Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes of March 4, 2021 1 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2021 REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – led by Commissioner Koetting III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Erik Weigand, Vice Chair Lee Lowrey, Secretary Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Mark Rosene ABSENT: Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Senior Civil Engineer Andy Tran, Associate Planner Chelsea Crager, Assistant Planner Patrick Achis, Associate Planner David Lee, Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan, Animal Control Supervisor Valerie Schomburg, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell advised that a request has been submitted to continue Item No. 3, Westcliff Plaza Parking Waiver, to March 18, 2021. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2021 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Weigand noted Mr. Mosher's proposed edits to the minutes. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to approve the minutes of the February 18, 2021, meeting with Mr. Mosher's edits. AYES: Ellmore, Koetting, Rosene, Lowrey, and Weigand NOES: ABSTAIN: Kleiman ABSENT: Klaustermeier 2 of 13 DISCUSSION ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE STATUS REPORT Summary: A brief status report on the update of the General Plan Circulation Element Recommendation: Receive and file Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported a draft Circulation Element will be published online on March 12, 2021, and presented to the Planning Commission on March 18, 2021, in a Study Session. David Tanner requested staff publish the appendices with the draft Circulation Element so that the public can review the assumptions. Jim Mosher inquired about ways in which the draft Circulation Element addresses environmental justice. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the assumptions in which Mr. Tanner is interested will be a part of the Housing Element Update. Assumptions will be established by the draft Housing Element policy. The traffic analysis may identify improvements, but the traffic analysis will not be available for a few months. The assumptions and impacts will not be available for publication on March 12, 2021. Staff and consultants considered environmental justice when developing policies. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 WESTCLIFF PLAZA PARKING WAIVER (PA2019-266) Site Location: 1000—1150 Irvine Avenue Summary: A conditional use permit for the reduction of 139 on-site parking spaces to accommodate the future construction of 9,641 square feet of new commercial pad for future eating and drinking establishments within Westcliff Plaza, as well as 2,312 square feet of new outdoor dining area. Recommended Action: Continue to the March 18, 2021 regular Planning Commission meeting. Chair Weigand opened the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to continue this item to March 18, 2021. AYES: Ellmore, Koetting, Rosene, Kleiman, Lowrey, and Weigand NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Klaustermeier 3 of 13 ITEM NO. 4 SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE BRIDGE, PARKING LOT AND RECREATION AREA PROJECT APPEAL (PA2019-014) Site Location: Bridget to span Superior Avenue north of West Coast Highway Intersection – Parking lot and recreation area at northeast corner of intersection of West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, Hoag Lower Campus and Sunset View Park Summary: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision on December 10, 2020, to approve a coastal development permit and mitigated negative declaration allowing the demolition of the existing surface parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface parking lot, with pedestrian/bicycle concrete bridge over Superior Avenue. The proposed bridge includes a staircase from the bridge down to the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, and open space improvements to upper Sunset View Park. The project would include earthwork, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping improvements. The project includes retaining walls that exceed the 8- foot maximum height permitted by Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan). As such, the project includes a request for relief from this Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 21 development standard, pursuant to Section 21.52.030. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a de novo public hearing; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-005 affirming the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum No. ND2019-002 and approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD 2020-143. Associate Planner Chelsea Crager reported the site is developed with a 64-space parking lot, and a portion remains undeveloped. The California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) approved a coastal development permit (CDP) for Sunset View Park. Because of the CDP, the Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction for the park. The bridge abutment that lands in Sunset View Park is subject to the Coastal Commission's permit jurisdiction, and staff has submitted an application to the Coastal Commission for that aspect of the project. The Planning Commission's review of the application is limited to the parts of the project that are located within the City's jurisdiction. The project is a pedestrian and bicycle bridge that crosses Superior Avenue, a 130-space public parking lot replacing a 64- space lot, expanded passive open space at Sunset View Park, an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and requests to allow retaining walls up to 25 feet in height and a bridge up to 32 feet in height. Senior Civil Engineer Andy Tran advised that the City acquired the parking lot parcel in 1992 and Sunset View Park and undeveloped parcels in 2006. In March 2010, the Council adopted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Sunset View Park. In June 2013, the Coastal Commission approved a CDP for Sunset View Park. Sunset View Park was completed and opened to the public in December 2014. The City received federal grant funding in February 2018 for construction of the Superior Avenue bridge and parking lot project. In 2019, staff held five community meetings and received positive feedback. On November 19, 2019, the Council adopted a MND and conceptual design for the project. In response to community concerns, the Council directed staff to replace the dog park with passive recreation space. In May 2020, the City received an Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) grant for the West Coast Highway intersection widening project, and the 4 of 13 Council approved engineering and environmental services agreements. The Council approved a revised conceptual design for an arch design bridge in August 2020. Associate Planner Crager indicated that on December 10, 2020, the Zoning Administrator approved a CDP and adopted the MND Addendum for the project. Title 20 provides development standards and use permit requirements, and the Council waived the requirements in its November 2019 hearing. The CDP for Title 21 is before the Planning Commission. An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision was filed on January 4, 2021 and states that the project does not conform to Local Coastal Program (LCP) standards or public access policies and that the environmental review was inadequate. Staff met with the appellant before and after he filed the appeal. The appeal was scheduled for the Planning Commission on February 18, 2021; however, staff requested a continuance in order to review a 46-page comment letter from the appellant. Staff has responded to 247 individual comments contained in the February 2021 letter and believes the comment letter does not identify any new issues. The bridge is located in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, which allows structures up to 35 feet in height with approval of a CDP. At its tallest point, the bridge's height is less than 35 feet. Title 21 development standards allow a maximum wall height of 8 feet, and the project proposes a retaining wall with a height of up to 25 feet. The retaining wall will be softened with landscaping and contains pockets for landscaping. Title 21 allows a retaining wall to exceed the maximum height with the appropriate findings. The impacts of the project on public access are overall a net positive. The project provides a net gain of 66 parking spaces, increased access to Sunset View Park, no changes to vehicular access, no changes to crosswalks, additional and enhanced viewing opportunities. The MND included analysis of six viewpoints. Three viewpoints look from Superior Avenue toward the water, and three viewpoints look inland. The bridge was designed to be mindful of the views and does not obstruct views of the coast. The MND Addendum was prepared to address the change in the bridge design. Few details of the future West Coast Highway project are known at this time, and additional analysis would be speculative. Staff anticipates the future West Coash Highway project will include an EIR. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the intent of the project is to expand access to Sunset View Park. Currently, people park on the corner and cross the street to access the park. The bridge project before the Planning Commission is separate from the future West Coast Highway project. In response to Vice Chair Lowrey's question, Senior Civil Engineer Tran explained that the grant program reimburses the City up to 80 percent of costs for the bridge only. In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that he reviewed and discussed the project and the community's concern with Coastal Commission staff. Coastal Commission staff suggested a full and complete analysis of the project would be sufficient. Coastal Commission staff have not communicated to him that they would not support the project. However, Coastal Commission staff have not completed their analyses of the project. In answer to Commissioner Koetting's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated staff believes the project will enhance view opportunities and access to Sunset View Park. 5 of 13 Commissioners Rosene, Kleiman, and Koetting disclosed conversations with the appellant. Chair Weigand disclosed conversations with the appellant and members of the public. Commissioner Ellmore and Vice Chair Lowrey disclosed no ex parte communications. In answer to Commissioner Rosene's inquiries, Senior Civil Engineer Tran advised that construction of the bridge and parking lot will have little impact on Sunset View Park. Staff and the contractor can reserve some parking spaces for the public to visit Sunset View Park during construction. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's questions, Senior Civil Engineer Tran indicated the barrier is 8 feet tall from the deck floor to the top of the rails. The project includes safety lighting to illuminate the walkway. Chair Weigand opened the public hearing. David Tanner, appellant, reported the project began in 2014 when the City described Phases 1 and 2 of the project. In 2018, the City received funding for Phase 1 and retained consultants to prepare conceptual designs. In 2020, the City received partial funding for Phase 2 and amended agreements with consultants to include Phase 2 engineering and environmental services, and the Council approved an amended design for the bridge. Staff's statements regarding insufficient details for Phase 2 are ridiculous. The agencies and the public were not informed of land use restrictions; government facilities are not allowed on either side of the bridge. The Special Tree is not mentioned in the CEQA document. There is no data to support the need for the project. People park at no cost in the neighborhoods and walk to the park without crossing Superior Avenue. Only views from the top of the park were analyzed. The project does not evaluate the impact of the bridge on transporting large boats. The project does not incorporate the bridge design approved by the Council on August 25, 2020. Staff claims the project is a government facility in order to get the height exception. Sharon Boles remarked that Sunset View Park is underutilized because it has no parking. Surrounding neighborhoods have hired security guards to prevent people from parking in neighborhoods when they visit the park. Jim Mosher believed major, City-initiated projects of wide public interest should be presented directly to the Planning Commission for review. The idea that the Coastal Commission retains review of a portion of the project contradicts the Coastal Act. The City should review the entire bridge project as a package, and the project should be referred to the Coastal Commission only in the case of an appeal. The current bridge design will have more visual impact than an underpass. Jim Miller remarked that Sunset View Park is important to surrounding neighborhoods as a place for children to play. The West Coast Highway and Superior intersection is dangerous. Dorothy Kraus urged the Commission not to approve the application. The project is not ready for review and is actually two projects. Chair Weigand closed the public hearing. In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the bridge abutment is subject to Coastal Commission review because the Coastal Commission issued a prior CDP, and the City cannot amend a CDP issued by 6 of 13 the Coastal Commission. Nothing in Mr. Tanner's testimony raised questions about the CEQA analysis or staff's analysis of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). A policy within the LCP limits all structures to 35 feet in height. The Implementation Plan allows governmental facilities to exceed the height limit when necessary. Governmental facilities are not defined in any respect and could be a park, fire station, City Hall, bridge, or anything. Senior Civil Engineer Tran related that in the 1990s, the City discussed constructing residential condominiums on the property. Prior to allowing the City to purchase the property, Caltrans included a scenic easement to prevent the City from constructing condominiums. Caltrans is now amenable to removing a portion of the scenic easement so that the City can construct the bridge abutment on Sunset View Park. Associate Planner Crager indicated the project does not propose any changes to crosswalks. An existing crosswalk is located beneath the proposed bridge. The new parking spaces would be paid parking. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated page 16 of the presentation is a view simulation of the retaining wall and stairway as viewed from Coast Highway. The wall would require a deviation from the 8-foot wall standard. The walls shown on page 17 are located at the back of the project site. The three walls exceed the height limit, but staff has stepped and landscaped them. There are no plans to construct access from the park to Hoag Hospital, and access is not part of the design. In response to Chair Weigand's questions, Senior Civil Engineer Tran advised that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission would review plans to relocate the Special Tree. Staff plans to replace the Special Tree should it not survive the relocation. Upon completion of the Superior Avenue bridge project, persons with mobility issues would access the parking lot via the sidewalk along Superior Avenue. The Council unanimously approved the conceptual design in November 2019. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted the likelihood of the Planning Commission's decision being appealed to the Coastal Commission. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Vice Chair Lowery to approve the staff recommendation with amendments to revise the resolution language regarding the California Coastal Commission's jurisdiction and to remove "find" on handwritten page 31. AYES: Ellmore, Koetting, Rosene, Kleiman, Lowrey NOES: ABSTAIN: Weigand ABSENT: Klaustermeier In reply to Commissioner Koetting's query, Chair Weigand shared his belief that the Planning Commission should not discuss a project that has been presented to the Council multiple times. He was not comfortable with the project to widen Pacific Coast Highway and the lack of detail for a bridge in Phase 2. ITEM NO. 5 FRIENDS OF NEWPORT BEACH ANIMAL SHELTER (PA2020-349) Site Location: 20282 Riverside Drive Summary: A conditional use permit to demolish an existing residential kennel and construct a new public animal shelter for cats and dogs. Project implementation would result in a 1,565-square-foot, single-story shelter and a 755-square-foot kennel housing up to 7 of 13 29 dogs. The project would be open to the public, receive and hold stray animals, facilitate adoptions, and run as a designated “no-kill” shelter. If approved, the applicant proposes to donate the project to the Newport Beach Police Department to be operated by Animal Control as the City’s permanent animal shelter. Recommended Action: • Conduct a public hearing; • Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15303, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and that the exceptions to the Class 3 exemption do not apply; and • Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-006 finding the proposed animal shelter consistent with the purpose and intent of the RK (Residential Kennel) zoning district of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Area Plan (SP-7) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2020-193. Assistant Planner Patrick Achis reported landmarks near the property site include Santa Ana Country Club, Newport Beach Golf Club, and the SR-70 freeway. The property is located within the Residential Kennel (RK) District of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP-7). The 18 sites within the RK District are permitted to have a single-family residence and a commercial kennel business under an approved conditional use permit. Currently, the Animal Shelter is temporarily operating at the site two doors east of the proposed location. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing on-site residential kennel to construct a new public animal shelter for cats and dogs. Friends of Newport Beach Animal Shelter (FONBAS) has raised more than $2.5 million to cover all costs associated with land acquisition and construction. Following construction, FONBAS plans to donate the Animal Shelter to the Newport Beach Police Department, Animal Control Division. The project will not provide a single-family residence, but it will have the appearance of a home, operational characteristics commensurate with other residential kennels, fewer dogs than other residential kennels, sound attenuation, and compliant onsite parking. The structure will also comply with setback and height requirements. Staff has received public comment supporting the project and expressing concern about its residential character. In answer to Vice Chair Lowrey's inquiry, Animal Control Supervisor Valerie Schomberg advised that cats and dogs will be separated in the facility. In reply to Chair Weigand's query, Animal Control Supervisor Schomberg indicated she has wanted an Animal Shelter in the City for the 19 years she has been working with the City. The Animal Shelter will be small enough to provide individual care for pets and to operate well into the future. Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications with the exception of Chair Weigand, who reported communications with Officer Schomberg. Chair Weigand opened the public hearing. Jonathan Langford, Friends of Newport Beach Animal Shelter President, reported FONBAS purchased the property in April 2020 and has secured funding to construct the facility. This project is the result of a huge community effort. The applicant agreed to the proposed conditions of approval. 8 of 13 In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiries, Mr. Langford shared color renderings of the project. Plans for the facility are being prepared, and materials have not been selected. Mark Dwyer, project architect, indicated the renderings show a standing seam metal roof and split-face block and precision block façades. The roof color does not have to be red. The wrought iron and wood fencing secure play areas for dogs. The size and scale of the facility is consistent with homes in the neighborhood. The color scheme will make the facility stand out. Jim Mosher noted a correction in the resolution regarding the telephonic hearing. Dave Stead expressed concern about parking, dog walkers, pet waste, and dog training on public property and in the street. Louise Lee concurred with Mr. Stead's comments, especially with a dog training facility coming to the street. Jeffery Schneidewind remarked that animal shelters should be located away from residences. The resolution omits certain facts and mischaracterizes the situation in the neighborhood. The property should be a residential kennel or a residence, not a City facility. Julie Schneidewind remarked that she learned of the project from the Planning Commission's notice. She expressed dismay that a dog pound was going to be located adjacent to her home. The Animal Shelter needs to be located somewhere else. Mr. Langford advised that the project will comply with setbacks, provide off-street parking, and use an enclosed kennel structure. These changes will increase neighbors' quality of life. Assistant Planner Achis indicated the proposed conditions would enhance the placement of the kennel structure. The setback for the site is 25 feet. A residential kennel is already located on the site. Notice was mailed to property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the project site a few weeks prior to the hearing. Mr. Dwyer added that the facility will have sound attenuation walls along the sides and rear of the facility. All kennels will be enclosed. The facility will be heated and air conditioned. In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's question, Mr. Langford reported FONBAS will gift the facility to the Police Department following construction. Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill advised that the City would be able to address neighbors' complaints if it were to own the facility. Animal Control Supervisor Schomberg indicated 13 commercial kennels are located on the street, four of which house 29 or fewer dogs and the remainder house 59 dogs. The neighbors have not complained about noise from the dogs. Chair Weigand closed the public hearing. In answer to Chair Weigand's queries, Animal Control Supervisor Schomberg related that there are currently three off-street parking spaces at the temporary shelter. There is a lot of car traffic to the other animal facilities on the street. The Animal Shelter may continue to 9 of 13 operate by appointment only. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated a boarding or training facility would likely require a conditional use permit, which would be presented to the Planning Commission for approval. Thirteen of the properties in the district have use permits for commercial kennel operations, and use permits run with the land. Based on complaints, the City can investigate noncompliance with use permits. Commissioner Ellmore believed the project complies with requirements and benefits neighbors along the street. The colors of building materials should be consistent with the neighborhood. Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to approve the staff recommendation. AYES: Ellmore, Koetting, Rosene, Kleiman, Lowrey, Weigand NOES: ABSTAINING: ABSENT: Klaustermeier ITEM NO. 6 BETHEL AND RIDGE SUBDIVISION AND RESIDENCES AMENDMENT (PA2019-085) Site Location: 365 Via Lido Soud, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 Summary: An amendment to a previously approved Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map for the subdivision of an existing parcel into two separate lots and demolition of an existing four-unit residence, to include one new single-unit residence with an attached junior accessory dwelling unit on each lot. The proposed subdivision includes a deviation from design standards of Title 19 (Subdivisions) and relief from Implementation Plan development standards of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan). The previous approval by the Zoning Administrator was appealed by two California Coastal Commissioners and the amended application is an attempt to resolve the appeal. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-007 approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-024 and Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008. Associate Planner David Lee reported the project site is designated multiple residential (RM), and a four-unit residence is located on the 6,300-square-foot lot. On September 26, 2019, the Zoning Administrator approved a project proposal to demolish the existing structure and subdivide the lot into two 35-foot-wide lots. The proposal did not include construction of new residences on the two lots. The Coastal Commission appealed the decision on October 30, 2019 based on a potential reduction in density and the Coastal Hazards Report methodology. The applicant worked with the Coastal Commission to propose a single-family residence and a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) on each of the two lots and to update the Coastal 10 of 13 Hazards Report. Each JADU will have a dedicated entry. The proposed homes and JADUs will comply with development standards. Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications. Chair Weigand opened the public hearing. Shawna Schaffner, applicant representative, advised that the lot was originally subdivided in the 1920s, and the two lots were subsequently expanded to the north and south. The fourplex was constructed in the 1940s. The applicant proposes to subdivide the single lot, demolish the existing structure, and construct a residence and JADU on each lot. The JADUs will have one bedroom, a living area, kitchen, bathroom, and direct access to the outdoors. Issues raised in the Coastal Commission appeal have been addressed. Coastal Commission staff have reported that changes to the project have resolved their concerns. Jim Mosher noted the Community Development Director directed the appeal to the Planning Commission, the resolution incorrectly states the process for the appeal, and the Planning Commission needs to make findings for the deviation. The Deputy Community Development Director's objection to the finding of a substantial issue supported some public feelings that staff has a pro-applicant bias. Charles Klobe questioned whether the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) would determine that the project reduces density and require the City to find other housing to compensate for the loss of units and whether staff could guarantee that the units could be counted toward the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for very-low-income and low-income categories for the next cycle. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated Mr. Mosher characterized the appeal procedure accurately. Coastal Commission staff reviewed the project and suggested the applicant return to the Planning Commission with an amended project. His letter to the Coastal Commission did not advocate for the project but rather defended the City's process. The City should be able to take credit for the JADUs in the next RHNA cycle as long as they are not occupied before July 1, 2021. Staff cannot guarantee any action by HCD. Chair Weigand closed the public hearing. In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the applicant could not change the project to a single-family residence only and receive a permit because it would violate the CDP. In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated there are no restrictions on the property owner's use of the JADUs. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and adopt Resolution No. PC2021-007 approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-024 and Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008 and to incorporate Mr. Mosher's revisions to Statement of Facts 5 and 6. 11 of 13 AYES: Ellmore, Koetting, Rosene, Kleiman, Lowrey, Weigand NOES: ABSTAINING: ABSENT: Klaustermeier IX. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 7 ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN PROGRESS REPORT (PA2007-195) Site Location: Citywide Summary: Annual progress report on the status and implementation of the General Plan and Housing Element as required by State law and General Plan Implementation Program 1.3. Recommended Action: 1. Find the preparation, review and submission of the 2020 General Plan Progress report no subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as the actions are not a project as defined by Section 15378(b)(2) of the Public Resources Code; 2. Review and comment on the 2020 General Plan Progress Report, including the Housing Element Annual Progress Report; and 3. Recommend the City Council review and authorize the submittal of the 2020 General Plan Progress Report to the California Office of Planning and Research and the submittal of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan reported the General Plan Annual Report follows 2021 guidance from the Office of Planning and Research and provides an overview of General Plan Implementation, Housing Element Implementation, and data required by HCD. The General Plan Annual Report also explains deficiencies in the current General Plan that will require future updates and priorities for land-use decision-making. In January 2020, the Council directed staff to update the Housing and Circulation Elements, created the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC) in March 2020, and retained consultants for the Housing Element Update. Staff has worked alongside the HEUAC to engage the community. In calendar year 2020, the City gained 2 very-low-income units, 4 low-income units, 2 moderate-income units, and 101 above-moderate-income units. The City has achieved its RHNA goals for the planning period. Applications have been submitted for 19 accessory dwelling units (ADU); 8 ADUs have been permitted; and 2 ADUs have been finaled. The Senior Housing Assistance Repair Program (SHARP) continues. The first draft Housing Element will be available online on March 10, 2021. Staff will submit the first draft to HCD by May 15, 2021, for the 60-day review. Chair Weigand opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher inquired whether the RHNA numbers were net rather than gross and whether staff has analyzed the capacity remaining in each statistical area. Assistant Planner Whelan indicated the data beginning with 2018 provides the number of net new units. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that staff uses a database to track development. The database will be used in traffic modeling for updating 12 of 13 the Land Use and Circulation Elements. The data is not 100% accurate because of anomalies and the lack of historical building permits. Chair Weigand closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to recommend the City Council review and authorize the submittal of the 2020 General Plan Progress Report to the California Office of Planning and Research and the submittal of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. AYES: Ellmore, Koetting, Rosene, Kleiman, Lowrey, Weigand NOES: ABSTAINING: ABSENT: Klaustermeier X. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 8 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 9 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 the March 18 agenda includes a Study Session for the draft Circulation Element and two public hearings. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that members of the community filed an appeal of the 215 Riverside Office parking structure to the Coastal Commission. ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None X. ADJOURNMENT – 9:25 p.m. 13 of 13 The agenda for the March 4, 2021, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, February 26, 2021, at 4:45 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, February 12, 2021, at 4:42 p.m. _______________________________ Erik Weigand, Chairman _______________________________ Lauren Kleiman, Secretary March 18, 2021, 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 MARCH 4, 2021 The passages in italics are from the draft minutes. Corrections are suggested in strikeout underline format. Page 2, action at bottom of page: “Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Secretary Kleiman to continue this item to March 18, 2021.” Page 3, Item 4 subheading: “Site Location: Bridget Bridge to span Superior Avenue north of West Coast Highway Intersection” [note: The remainder of the subheading copies what appeared on the March 4 agenda, but it is not accurate: the proposed development is not northeast of the Hoag Lower Campus or Sunset View Park.] Page 3, paragraph 2 from end, sentences 2 - 4: “The California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) approved a coastal development permit (CDP) for Sunset View Ridge Park. Because of the CDP, the Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction for the park. The bridge abutment that lands in Sunset View Ridge Park is subject to the Coastal Commission's permit jurisdiction, and staff has submitted an application to the Coastal Commission for that aspect of the project. The Planning Commission's review of the application is limited to the parts of the project that are located within the City's jurisdiction.” [comment: Speakers consistently said “Sunset Ridge Park” when referring to the parcel with the sports fields on the west side of Superior. It is unclear why the minutes have substituted “Sunset View Park” which is the passive recreation area north of the parking lot and east of Superior. Except for that minor correction, the minutes accurately reflect what was said. However, the Commission may wish to be aware that as Item 3 at the March 11 Zoning Administrator hearing the City granted a CDP that essentially consisted of work to bring a property in a different part of the city (Shorecliffs) into compliance with a CDP issued by the CCC in 1980. In that case, the CCC argued that when the City obtained certification of its Local Coastal Program in 2017, the CCC had lost authority to approve new work. Hence, the City had to approve the Shorecliffs CDP even though it had been pending with the CCC since 2015. I believe that is the correct interpretation of the Coastal Act. But the reason the different logic described in the minutes would apply to the Superior Avenue Bridge continues to elude me. Equally inexplicable, in 2013, prior to certification of the City’s LCP, the CCC approved a CDP for improvements to Sunset View Park (see Item F15d-11-2013), yet an argument did not seem to be made that the CCC retained jurisdiction over the portion of the new development in that park.] Page 3, last paragraph, sentences 1 - 3: “Senior Civil Engineer Andy Tran advised that the City acquired the parking lot parcel in 1992 and Sunset View Ridge Park and undeveloped parcels in 2006. In March 2010, the Council adopted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Sunset Planning Commission - March 18, 2021 Item No. 1a - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of March 4, 2021 March 18, 2021, PC agenda Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 View Ridge Park. In June 2013, the Coastal Commission approved a CDP for Sunset View Ridge Park. Sunset View Ridge Park was completed and opened to the public in December 2014.” [see staff presentation, page 6 – none of the comments referred to “Sunset View Park”] Page 4, full paragraph 1, sentence 6 from end: “The project provides a net gain of 66 parking spaces, increased access to Sunset View Ridge Park, no changes to vehicular access, no changes to crosswalks, additional and enhanced viewing opportunities.” Page 4, full paragraph 2, sentence 1: “Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the intent of the project is to expand access to Sunset View Ridge Park.” Page 4, paragraph 2 from end: “In reply to Commissioner Secretary Kleiman's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that he reviewed and discussed the project and the community's concern with Coastal Commission staff.” Page 4, last paragraph: “In answer to Commissioner Koetting's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated staff believes the project will enhance view opportunities and access to Sunset View Ridge Park” Page 5, paragraph 2: “In answer to Commissioner Rosene's inquiries, Senior Civil Engineer Tran advised that construction of the bridge and parking lot will have little impact on Sunset View Ridge Park. Staff and the contractor can reserve some parking spaces for the public to visit Sunset View Ridge Park during construction.” Page 5, paragraph 5, sentence 3: “In 2020, the City received partial funding for Phase 2 (the West Coast Highway Bridge) and amended agreements with consultants to include Phase 2 engineering and environmental services, and the Council approved an amended design for the bridge.” [note: since the paragraph omits many of the speaker’s comments, it makes little sense without including his definition of “Phase 2” of the project.] Page 5, paragraph 6: “Sharon Boles remarked that Sunset View Ridge Park is underutilized because it has no parking.” Page 5, paragraph 8: “Jim Miller remarked that Sunset View Ridge Park is important to surrounding neighborhoods as a place for children to play.” Page 4, last paragraph: “In answer to Commissioner Secretary Kleiman's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the bridge abutment is subject to Coastal Commission review because the Coastal Commission issued a prior CDP, and the City cannot amend a CDP issued by the Coastal Commission.” Page 6, partial paragraph 1, sentence 4 from end: “Caltrans is now amenable to removing a portion of the scenic easement so that the City can construct the bridge abutment on Sunset View Ridge Park.” Page 7, full paragraph 1, sentence 1: “Assistant Planner Patrick Achis reported landmarks near the property site include Santa Ana Country Club, Newport Beach Golf Club Course, and the SR-70 SR-73 freeway.” [note: the video shows the words spoken were “Club” and “I-73,” but the former bills itself as a “course” rather than a club and the latter is a state route not an interstate.] Planning Commission - March 18, 2021 Item No. 1a - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of March 4, 2021 March 18, 2021, PC agenda Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 Page 7, paragraph 5 from end: “In answer to Vice Chair Lowrey's inquiry, Animal Control Supervisor Valerie Schomberg Schomburg advised that cats and dogs will be separated in the facility.” Page 7, paragraph 4 from end: “In reply to Chair Weigand's query, Animal Control Supervisor Schomberg Schomburg indicated she has wanted an Animal Shelter animal shelter in the City for the 19 years she has been working with the City. The Animal Shelter animal shelter will be small enough to provide individual care for pets and to operate well into the future.” Page 7, paragraph 3 from end: “Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications with the exception of Chair Weigand, who reported communications with Officer Schomberg Schomburg.” Page 8, paragraph 6, sentence 1: “Jeffery Jeffrey Schneidewind remarked that animal shelters should be located away from residences.” Page 8, paragraph 4 from end: “In reply to Commissioner Secretary Kleiman's question, Mr. Langford reported FONBAS will gift the facility to the Police Department following construction.” Page 8, paragraph 3 from end: “Animal Control Supervisor Schomberg Schomburg indicated 13 commercial kennels are located on the street, four of which house 29 or fewer dogs and the remainder house 59 dogs.” Page 8, last paragraph: “In answer to Chair Weigand's queries, Animal Control Supervisor Schomberg Schomburg related that there are currently three off-street parking spaces at the temporary shelter. There is a lot of car traffic to the other animal facilities on the street. The Animal Shelter animal shelter may continue to operate by appointment only.” Page 9, paragraph 3: “Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Secretary Kleiman to approve the staff recommendation.” Page 10, paragraph 2 before motion: “In answer to Commissioner Secretary Kleiman's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the applicant could not change the project to a single-family residence only and receive a permit because it would violate the CDP.” Page 13, paragraph 1: “The agenda for the March 4, 2021, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, February 26, 2021, at 4:45 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, February 12 26, 2021, at 4:42 p.m.” Planning Commission - March 18, 2021 Item No. 1a - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of March 4, 2021