The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.0_Draft Minutes of January 9, 2025 Page 1 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2025 REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER– 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Barto III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Mark Rosene, Vice Chair Tristan Harris, Secretary David Salene, Commissioner Brady Barto, Commissioner Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Jonathan Langford, and Commissioner Lee Lowrey ABSENT: None Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jaime Murillo, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Brad Sommers, Senior Planner Joselyn Perez, Associate Planner Jenny Tran, Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez, Department Assistant Jasmine Leon IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS- None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES- None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 2024 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Secretary Salene and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to approve the meeting minutes of December 5, 2024, as amended to include suggested edits submitted by Mr. Mosher. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Langford, Lowrey, Rosene, and Salene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 PACIFICA CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL USE PERMIT (PA2023-0237) Site Location: 1499 Monrovia Avenue, 883 West 15th Street, 1515 Monrovia Avenue, 873 to 877 Production Place Summary: Pacifica Christian currently operates a high school and auxiliary campus with a maximum student enrollment of 385 and a maximum staff of 50. To provide adequate parking for students and staff, Pacifica Christian has off-site parking agreements with two properties within the vicinity of the school. The school and off-site parking agreements are authorized pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) filed as PA2023-0078. Condition of Approval Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2025 Page 2 of 6 No. 16 of the CUP requires the off-site parking location of 873 to 877 Production Place be used only for warehousing and administrative offices and prohibits students from using or accessing the site. The Applicant is requesting that the condition be amended to remove the prohibition on students accessing the site and allow it to be used as an athletic training facility for student athletes, rather than warehousing. While students will be allowed to access the site for after school athletic training purposes, no students will park at the site and no school instruction will occur. In addition to the athletic training facility, the site will continue to provide administrative offices and parking for Pacifica Christian staff. If approved, this CUP would supersede the CUP filed as PA2023-0078. Recommended Actions: 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) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has not potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2025-001 approving the Conditional Use Permit filed as PA2023-0237 and superseding the Conditional Use Permit filed as PA2023-0078. Senior Planner Perez used a presentation to review the school and offsite parking locations, zoning and land use for the surrounding area, current school operations under the current conditional use permit, the function of the offsite parking location at 873 through 877 Production Place, the requested amendment to the conditional use permit, parking access, relevant conditions of approval, and recommendation. There were no ex parte communications among the Commissioners. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning and applicant representative, requested a condition change to the after-hours use by students. She stated that the applicant reviewed the conditions of approval and fully agrees as amended. Chair Rosene opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher thought the proposed use is not ancillary to the industrial uses and, thus, not consistent with the General Plan. Senior Planner Perez stated that the Newport Beach Zoning Code implements the General Plan, and the use of 873 through 877 Production Place as a studio land use is allowed by right. Chair Rosene closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Barto to approve the item with the additional conditions. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Langford, Lowrey, Rosene, and Salene NOES: None RECUSE: None ABSENT: None Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2025 Page 3 of 6 ITEM NO. 3 TTC NEWPORTER (PA2024-0091) Site Location: 1111 and 1107 Jamboree Road Summary: A request for a conditional use permit (CUP) and coastal development permit (CDP) to restripe six existing tennis courts into 22 pickleball courts for a private pickleball club, known as the TTC Newporter. The project also includes minor improvements to the parking lot on the adjacent hotel property located at 1107 Jamboree Road to accommodate the required parking spaces. The proposed hours of operation are between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m., daily. The request includes a traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.20 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) as the project will generate a net increase of over 300 average daily trips. No changes are proposed to the existing tennis courts on the adjacent Palisades Tennis Club. Recommended Actions: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 under Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) and under sections 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2025-002 approving a Conditional Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Traffic Study filed as PA2024-0091. Associate Planner Tran used a presentation to review the project location, background information with previous approvals, project description, required parking and location, Noise Study, Traffic Study, access to restroom facilities, continued operations for the Palisades Tennis Club, relevant conditions of approval, and recommended action. In reply to Secretary Salene’s question, Associate Planner Tran clarified that the walkway to the restroom is paved. In reply to Commissioner Langford’s question, Associate Planner Tran clarified that The Palisades Club and TTC property are subject to Anomaly 51 with a combined maximum square footage for both properties that are to be used on a first come first serve basis. Ex parte communications included Commissioner Barto being contacted by the applicant, Chair Rosene speaking with the representative of the applicant and TTC Newporter operator, Secretary Salene meeting with the operator of TTC Newporter, Vice Chair Harris and Commissioner Lowrey speaking with the operator, and Commissioner Langford speaking with the TTC Newporter operator and representative. Chair Rosene opened the public hearing. Robert Strother, minority operator of the applicant, thanked staff for their attention on the matter and the Commission’s time, supported the project, and agreed with the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2025 Page 4 of 6 By a show of hands, Chair Rosene assessed public support and opposition for the matter from within the Council Chambers. Camile Vasquez shared her experience at TTC Newporter and supported the project. Bud Mastropaolo supported the project. Robert O Hill, landlord at the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District, supported the project. Eileen Lenson supported the project. Sean Bollettieri thanked TTC Newporter members and offered to answer questions. Christine Sceberras inquired if a meeting was called with the residents who are directly impacted at the Sea Island Apartments and expressed concerns about including parking at the Dunes and building construction that could impede the view of the water. She supported the sport of pickleball. Jim Mosher noted an incomplete description in the draft resolution of the General Plan designation and that parcels one and two are identified as housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element. He questioned the procedure for creating a new use permit for one parcel without modifying the existing use permit that covers two parcels and suggested modifying both permits and gaining the permission of the other property owner and including Chapter 10.28 in Condition of Approval 19. Fred Hunter, 23 Bay Cove Lane, expressed concern for traffic, noise, and financial implications and opposed the project. Janet Sanders opposed the location of the pickleball courts and expressed concern for noise generated from the courts and traffic. She read a petition in opposition of the project from Island Lagoon. Associate Planner Tran clarified that no new structures are included in the project. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill stated that the CEQA exemption is applicable based on the noise and traffic studies. Chair Rosene closed the public hearing. In reply to Commissioner Ellmore’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Murillo indicated that staff regularly reviews technical reports and believes the studies conducted for this matter have been prepared correctly. Commissioner Ellmore relayed the Planning Commission’s function related to land use matters, staff’s competence to review technical reports, and that the project fits in the purview of the Commission. He expressed support for the matter. Commissioner Langford expressed reservations for the technical aspects. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2025 Page 5 of 6 City Attorney Summerhill stated that there has been no conflict with two use permits operating independently and none are anticipated, nothing will change Palisades Tennis Club’s ability to operate under the existing use permit, special event permits are required by TTC Newporter, and items can come back for amending. Chair Rosene noted that a new application is required for changes by Palisades Tennis Club and supported staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Barto expressed excitement for the cooperation with parking next to Palisades Tennis Club. Vice Chair Harris thanked the applicant for clarifying the matter. Motion made by Secretary Salene and seconded by Vice Chair Harris to approve the item as amended. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Harris, Langford, Lowrey, Rosene, and Salene NOES: None RECUSE: None ABSENT: None VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 5 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA Deputy Community Development Director Murillo announced two items for the January 23 Planning Commission meeting that are related to an office conversion to medical and amendments to the housing opportunity overlay. He cancelled the February 6 meeting. Commissioner Ellmore announced Commissioner Barto’s last meeting and thanked him for his service on the Planning Commission. In reply, Commissioner Barto confirmed his departure and thanked staff for keeping the Commission on task. ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES – None IX. ADJOURNMENT – With no further business, Chair Rosene adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2025 Page 6 of 6 The agenda for the January 9, 2025, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, December 12, 2024, at 3:51 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City’s website on Thursday, December 12, 2024, at 4:57 p.m. _______________________________ Mark Rosene, Chair _______________________________ David Salene, Secretary January 23, 2025, 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 JANUARY 9, 2025 The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with corrections suggested in strikeout underline format. Page 4 of 6, paragraph 2: “Camile Camille Vasquez shared her experience at TTC Newporter and supported the project.” [Spelling verified from state bar listing] Page 4 of 6, paragraph 10: “Janet Sanders, a Sea Island resident, opposed the location of the pickleball courts and expressed concern for noise generated from the courts and traffic. She read a petition in opposition of the project from Island Lagoon.” [note: According to the video, Ms. Sanders said she lived in Sea Island. While “Island Lagoon” (which seems to be the name of the entry street to the Sea Island tact) was mentioned in the petition she read, she did not say the petition was “from Island Lagoon” and the signers gave addresses on other streets within the community.] Page 4 of 6, paragraph 14: “In reply to Commissioner Ellmore’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Murillo indicated that staff regularly reviews technical reports and believes the studies conducted for this matter have been prepared correctly.” [comment: Some of the Commissioners seem to have felt I insulted City staff by suggesting they do not include an acoustical engineer with the expertise necessary to independently evaluate the validity of an applicant-funded Noise Impact Analysis. Yet I continue to believe that. In the present case, the applicant-funded analysis correctly observes that Section 10.26.025 of our Municipal Code contains a provision that “Maximum instantaneous noise levels may not exceed the above values plus 20 dBA for any period of time.” Yet, as best I can tell, it nowhere assesses whether the instantaneous noise from pickleball play would exceed that standard at any of the receptor sites – even though in the case of pickleball, moments of peak, impulsive noise seem more likely to violate the City’s standards than the 15-minute average noise levels the report does evaluate. Moreover, even for those 15-minute averages, the ambient noise that sets the standard was measured at a location north of Sea Island, that may or may not be applicable to the potentially impacted homes. And even though the report correctly reproduces the significant noise impacts table of General Plan Policy N 1.8 (also found in Table 3-2 of NBMC Subsection 20.30.080.G), it misapplies the table in its conclusions, where it says less than a 3 dB increase is insignificant, even though our plan and code state a 1 or 2 dB increase is significant at the ambient noise levels cited. These errors and inconsistencies would presumably have been noticed by an independent noise expert. They do not seem to have been noticed by City staff, who accepted the report as accurate.] Planning Commission - January 23, 2025 Item No. 1a - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of January 9, 2025