here tonight to speak for and against the project.

[1:33:37] At the expense of being redundant with my other commissioners to the applicant, I appreciate everything you did with the community outreach, how organized, how thoughtful you were, how would every turn, you could have taken more, you took less, but on the other side of it, I also understand the traffic complexities, and I think there's no, there's no easy answer with our housing needs and our housing goal and our housing plan, it's really tough because you get stuck with these,

[1:34:06] unique parcels where there just isn't the right answer for public parking, there isn't the right.

[1:34:13] A forced right and a right, for example, is not great because they're going to go up the hill and make a U-turn.

[1:34:19] Having them go out at Dover is tough.

[1:34:21] So it's really tricky when we get into these types of lots and we're putting it overlay.

[1:34:28] So, it's a challenge and I understand and that being said, I do think the applicant meets the

[1:34:36] conditions and I will be supporting this project.

[1:34:42] Thank you.

[1:34:46] I think the site plan design was thoughtful considering what they could do.

[1:34:53] We're kind of in a rock and a hard place here with our zoning and this overlay.

[1:34:58] Where it could have been, they can go vertical and get their density.

[1:35:03] They need, they have a minimum of 20 acre such 33 units.

[1:35:07] I think they were thoughtful in trying to push it out, get away from the housing behind

[1:35:12] them, and worked with the neighbors as well, so I can appreciate that.

[1:35:17] Traffic, I do, I've taken my kids here, Harbor Pediatrics for years.

[1:35:25] When it was buzzing, it was buzzing a little bit, it was pretty full.

[1:35:28] I don't think traffic's this big of an issue.

[1:35:31] I do see parking potentially as an issue.

[1:35:33] I like we have a condition that people, you know, have to have their garages clean or empty and have to park inside.

[1:35:42] I hope that's enforced.

[1:35:43] I could foresee there just aren't many.

[1:35:45] There isn't a lot overflow.

[1:35:47] So if you have roommates or some other considerations or kids and, you know, four cars and two spots, you know,

[1:35:53] I don't know if they're parking and cliff walking down the hill.

[1:35:54] I don't know where they go.

[1:35:55] So, you know, they comply.

[1:35:57] That's a problem and I don't know how we solve it.

[1:35:59] So I don't foresee parking on cliff.

[1:36:05] When I look at what alternatives could be built here,

[1:36:09] the community could really be jammed with a really big project that was really tight and tall and be a lot worse.

[1:36:17] And I think there's actually a nice project.

[1:36:20] It offers a different little income level to potentially purchase here and be in the community.

[1:36:24] I, along with Commissioner Langford, don't love the design just to be honest, I would rather

[1:36:31] have seen and would rather see something similar to the Mayor's Shores project.

[1:36:37] I think that would fit in, blend better with the traditional Cape Cod, even a little bit

[1:36:43] of farmhouse community, and blend more as you come up the hill.

[1:36:46] I think it's more an out parcel for the heights in Cliff Haven versus blending as this

[1:36:54] This to me fits in more of a industrial area, or more of a commercial area, where we've done some spot zoning.

[1:37:01] But some overlays where housing has been introducing commercial areas, this is surrounded by residential.

[1:37:09] So I would be open to trying to think of, and I've kind of talked to staff about, you know, you could condition, some sort of condition to soften up some lines, some colors, potentially.

[1:37:23] or that they could come up with a different idea.

[1:37:25] I don't know if that's, I've got the support for that.

[1:37:30] But I would be in favor of something to that effect.

[1:37:33] Another look at the design.

[1:37:36] Also, the underground we talked about, I understand what you guys are saying,

[1:37:40] the argument, we cannot mandate that they underground be on their property.

[1:37:45] I would like to, if the applicant is up to it, and if I could add the sport,

[1:37:49] that they would still, we could put that they would continue working with City as they've said,

[1:37:55] NSE and if it's feasible, at their discretion, clearly we have to leave it,

[1:38:00] then I would like to add that as condition if everyone's in favor.

[1:38:05] So if anyone has any thoughts on the design or ways we could soften that up or change something,

[1:38:12] I'd be open to it, or else if somebody else wants to make a motion as is,

[1:38:17] or with the condition that I'm proposing, we can go from there.

[1:38:28] Rosie?

[1:38:31] I'd like to make a motion to approve, based on the existing conditions of approval,

[1:38:36] the existing architecture, and not add any additional conditions of approval that are outside the nexus for this project.

[1:38:47] I'll second that.

[1:39:34] The motion carries four, one with chair, Harris voting, no.

[1:39:40] Congratulations, thank you.

[1:39:43] Okay.

[1:39:46] Moving on to the next item.

[1:39:48] Item number three, motions for reconsideration.

[1:39:50] Are there any motions staff?

[1:39:55] Okay, item number four, report by the community development

[1:39:57] director or request for matters

[1:39:59] which a planning commission member would like place

[1:40:01] on a future agenda.

[1:40:02] We're going to give a sec for everyone to.

[1:40:04] It's like a lot of things.

[1:40:50] Yeah. Director, are you ready?

[1:40:53] I just want to note for the commission

[1:40:55] that the February 19th planning commission hearing

[1:40:58] will be canceled.

[1:40:59] So no meeting for the second one in February and then our next meeting will be scheduled for March 5th and it'll be a slightly heavier agenda.

[1:41:09] On that agenda we do have scheduled the 300 new ports and our drive condominiums.

[1:41:16] So that's another housing project for your consideration.

[1:41:19] We'll also be sharing the annual General Plan Housing Report for your consideration and recommendations to the City Council.

[1:41:26] We have an ordinance related to streamlining and incentivizing telecom facilities that's an update to our municipal code, and then lastly we have a conditional use permit for a restaurant called the nice guy over at 267 west coast highway.

[1:41:43] So those will be the four items for your consideration.

[1:41:47] That's it.

[1:41:48] Thank you, so long one.

[1:41:50] Does anyone from the audience want to comment on these items?

[1:41:51] motion.

[1:41:56] Thank you again, Chair Harris.

[1:42:01] I want one item pending before you will be the

[1:42:03] general plan update, and I notice if I look on this in the gray areas, I would I see a

[1:42:10] number of the other boards and commissions reviewing the general plan, and then I see an

[1:42:15] April 28 study session before the city council. I don't see on the schedule when you will

[1:42:23] be reviewing the general plan and to the best of my memory you've seen two of the eight

[1:42:29] elements so far you've seen the land use element and the safety element. There's eight other

[1:42:35] elements so there's a lot of stuff and the last time the general plan was updated the planning

[1:42:42] commission spent many, many hours reviewing it before presenting it to the city council so I'm

[1:42:48] not totally sure when that will happen.

[1:42:51] One element that is not being reviewed

[1:42:54] though is the housing element.

[1:42:56] And I made a non-agenda comment

[1:42:58] about our progress on that, but another aspect of that

[1:43:03] is part of our housing element has not been implemented yet

[1:43:07] because it's in the coastal zone.

[1:43:09] And we've been waiting and been hearing for a couple of years

[1:43:13] that were waiting for the Coastal Commission

[1:43:15] to certify our plan for the housing and the overlays and so forth in the coastal zone.

[1:43:23] And that was actually on the Coastal Commission agenda today.

[1:43:32] But before the hearing happened, it was marked as being postponed.

[1:43:36] And on this schedule, it's just on the very last page, it's now pending before the Coastal

[1:43:41] Commission. And so that part of our housing element we can't even act on.

[1:43:47] And so I'm just, maybe you would be wondering that the Coast Commission had finally offered to hear it, that we the city told them we didn't want them to or why is it going off through agenda?

[1:44:04] And when are you going to hear the other elements of the general plan?

[1:44:07] Those are my comments. Thank you.

[1:44:16] Okay, item number five, request for excused absences, anyone March 5th?

[1:44:23] I'll be out March 5th.

[1:44:28] adjourned.

Planning Commission on 2026-02-05 6:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript