HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_06-04-2020
1 of 7
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2020
REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Klaustermeier
III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Vice Chair Erik Weigand (arrived at 6:34 p.m.), Commissioner Curtis
Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Lauren Kleiman (arrived at 6:34
p.m.), Commissioner Mark Rosene
ABSENT: Secretary Lee Lowrey
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjus, Community Deputy Community Development
Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Principal
Planner Gregg Ramirez, Administrative Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative Support Technician
Amanda Lee
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Mosher remarked that ten applications were submitted for two vacant positions on the Planning Commission,
but the Council screening committee requested the Council waive the requirement for two nominees for each
vacant position because of a lack of qualified applicants. His application was rejected as unqualified. He
commended Commissioners for having the special skills needed to serve as a Planning Commissioner.
V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell requested the Planning Commission continue Agenda
Item Number 2 to a date uncertain so that staff can perform additional analysis. Staff will provide notice when the
item is ready for a public hearing. In Agenda Item Number 3, staff noticed the hearing of the call for review;
however, the call for review was submitted the day after the deadline.
Vice Chair Weigand advised that he submitted the call for review past the 14-day time period.
VI. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2020
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to approve the minutes of the
May 7, 2020, meeting with the edits suggested by Mr. Mosher.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman
NOES:
ABSTAIN: Rosene
ABSENT: Lowrey
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 AT&T SMALL CELL SLC0796 APPEAL (PA2019-111)
Site Location: Public right-of-way, City streetlight number SLC0796 at the northwestern
corner of Balboa Boulevard and 30th Street
Planning Commission Minutes
June 4, 2020
2 of 7
Summary:
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision on April 16, 2020, to approve a minor use permit allowing
the installation of a small cell wireless facility on a City-owned streetlight pole. Project implementation will
be fully contained within the public right-of-way on Balboa Boulevard and includes the following: (1)
removal and replacement of an existing City streetlight; (2) installation of a small cell wireless facility that
consists of four remote radio units, a raycap disconnect, and an omni-directional antenna within a 12-inch
diameter antenna screening shroud. This equipment would be fixed to the top of the replaced streetlight
pole for a maximum height of 34 feet, 9 inches. Support equipment will be in an adjacent below grade
vault.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections
15302 and 15303 under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and Class 3 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures), respectively, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality
Act) Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no
potential to have a significant effect on the environment and the exceptions to the Class 3 exemption
under Section 15300.2 do not apply; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-018 affirming the decision of the Zoning Administrator and
approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2019-030 with the attached Findings and Conditions.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reiterated his request for the item to be continued to a
date uncertain.
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to continue the item to a date
uncertain.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Rosene
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Lowrey
ITEM NO. 3 AT&T SMALL CELL SLC4653 CALL FOR REVIEW (PA2019-115)
Site Location: Public right-of-way, city streetlight number SLC4653 on the north side of
Bayside Drive, approximately 900 feet northwest of El Paseo Drive
Summary:
A call for review by the Planning Commission of the Zoning Administrator’s decision on April 16, 2020, to
approve a minor use permit allowing the installation of a small cell wireless facility on a City-owned
streetlight pole. Project implementation will be fully contained within the public right-of-way on Bayside
Drive and includes the following: (1) removal and replacement of an existing City streetlight; (2) installation
of a small cell wireless facility that consists of four remote radio units, a raycap disconnect, and an omni-
directional antenna within a 12-inch diameter antenna screening shroud. This equipment would be fixed
to the top of the replaced streetlight pole for a maximum height of 27 feet, 5 inches. Support equipment
will be in an adjacent below grade vault.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file. This item has been canceled because the call for review was not timely filed during the
14-day appeal/call for review period prescribed by the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the item is informational only and no action is
needed. A Commissioner or a Council Member may call for review an action by the Zoning Administrator or the
Planning Commission by submitting an application up to 14 days following the action. A member of the public may
appeal an action by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission up to 14 days following the action. An
appeal or call for review filed after the 14-day period is not valid. The subject call for review was submitted on the
15th day, and a public hearing should not have been scheduled or noticed.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 4, 2020
3 of 7
ITEM NO. 4. NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE (PA2014-225)
Site Location: 4525 MacArthur Boulevard
Summary:
The applications listed below would allow for the redevelopment of approximately 16.46 acres of the
northerly portion of the Campus Tract to create a new mixed-use commercial and residential
development. The site is located near at the corner of MacArthur Blvd. and Birch St. in the Airport Area
of the City. The site is currently allowed a maximum development of 358,498 square feet of
nonresidential uses by the General Plan and Zoning Code. If approved, the requested applications
would reduce nonresidential uses to 297,572 square feet and accommodate up to 444 dwelling units
on about a 7.14-acre portion of the project site that is not subjected to excessive noise or within a JWA
safety zone that would prohibit residential development.
The applicant, requests approval of the following legislative applications from the City of Newport
Beach:
• General Plan Amendment – To designate the site as an Anomaly on Table LU2 – Anomaly
Locations of the Land Use Element to change the land use category from AO (Airport Office and
Supporting uses) to MU-H2 (Mixed Use Horizontal). The proposed amendment includes no
additional dwelling units in beyond those currently allowed by the MU-H2 land use category of the
General Plan. The amendment would allow up to 329 base units that are already allowed by the
General Plan and up to 115 additional dwelling units would be allowed pursuant to State density
bonus law provided affordable housing units are constructed.
• Zoning Code Amendment – To change the zoning district of the project site from OA (Office
Airport) to PC (Newport Airport Village Planned Community).
• Planned Community Development Plan – To adopt the Newport Airport Village Planned
Community Development Plan (PCDP) that will include development and design regulations to
allow for mixed-use development with residential dwelling units, office, retail and other commercial
development and uses.
• Development Agreement – Review of a proposed development agreement that would provide
certain rights to develop the project consistent with the PCDP in exchange for negotiated public
benefits.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find that potential environmental impacts have been previously mitigated through the
implementation of the policies of the General Plan as evaluated in Program Environmental Impact
Report (PEIR) for the 2006 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2006011119) and the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the 2014 Land Use Element Amendment (SCH No.
2013101064); therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an addendum to the previously adopted PEIR and SEIR is the appropriate
environmental documentation for the Project; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-020 recommending the City Council adoption of Environmental
Impact Report Addendum No. ER2020-002 and approval of General Plan Amendment No.
GP2014-004 (including a waiver of the neighborhood park dedication requirement pursuant to
General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13), Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2014-009, Planned Community
Development Plan No. PC2020-002 (including a waiver of the density standards of General Plan
Policy LU 6.15.7 pursuant to Government Code §65915(e)(1), and Development Agreement No.
DA2014-003 for the Newport Airport Village Planned Community Project, located at 4341, 4361,
and 4501 Birch Street; 4320, 4340, 4360, 4400, 4500, 4520, 4540, 4570, 4600 and 4630 Campus
Drive; and 4525, 4533, and 4647 MacArthur Boulevard (PA2014-225).
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the Planning Commission is not considering a
proposed project but establishing the policy framework and regulations under which a future project would be
Planning Commission Minutes
June 4, 2020
4 of 7
developed at the project site. The project site is located in the Airport Area at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard
and Campus Drive near John Wayne Airport. The site contains 16.46 acres and a variety of uses. The General
Plan currently designates the site as Airport Office (AO). The General Plan amendment would redesignate the
site as Mixed-Use Horizontal 2 (MU-H2), which allows residential uses. Charter Section 423, the Greenlight
Initiative, does not require a vote of the electorate for the project because there will be no increases in square
footage, housing units, or traffic beyond current General Plan provisions. The applicant seeks to rezone the site
to Planned Community (PC). The applicant proposes a Development Agreement that provides vested rights to
develop the project and public benefits for the community.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell further reported that the existing zoning allows a 0.5 floor
area ratio (FAR) for commercial and office uses and a 0.75 FAR for warehouse uses. The current FAR would
allow up to ~358,000 square feet of office and commercial uses and vehicle rental facilities. PC zoning would
allow commercial floor area up to ~297,000 square feet and 329 dwelling units. Under the density bonus, the
applicant could request up to a 35-percent density bonus or 115 units for a total of 444 units. The Planned
Community Development Plan (PCDP) provides development standards, design guidelines, and a future review
process.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell further reported the MU-H2 designation is specific to the
Airport Area and allows the uses existing on the site. The applicant proposes to convert 61,000 square feet of
allowed uses to 329 dwelling units. The conversion of uses will be trip neutral. Density bonus units are not
regulated by General Plan development limits. The General Plan amendment would add Anomaly Number 86
limiting the site to 297,572 square feet of nonresidential development and 329 dwelling units.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell further indicated the PCDP proposes housing in Planning
Area 1 and redevelopment of nonresidential uses in Planning Area 2 over time. The building height limit for
Planning Area 1 is 85 feet, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has indicated it will not be a threat to air
navigation. The building height limit for Planning Area 2 is 37 feet, which is consistent with existing AO height
regulations. The density bonus law reduces parking requirements and the parking requirements provided in the
PCDP are consistent with the municipal code and state density bonus law requirements. Under the Site
Development Review process provided for in the proposed PCDP, which is an existing zoning code review
application process, the residential component and large office buildings would be presented to the Planning
Commission for review and approval and smaller components would either require zoning administrator review or
staff review.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell further states the PCDP does not allow residential
development within the 65-dB CNEL noise contour or JWA Safety Zone 3. The Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) reviews General Plan amendments, Code amendments, and height changes within the Airport Land Use
Plan area. Parking and residential amenities would be allowed in area subject to the 65-dB CNEL noise contour
or Safety Zone 3 but not units themselves. A conceptual land use map reflects the possible locations of residences,
retail uses, parking, and nonresidential uses.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell further reported the applicant requests a waiver of Land Use
(LU) Policy 6.15.7 regarding overall density and housing types. The 329 dwelling units plus 115 density bonus
units do not comply with the density criteria of the policy. Based on constraints in the Airport Area, staff
recommends waiving the policy because State law prohibits a city from applying a development standard that will
physically preclude a density bonus project. LU Policy 6.15.13 requires developments in the Airport Area to provide
parkland and allows the City to waive the requirement with the payment of an in-lieu fee. Locating a park outside
the 65-dB CNEL and Safety Zone 3 would reduce the number of dwelling units that could be constructed. The
applicant proposes to pay an in-lieu fee, and staff recommends waiving the policy based on the constraints of the
site and the location proximate to John Wayne Airport.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the Development Agreement provides a term of 15
years for residential development and 20 years for nonresidential development, a $6 million public benefit fee paid
in three installments, an in-lieu fee of $2.5 million for a 1-acre park, and a $1 million public safety fee.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated the City prepared an addendum to the 2006 General
Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and 2014 Land Use Element Supplemental Environmental
Planning Commission Minutes
June 4, 2020
5 of 7
Impact Report (SEIR) and it identified no new impacts. Next steps include an ALUC public hearing in July and a
subsequent City Council public hearing.
In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that in
2007 the City Council established the value of parkland as $2.5 million per acre. Staff has negotiated the
Development Agreement with the applicant, and the applicant has agreed to the terms provided in the draft
attached to the staff report.
In reply to Commissioner Klaustermeier's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated
the payments required in the Development Agreement are in addition to statutory fees charged to a development
project. The financial analysis found that servicing residential units costs the City more than servicing existing
uses. Increased property taxes will largely fund those costs. The positive impact in the conclusion of the analysis
comes from the build out of the General Plan causing revenues to increase more than costs. The cost to service
residential projects will likely never exceed revenue because Development Agreement fees also offset costs.
In answer to Vice Chair Weigand's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained that
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a planning target rather than a construction target. If the
project is approved, it would be an opportunity site for the upcoming 2021-2029 Housing Element. The applicant
proposes to construct 329 base units and with a 20% density bonus, and the density bonus requires 5% very low-
income units, 10% low-income units, or 10% moderate-income units; these percentages are the minimum amount
of affordable units that must be constructed.
In response to Commissioner Ellmore's query, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that
density bonus units will not be optional because the City will waive land use policies based on a density bonus
project. As the approval is currently structured, a future project will have to contain an affordable component.
In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained
that the park in-lieu payment will be deposited into a fund for the park service area; however, City Council policy
allows the Council to allocate park in-lieu fees to a community-wide park. Balancing housing and environmental
preservation is the general theme of residential development. New sites for housing may be proposed during
public meetings for the Housing Element Update.
In reply to Commissioner Rosene's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated when
a residential project is proposed for the site, the Planning Commission will review it to ensure it complies with
affordable housing requirements contained in the PCDP. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill advised that five
General Plan amendments may be considered in a year.
In response to Chair Koetting's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted the ALUC has
provided a letter that suggests locating residential units outside the 65-dB CNEL and Safety Zone 3, but staff has
not had any detailed discussions with the ALUC. Staff has not received any comments from the City of Irvine.
John Wayne Airport submitted a letter expressing concern about traffic volumes, but staff felt traffic volumes would
not result in specific impacts.
Commissioner Rosene disclosed he visited the site and he had a conversation with the applicant's agent.
Commissioners Kleiman, Klaustermeier, and Ellmore disclosed that hade communications with the applicant's
consultant. Chair Koetting disclosed no ex parte communications. Vice Chair Weigand disclosed that he had
conversations with the applicant's consultant and a member of the public.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Patrick Strader, applicant's representative, shared the history of the property owner's pursuit of a General Plan
amendment. The constraints on the site make residential development difficult. The current project is the result
of many consultations with staff and modifications of the project.
In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Mr. Strader advised that construction would not occur for several years. The
owner of the small parcel in the area of the project site does not wish to be a part of the project.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 4, 2020
6 of 7
Jim Mosher was unclear whether parkland referenced in the Airport Area section of the Land Use Element is to be
located in the Airport Area or the service area. No public comment period was provided for the environmental
documents. He questioned whether a development project will need a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis.
In response to Vice Chair Weigand's questions, Mr. Strader indicated the property owner purchased the parcels
at different times. A future development partner will be needed for the residential development of Planning Area
1. There are no plans to develop Planning Area 2 in the near future.
In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's query, Sean Matsler, applicant representative, indicated the property owner
has four leases with businesses on the site that extend to 2038, which is the reason the Development Agreement
provides 20 years for nonresidential development.
In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiries, Mr. Strader explained that the price points and project scope for
residential units will be similar to the Uptown Newport project. Mr. Matsler reported soil studies will be conducted
as part of future applications for residential development.
With no other speakers, Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
Motion made by Commissioner Kleiman and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to approve the staff
recommendation.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Rosene
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Lowrey
VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
None
ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS
WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE
AGENDA.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported that on May 26, 2020, the City Council adopted an
Urgency Ordinance that allows the Community Development Director to issue emergency temporary use permits
for use of public and private property to allow businesses to expand to provide for physical distancing.
Approximately 15 permits have been issued. He reviewed agenda items for the June and July Planning
Commission meetings.
In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the
Planning Commission reviewed the car wash project on Jamboree more than a year ago. He will include in the
staff report information about the applicant's work with neighbors.
In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill advised that staff can schedule
a comprehensive agenda item regarding the RHNA numbers in relation to the Greenlight Initiative. Deputy
Community Development Director Campbell explained that Commission officer elections will occur in July. The
City Council should fill vacant Planning Commission positions in the next week.
ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
None
X. ADJOURNMENT – 8:09 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 4, 2020
7 of 7
The agenda for the June 4, 2020, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, May 29, 2020,
at 3:45 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 Friday, May 29, 2020, at 4:00
p.m.
_______________________________
Peter Koetting, Chairman
_______________________________
Lee Lowrey, Secretary
June 18, 2020, Planning Commission Item 1 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 1. MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 2020
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes. Corrections are suggested in strikeout
underline format.
Page 1: Item III, Staff Present: “Community Development Director Seimone Jurjus Jurjis,
Community Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, ….”
Page 3: Item IV, first bullet, sentence 2: “The proposed amendment includes no additional
dwelling units in beyond those currently allowed by the MU-H2 land use category of the General
Plan.”
Page 4: full paragraph 3, last sentence: “Under the Site Development Review process provided
for in the proposed PCDP, which is an existing zoning code review application review process,
the residential component and large office buildings would be presented to the Planning
Commission for review and approval and smaller components would either require zoning
administrator review or staff review .”
Page 4: full paragraph 4, sentence 1: “Deputy Community Development Director Campbell
further states stated the PCDP does not allow residential development within the 65 -dB CNEL
noise contour or JWA Safety Zone 3 .”
Page 4: full paragraph 4, sentence 3 : “Parking and residential amenities would be allowed in
area subject to areas within the 65-dB CNEL noise contour or Safety Zone 3 but not units
themselves.”
Page 5: full paragraph 6, sentence 2: “Assistant City Attorney Summerhill advised that five
General Plan amendments may be considered in a year .” [comment: I believe this is a
restriction on general law cities that does not apply to charter cities like Newport Beach unless
they choose to adopt it]
Page 5: full paragraph 8, sentence 2: “Commissioners Kleiman, Klaustermeier, and Ellmore
disclosed that hade they had communications with the applicant's consultant .”
Planning Commission - June 18, 2020
Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received
Minutes of June 4, 2020