HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes of November 20 2025
1 of 8
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER - 6:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Rosene
III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Tristan Harris, Vice Chair David Salene, Secretary Jonathan Langford,
Commissioner Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Michael Gazzano, Commissioner
Greg Reed, Commissioner Mark Rosene
ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Acting Community Development Director Jaime Murillo, Assistant City Attorney,
Principal Civil Engineer Kevin Riley, Planning Manager Ben Zdeba, Associate
Planner Oscar Orozco, and Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS – None
V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES – None
VI. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2025
Recommended Action: Approve and file.
Chair Harris opened public comment, and there was none.
Motion made by Chair Harris and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to approve the meeting
minutes of October 23, 2025, with revisions recommended by Jim Mosher.
AYES: Ellmore, Gazzano, Harris, Langford, and Rosene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Reed, and Salene
ABSENT: None
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 ACACIA ATRIUM MEDICAL OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS (PA2024-0236)
Site Location: 20280 and 20312 Acacia Street
Summary:
Conversion of an existing three-story professional office building into a medical office
condominium use. Project implementation requires the following approvals:
• Condominium Conversion authorizing the conversion of existing professional office
building into medical office condominiums;
• Tentative Parcel Map to create a 12-unit condominium subdivision as defined in
Section 783 of the California Civil Code allowing for individual sale;
• Conditional Use Permit authorizing medical office use and a 32-space reduction of
required off-street parking; and
Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2025
2 of 8
• Traffic Study ensuing compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of Newport
Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.40.
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, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no
potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2025-024 approving the Condominium Conversion,
Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, and Traffic Study filed as PA2024-
0236.
Secretary Langford recused from the item due to the site’s proximity to a property owned in part
by his employer.
Associate Planner Oscar Orozco used a PowerPoint Presentation to present the project location,
zoning and surrounding land uses, existing site conditions, and project description. He stated that
this request includes a Condominium Conversion to create professional space for medical office
condominiums, a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) for a 12-unit subdivision, a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to establish medical office use, and a 32-parking space waiver, along with a Traffic Study
pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
In response to Commissioner Ellmore’s inquiries, Traffic Engineer Kevin Riley reported that the
two comparable sites used in the Traffic Study were Spectrum Medical Plaza in the City of Irvine
and Second Journey Medical Plaza in the City of Aliso Viejo. He clarified that staff accepted the
applicant’s proposed comparable sites as the land use was similar in nature and located in similar
urban settings. He added that staff did not consider sites within Newport Beach but rather
accepted the applicant’s comparable sites.
In response to Vice Chair Salene’s inquiries, Traffic Engineer Kevin Riley clarified that the parking
requirements are different for a medical office than other kinds of offices because the patients
regularly come and go throughout the day, in addition to the staff, which is typically there all day.
He confirmed that the parking needs are higher for a medical office due to the constant patient
turnover.
In response to Chair Harris’ inquiries, Acting Community Development Director Jaime Murillo
stated that he is unaware of an easement to the adjacent property to the east. He added that the
site is gated and there is a Condition of Approval requiring a fence so people do not park on
adjacent lots.
In response to Chair Harris’ inquiry, no commissioners reported having ex Parte communications
about this project.
Chair Harris opened the public hearing.
CGM Development Company Managing Director Peichin Lee reported that this is a typical
commercial condominium renovation project for her company. She reported that nine of the 12
units for this proposed development are already under contract, pending the project’s approval.
She stated that this is reflective of a strong demand for medical condominiums in Newport Beach,
where the supply is short despite community needs.
In response to Chair Harris’ inquiry, Ms. Lee confirmed that the applicant agrees with the
Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2025
3 of 8
recommended Conditions of Approval.
In response to Commissioner Rosene’s inquiry, Ms. Lee agreed to have a Homeowner’s
Association (HOA)-style professional property management if it were a Condition of Approval.
She added that an HOA is typical for a facility like this. Associate Planner Orozco confirmed that
having an HOA continues to be included in the Conditions of Approval, and clarified revised
language to a condition related to the water utilities.
In response to Commissioner Ellmore’s inquiries, Ms. Lee clarified that the City provided the
address of the two buildings analyzed in the Parking Study. She stated that they also considered
offering valet parking and a bicycle rack, adding that they can be included if needed due to a
parking issue. She reported that a parking garage or deck was also considered, but noted that it
is a small parcel where finding the space needed for ramps would be difficult.
In response to Chair Harris’ inquiry, Ms. Lee clarified that the City would allow for valet parking.
Associate Planner Orozco confirmed that it would be permissible.
In response to Chair Harris’ inquiry, Ms. Lee agreed that they could talk to the neighbors about
reciprocal parking agreements.
In response to Commissioner Reed’s inquiries, Ms. Lee reported that the formal subdivision has
not happened yet, so there are no proposed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R).
She added that they can come up with two-tiered solutions if more parking spaces end up being
needed, including the potential for a lift system.
Real Estate Development Associates (REDA) Newport-Irvine LLC Co-Founder Jason Krotts
requested that every applicant be treated fairly, equitably, and held to the same standards on their
project applications. He requested that, if approved, he would like to retroactively have the same
standards applied to his company’s project at 3300 Irvine Ave., which the Planning Commission
heard on January 23rd.
Acting Community Development Director Murillo clarified that, within the City’s Municipal Code,
certain options may be relied upon for supporting parking waivers. He added that a study of
parking demand demonstrating lower actual parking demand is an option. He added that factors
like rideshare availability and bicycle accommodation can allow for slight reductions in parking
requirements, and valet parking can also serve as a waiver option as part of a Parking
Management Plan.
Chair Harris closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ellmore recalled a project heard by the Commission from 5-7 years ago involving
surface parking for a medical office conversion on Bristol Street, where there was a similar parking
shortage situation. He stated that the applicant came forward with a valet proposal including a lift,
but the item was continued because the area had insufficient street parking, which would have
adversely impacted neighbors. He recalled that the Commission ultimately gave the applicant a
smaller parking waiver than requested. He reported that, at the public hearing Mr. Krotts
referenced, the applicant had a strong interest in not building a parking structure, but the
Commission deemed one necessary for the particulars of the site.
Commissioner Ellmore stated that the size of the parking waiver in this item is a lot to ask for in
this zone. He reported visiting the project site and sensing a lack of available parking recognized
the lot being small for the anticipated demand. He expressed concerns that other applications in
this area of Newport Beach will want to make the same conversions, and the Commission should
Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2025
4 of 8
be consistent in its decisions and findings. He added that waivers like this without a plan for a lift
system or other parking facility have been denied before. He expressed his opposition to the
application.
Commissioner Rosene stated that the parking variance is a significant sum and should be
considered, noting that it would have amounted to 28 spaces in Mr. Krotts’ request. He stated that
they can do better with their consistency.
In response to Commissioner Rosene’s inquiry, Acting Community Development Director Murillo
stated that the City can mandate valet parking provisions in the future if the parking proves
problematic. He added that another alternative would be for the Commission to approve fewer
than the 12 medical offices bringing the parking demand down. He added that there could be a
phased approach to the project, something considered on the 2021 Bristol Street development
referenced by Commissioner Ellmore which came back to the Commission four times. He
confirmed that the Bristol Street project was approved with a 70% medical office allowance, and
this project can include a condition requiring the project to return to the Commission in the future
with operating data supporting an increased waiver. He confirmed that Mr. Knotts’ application
included a Parking Study identifying an actual need for 309 spaces on site; however, since only
270 spaces were provided on-site, the provision of a parking structure was included to bring the
parking supply up to 331 spaces.
In response to Chair Harris’ inquiry, Acting Community Development Director Murillo stated that
the applicant can be asked further about their situation. He theorized that 70% medical use would
work for the applicant based on their pending sales. He added that the Commission can also
create a Condition of Approval that can be amended in the future following another Parking Study.
He added that the applicant could also work with staff on an alternative solution.
Vice Chair Salene stated that this is a large waiver request, noting that a medical office needs
more parking than other office uses. He added that the Commission has pushed hard on
neighboring projects to provide appropriate parking. He echoed his peers’ comments about the
waiver request being too large and not having his support. He called for other parking options.
Commissioner Reed stated that he does not support this application as presented but would
support it if treated more consistently with past applications.
Commissioner Gazzano stated that the Commission must be clear and consistent. He noted that
they have twice in the past year heard similar applications from the same area. He added that if
the demand for medical office space continues in this neighborhood, then parking will grow into
an even bigger concern, and the Commission would look bad if it had been inconsistently following
guidelines.
Commissioner Ellmore reported that they have received comments related to a potential
reapplication for a parking waiver based on the assumption of an approval for this item, theorizing
that more could come. He stated the Commission should maintain its consistency.
Chair Harris stated that the Commission has not approved such a large waiver, and he is open to
finding a middle ground comparable to past decisions. He expressed concerns about creating a
floodgate-opening precedent. He added that projects where the Commission has created
exceptions provided more options.
Commissioner Ellmore stated that the Commission should not be the ones trying to figure out
alternatives for the applicant at this time. He stated that the applicant should resubmit a plan with
a better parking solution, adding that other applicants have been asked to do this.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2025
5 of 8
Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Reed to deny the
application.
AYES: Ellmore, Gazzano, Harris, Reed, Rosene, and Salene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Langford
ABSENT: None
VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS
ITEM NO. 3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: SEEKING INPUT ON REFRESHED GOALS AND
POLICIES IN THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT AND SAFETY ELEMENT
(PA2022-080)
Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
A discussion to request any additional input from the Planning Commission on the draft
versions of the updated Land Use and Safety Elements. Final drafts will be returned,
alongside the balance of the Updated General Plan, to the Commission for formal
consideration in early 2026.
Recommended Actions:
1. Find this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because
this initial guidance and input from the Planning Commission will not result in a physical
change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
2. Discuss the draft Land Use Element and draft Safety Element and provide any
additional guidance or feedback on the goals and policies. Direct staff to forward the
input onto the General Plan Advisory Committee for consideration. In early 2026,
the refined and finalized drafts will return to the Planning Commission, along with
the remainder of the updated General Plan, for review and formal recommendation
of approval to the City Council.
Secretary Langford rejoined the meeting.
Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill noted that this is a Study Session, and the
Commission will not be taking any action. She added that there will potentially be discussions
related to the commissioners’ neighborhoods or areas where they own property, so she requested
that discussions on those areas of the city be consolidated, allowing the commissioners to step
away as needed. She listed neighborhoods where each commissioner has a real property
interest.
Planning Manager Ben Zdeba reported on the process undertaken to comprehensively update
the City’s General Plan, adding that the draft development phase is concluding with the next step
being a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis based on the drafts. He added that
the goal is to have the City Council adopt the full General Plan by June of 2026. He reviewed the
October 9th Planning Commission meeting where the Draft Land Use Element and Draft Safety
Element were presented, focusing on components added to those elements from their current
versions, largely generated by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). He stated that,
following this discussion, it would be helpful if the commissioners could share their feedback for
consideration by the GPAC. He added that the Commission will be asked to formally recommend
approval of the General Plan to the City Council in early 2026.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2025
6 of 8
In response to Chair Harris’ inquiry, none of the commissioners stated that they have an area of
Newport Beach they wish to specifically discuss to the degree that it would require a recusal per
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill’s listing.
In response to Commissioner Rosene’s inquiry, Planning Manager Zdeba clarified that the Draft
Land Use Element includes notations clarifying if a policy is adapted from the current Land Use
Element and correlating the Draft back to the current policy.
Commissioner Rosene requested that the attachment with a table identifying retained and omitted
policies come back to the Commission in a larger font for better legibility. He encouraged the
GPAC in Draft Policy No. LU-17.7 to be conscientious of the requirements of parks having to be
surrounded on two sides by streets, as it relates to planned development near John Wayne
Airport, and encouraged flexibility as the locations of future parks in that area are currently
unknown. He criticized Draft Policy No. LU-23 for not prioritizing the opportunity for redevelopment
in Dover/Westcliff, adding that the area is designed for for-sale residential densities instead of
typical rental densities. He encouraged adding this concept as Draft Policy No. LU-23.7.
Commissioner Rosene encouraged adding more focused and direct language about the
opportunity for public access to the Randall Preserve. He stated that the concepts of removing
the Randall Preserve and adding the Santa Ana Country Club to the City’s Sphere of Influence,
as mentioned in Draft Policy No. LU-29.5 are odd because he was unaware of any discussions
related to either concept. He stated that the call for a linear park in Draft Policy No. LU-29.3 is too
specific.
Chair Harris opened public comment.
Jim Mosher clarified that he is speaking as an individual and not in his role as a GPAC Member.
He reported that staff is requesting administrative authority to update the tables in the General
Plan instead of requiring an amendment, citing the Anomaly Table as an example. He added that
the Anomaly Table is out of date, citing anomalies 43 and 46 as examples, and encouraged
cleaning up the table to its current state before including it in the General Plan. He cited Draft
Policy No. LU-15 as an example of GPAC confusion because a current policy discouraging certain
uses on Old Newport Boulevard was omitted from the draft by consultants, adding that Draft Policy
No. LU-15.4 was inserted without GPAC discussion.
Mr. Mosher reported that the Draft Land Use Element makes no changes to the current zoning
except for the new housing overlays, noting that the direction to use overlays instead of rezonings
comes from the State. He reported that a legal case from the City of Redondo Beach is
progressing through the State’s appellate court system, with the current ruling being against the
overlay concept. He cautioned the Commission that if the Supreme Court of California does not
overturn the decision, the areas covered by housing overlays will have to be rezoned.
Chair Harris closed public comment.
Planning Manager Zdeba apologized for the small font and agreed to enlarge it. He clarified that
the call for administrative authority to amend tables is so that staff can create a live, real-time
ledger of development potential to provide transparency for community members, property
owners, and potential developers. He added that staff would like time to meticulously research
the City’s records to get this table right to extend beyond the General Plan update process’ time
frame. He added that each entry will include a link to other records confirming the table’s
information.
Planning Manager Zdeba confirmed that the GPAC both inserted the Santa Ana Country Club
Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2025
7 of 8
into the Sphere of Influence discussion and encouraged removing the Randall Preserve from the
Sphere of Influence. He added that the removal of the current policy about nonconforming uses
on Old Newport Boulevard is intentional because staff sees it as a method of revitalizing the area,
noting that similar provisions exist in Corona del Mar and Balboa Village. He added that the
GPAC’s Land Use Subcommittee identified Old Newport Boulevard as an area needing attention.
In response to Chair Harris’ inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill confirmed that the
Commission is not making a motion on this item.
Chair Harris thanked staff and the GPAC for its painstaking work in updating the General Plan.
In response to Chair Harris’ inquiry, Planning Manager Zdeba stated that March of 2026 is a good
estimate of when the final drafts would return to the Commission. He added that all City boards,
commissions, and committees are going through the same process as the Planning Commission
with the draft elements related to their scope of work.
Chair Harris concluded the discussion.
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
Acting Community Development Director Murillo reported that there are no items for the two
December meetings, so the Commission’s next meeting will be in January of 2026.
Mr. Mosher reported on a previously unmentioned Airport Area Specific Plan being included on
the City Council’s upcoming Agenda and inquired about the status of the California Coastal
Commission appeal of the Balboa Fire Station and Library project site’s tree removal.
Acting Community Development Director Murillo reported that the California Coastal Commission
will hear the tree removal appeal on December 10th, and he will update the City schedules
accordingly based on the outcome. He reported that the Airport Area Specific Plan item before
the City Council is seeking approval of a contract with a consultant to start work.
ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES – None
IX. ADJOURNMENT – With no further business, Chair Harris adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2025
8 of 8
The agenda for the November 20, 2025, Planning Commission meeting was posted on
Thursday, November 13, 2025, at 5:34 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, November 13, 2025, at 5:14 p.m.
Tristan Harris, Chair
Jonathan Langford, Secretary
January 22, 2026, 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 NOVEMBER 20, 2025
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with corrections suggested in strikeout
underline format.
Page 1 of 8, Item III, Staff Present: “Acting Community Development Director Jaime Murillo,
Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, Principal Civil Engineer Kevin Riley,...”
Page 4 of 7, full paragraph 1, sentence 1: “Commissioner Rosene stated that the parking
variance is a significant sum and should be considered, noting that it would have amounted to
28 20 spaces in Mr. Krotts’ request.” [see video]
[Comment: In reviewing the video I noticed Commissioner Rosene’s careful and detailed oral
comments regarding the proposed update of the General Plan’s Land Use Element (during the
study session portion of the meeting) are fairly accurately recorded in the draft minutes, but
most of those were not effectively relayed back to the update committees for discussion at their
December 3, 2025, meeting. I will try to see that they are addressed at the possibly final
(January 21, 2026) meeting of those committees.]
Planning Commission - January 22, 2026 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of November 20, 2025