Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

One, two. Hey. Hey. One, two.

Oh, we're back. Oh, uh, apologies for the delay. Um, I will call the March 19th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order. Um, will everyone please stand and will Vice Chair Seline lead us in the pledge of allegiance? All right.

Staff, roll call, please. All commissioners are present with the exception of commissioners Langford and Elmore who are excused this evening. Thank you. Okay, public comments. This is the time we take public comments on items that are not on the agenda but are uh generally within the purview of the planning commission. If you wish to speak, please keep your comments to 3 minutes or less. Are there any public comments on non-aggenda items? Sir, you state your name for the record? I am Charles Schoff at 200082 Orchid Street. what I have to say is in is consistent with what we're talking about tonight.

Just one sec. Uh this is for non-aggenda items. What it's consistent with, but it's not on the agenda. Okay.

There's um we're going to talk tonight about a building on Bristol Street. There is another building on Bristol. It is 2424 Southeast Bristol. It was built around the same era that this one was. My recollection now, well, first of all, they have two driveways, one onto Bristol, one onto Spruce. My recollection is when this was built, there was a sign leaving the Spruce driveway that they had to turn right. They could not turn left into our neighborhood. And that sign seems to have been removed. And that appears to no longer take place. So, like I say, it's consistent with the traffic issue, but it won't be discussed tonight.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Non-aggenda. Thank you. Okay, moving on. The next item, request for continuences. Staff, are there any requests for continuences? Uh, good evening, chair. There are no requests for continuences today.

Thank you. Okay. Item number one, the minutes of March f 5th, 2026. Um, excuse me. Would anyone from the audience like to comment on the minutes from the March 5th, 2026 meeting? See none. Thank you. Okay. I will make a motion to approve. I Were there any comments on this one? Yes, Mr. Moer submitted written comments. So, we've reviewed them and we agree to the um edits he recommended. I'll make a motion to approve with the edited comments. Second vote.

The motion carries unanimously. Okay. Item number two, the 2350 Bristol Street driveway access. It's PA 20225-0112. Site location is 2350 Bristol Street. Staff, please proceed.

Good evening, Chair Harris and members of the commission. My name is Daniel Cop Chevber, assistant planner. Seems like we're having some technical difficulties. Got a vicinity map showing the subject's site. It's uh north of Zenith Avenue and south of Bristol Street. This is an area known as Sana Heights. It was annexed into the city in 2003. Some surrounding land uses are the adjacent commercial and a residential neighborhood of single family dwellings um to the south. The entitlement history for this building. Uh there's a use permit and site development permit approved by the Orange County um planning commission in in 1986. It was appealed to the board of supervisors August 1986 and then the board of supervisors approved with an option A and an option B site plan. Um the option A site plan had three parcels and then the option B had a configuration of four parcels. The eventual buildout was option B. So option B is shown here. Both options did have the concrete ballards that were movable for emergency access shown on the site plan. There was then a revised plan submitted in 1987 showing a sliding rot iron gate. Um but this was um strucken out with a large X and there's a handwritten note on this plan um having you refer to a controlled emergency access plan which was approved by the fire department in 1990. That's this plan. This is the most recent plan that was approved. And it's a little difficult to see. So, highlighted here is a heavy duty chain that is um to be locked and keyed for fire department access. There have been um code enforcement calls for um the project site having employees use this driveway. Um and code

enforcement has had four cases and there's been six site visits

starting in 2024. Um the applicant responded to the code enforcement case uh most recently by submitting a staff approval request. Um the applicant had four major points to justify the request. Those include that they interpret um this use of the driveway as already allowed by their use permit. They cited some traffic safety concerns. Um they cited that other nearby properties have two driveways and that uh delivery vehicles would be unable to use their Bristol Street entry. Um, so for their traffic safety concerns, there is a sign um offsite and um it is slightly obstructing view, but we've um gotten input from the city traffic engineer and he said that um inching forward you would be able to see around the sign and does not obstruct the view. However, um staff would be willing to work with the adjacent property owner to relocate that sign if possible. Um they also cited concerns from safety visibility uh perspective based on the um landscaping on this side which does appear low enough and it is on their property. So that would be their responsibility to maintain. One of the other con um justification statements they had was um based on nearby driveways um exiting onto residential streets. Now they they do have um exits on Spruce Avenue, but this intersection is a four-way stop sign. They also cited low vertical clearance where delivery vehicles will not be able to enter. Um an 8-ft clearance is not sufficient for some delivery vehicles, but some delivery vehicles can enter on this site. During the application process, um we issued an incomplete letter requesting additional information. um we wanted to try to arrive at a um application that would be able to allow delivery vehicles, but we needed an operational plan for use of that Zenith driveway. So, we asked, you know, how the community concerns would be addressed,

whether there would be a key card or code for the gate and um how many how many employees would be using that gate per day. The applicant um wanted to move forward with their application as is, and so we scheduled it for a hearing. Um, since the hearing has been scheduled, the applicant has um submitted a statement saying that this gate has been kept open for over 40 years. Um, there are um, street photos from Google and satellite images showing this one's 2015, 2017, and 2018. With that gate being closed, we we need need to make um several findings to approve a staff approval. These were some findings that um we found conflict with. So, uh changes should be consistent with the zoning code. There's an a circulation plan in the Santa Ana Heights area that specifically focuses on reducing residential traffic and traffic impacts from the business park uses to residential. that the changes do not involve features specifically addressed by the review authority. Um, which in this case in the entitlement history we saw in the on the plans that that area was specific for emergency access. Um, and also there's a condition of approval in their use permit. Condition of approval number 19. Um, that states that this is for an emergency access driveway. Um, we also need to find that there's no expansion or change in operational characteristics of the use and this would be considered a change because their original permit um allowed for emergency access of that driveway only. Uh, we're recommending conducting a public hearing and um denying the staff approval as as submitted. Available for any questions and I believe we have the applicant team here as well.

Thank you, Mr. Copcher. Um, commissioners, any questions for staff at this time? No. Okay. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation tonight? I believe we have exarty communications. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. One one just one minute. Uh, commissioners, any please report any exparty communication? None. None. None. None. None. Okay. And um do you have any approximate um kind of time you need tonight or uh roughly 10 to 12 minutes? Great. Is that fine? Thank you. Okay, great.

Uh good evening uh members of the planning commission. Uh my name is Chuck Kurrowski. I represent uh the applicant in this matter uh the owner of 2350 Southeast Bristol. Uh the property, as you may know, is improved with a multi-story, multi-tenant uh professional office building. Um it's been there for almost 40 years. Um we are here tonight to address an issue that has been ongoing. Uh well, not ongoing, but it has existed for 40 years. Um we submitted a letter yesterday in support of um our application and also in response to the staff report. Uh hopefully it's uh you've received that and it's going to be part of the permanent record. Can I confirm that it's going to be part of the record? The letter. Great. Thank you. Um I'd like to reiterate uh the letter says multiple times that we don't think we need to ask for this approval for this driveway. Uh it has operated in this fashion for years. Uh when this issue came up, uh discussions were had with staff. staff was at the position that we needed to submit an application for delivery vehicles and employee uses. We resisted, but ultimately we cooperated in that and tried to basically ask for permission as opposed to ask for forgiveness, which I'm sure you hear all the time. But um we're going through this process in good faith trying to figure out a way to make this property work and ultimately be safe. Um as you are aware um safety is I would say is the most important concern that we have in terms of land use planning approving projects and it should be the most important concern for the city. Uh by not allowing the Zena driveway to continue with its use uh you'll be putting residents, visitors and the

workforce in harm's way. Uh further uh as you likely know the rules and regulations when it comes to land use have to be crystal clear. If there's any ambiguity, if there's any uncertainty, they're generally held unconstitutionally vague. There has to be a clear defined path as to what was approved, what was not approved. Okay? And as I've sit here, I' I've read the staff report. I've looked at all the approvals, the the board of supervisors resolution, and there is not one single document that exists which says this driveway, we'll call it the zenith driveway, was identified for emergency access only. Not a single document which says that. And and this brings me to the first major point of the presentation is that this was approved by the county. The development, the project, the signoffs on the development, the issuance of the certificates of occupancy, those were all approved by the county before this property was ever annexed into the city. And when the county approved the project, which was based upon an appeal of their planning commission decision to approve the same, they made various findings in their resolution, which is attached to my letter. Uh part of the findings included that the project complied with all of the objectives and policies of the county's general plan and zoning designation, that the project um was consistent with the county zoning code, that the project would not create any unusual noise, traffic, or other conditions that would be objectionable to or detrimental for the permitted uses. and that the project would not result in any issues to public health, safety, and general welfare. That's

those are the findings the county made. Sitting here 40 years later, unfortunately, the city, whether it's your your your uh the planning commission or city council, you're not allowed to second guessess the county's findings with respect to why it approved the project in the beginning. um the county determined it was consistent with the land use regulations. One of the conditions in the county's approval, condition 19 in the resolution says that the applicant will submit details for a controlled emergency access. It doesn't say emergency access only anywhere. If the county wanted to specify this driveway for emergency access only, they could have conditioned it that way. They didn't. They didn't use those words. Now, because the county approved the project and because it it happened before it was annexed into the city, the city is not allowed to apply its regulations to the uses of the property. the specific plan, the city's zoning code have no application to the county's approval of the project. Um, in addition, once the project received a certificate of occupancy after it was built in 1987, it is presumed that all conditions were properly satisfied. That's what issuance of a COO is. All the ministerial acts that go into the conditions of approval for a project are melted into this the certificate occupancy the COO that was issued for the project. So there's two legal issues at play in this matter. One is vested rights. There's a case called Goatill Tavern. It's actually the one of the most famous

cases on use permits and vested rights in Orange County. Uh in that case a project was approved Goatill Tavern right on right in the Newport Coast Costa Mesa area and in that case they received approvals to operate in they relied upon those approvals to operate and they operated for a long period of time. Once those facts are established they have a vested right to continue with their operations. The second issue at play is legal nonconformity. To the extent the city believes now based upon its regulations, based upon its specific plan, based upon zoning code, that maybe it doesn't quite fit into what the city believes should happen with this driveway. Those don't apply because it was approved based upon the county at the time in 1986. But here's the most important reason why we're here tonight. It's for public safety. It's for safety of the residents, people driving down Bristol Street. And and here's where we have the issue. Bristol Street, as defined by the county in the resolution documents, is a high-speed, hightraic roadway that ultimately leads into the State Route 73. At the property itself, it narrows down from four lanes to two lanes. So, you have cars zooming down Bristol Street at pretty high speeds. The posted speed is 45, but based upon some traffic reports I've seen, there's been a lot of tickets and a lot of accidents in this area. Here's the rub. At the entrance to the property, there is an 8ft clearance. If you've seen the property, you come off a Bristol, you turn right into the property, within 13 ft from the back of the sidewalk to the clearance, there's an 8ft clearance. 13 feet is the entire space that a vehicle has. Okay. I provided information in my in my

letter about the size of trucks. Most delivery trucks now are 10 9 10 11 ft tall. They're 20 25 ft long. Any delivery truck that comes to this property. If they try to pull into the Bristol driveway, they're going to have to stop and queue right there. They're going to extend into the sidewalk, which means cars on Bristol are now going to be queuing. Other cars that want to enter into the property are going to have to queue on Bristol Street. As it's narrowing down from three and four lanes down to two lanes, there's going to be cars queuing on Bristol. Even more concerning is that if a delivery vehicle stops in the driveway on the Bristol driveway, cars exiting the property will not be able to see anything on Bristol. We talked about sight distance issues. There's fencing. There's a signage. There's a pole. Now, put a giant delivery vehicle right at the entrance. A car trying to leave that property is going to be looking at the side of a delivery vehicle and not down Bristol Street. This is unsafe. And what surprises me about this whole analysis is that the staff report mentions nothing about this. No report from a city staffer, a traffic engineer, a safety consultant, no one. Tonight's the very first time I heard, well, we talked to a traffic guy and they said something. It's kind of shocking that city staff would not include some type of analysis from an expert. Just go down the hallway and talk to an engineer. Is this driveway safe for delivery vehicles? Is it going to cause queuing on Bristol Street? Is it going to cause cause sight distance issues as you're trying to exit the property? I'm actually quite shocked. There was zero analysis in the staff report about the safety of this driveway.

So, because there's 13 ft of space between the sidewalk and the 8ft overhang, a delivery vehicle will not be able to turn around. which means a delivery vehicle if if they were to pull up on Bristol, they would stop, delivered whatever packages are going to deliver, then they'd have to back up onto Bristol Street. No mention of that in any of the staff documents. a a 13 20 a 13t tall 25- ft long delivery vehicle backing up on a Bristol street with cars going at 60 mph and narrowing down from three to two lanes right in front of the property. This is a recipe for disaster. It also impacts their employees. employees who are going to have to go in and out of the property with delivery vehicles there or delivery vehicles not there. Um it's much more convenient, much safer for the back driveway, the zenith driveway to be used not only for delivery vehicles but for the safety of the employees of the businesses who operate at the property. Uh, an example, one block away at 2424 Southeast Bristol, there's a building. I provided it in my letter and pictures. It has a driveway on Bristol, but it doesn't go into an 8ft overhang. It goes into an open parking lot. And guess what? That property has a second driveway on Spruce Street, right at the intersection of Spruth and Zenith. It is literally, it is less than 20 ft away from Zenith. to have a similar property with two driveways and that property a car could pull off a Bristol a delivery vehicle can pull from Bristol, turn around on the site and leave face out on Bristol and they have a second driveway

within close proximity to Zenith within close proximity to the residents who live in the area. And actually an issue that I I learned recently, actually today, reviewing some documents I received was that there's neighbors complaining about traffic. There might be there's additional traffic as a result of the Zenith driveway use. Well, just last year, a study was done for the Bay View area. And the city studied making spruce into a culde-sac and putting speed bumps on Zenith due to the 4,000 cars a day that use Zenith for the neighborhood and all the businesses and everyone everyone around there. And overwhelmingly the public said no. All the people that are complaining about the Zena driveway for the subject property said no, we don't want a culde-sac. We don't want speed bumps. So obviously their concern about traffic is not as important as it should be because they themselves said no we want this area to be open for cars to use. Now the development plans staff has made a point that well there were different application documents which showed ballards in the driveway. Those were removed when it was sent to the fire department for analysis and review. There were no more ballots ballards. They talked about putting a chain a chain gate, but at nowhere in those documents, and I'm going to re reiterate reiterate this again, does it say it's emergency access only. It doesn't say it. Now, I also received a few documents today about traffic reports. There are in the last year, there are dozens of traffic accidentants along Bristol Street. over a hundred speeding tickets or other types of tickets along Bristol Street in

this area. This area is a high-speed, high volume corridor that leads to the 73. Safety should be your number one concern regarding the uses of this property. Finally, to the extent um the planning commission moves forward with this with city staff's recommendation in my letter I identified that we would believe this would be a constitutional taking or an uncon I'm sorry unconstitutional taking of property uh property owners have access rights to the streets that they abut. This property abuts both zenith and it abuts Bristol. They were allowed to build two driveways in 1986 after the approvals from the county. They built two driveways. They've been using those driveways for these uses for a long time, which means you have to look at vested rights under the Goat Hill Tavern case. Again, we're trying to be proactive. We wanted to work with the city to come up with a solution. City staff actually supported deliveries. They were going to support deliveries without having to come to the planning commission. But we also applied for and requested that the driveway be used for employees only for their safety, for the safety of everyone driving in the area. And so we do request that the driveway be allow continue to be used for delivery vehicles and employees uh for the property. If you have any questions, I'm open to any questions if you have any.

Thank you. Uh, commissioners, any questions for the applicant at this time? Anyone? Okay, I have a couple. Um, Yep. Can you walk through um over the 40 years there's clearly been access not completely open. It's it's very obvious to go on Google Earth and Google Maps and see stuff over the years throughout the years the gate train link. There's other weird things that's hard to see. Can you walk through the access being totally open and not be open and not being open through the years and um give you any rebuttal to that or

Yes, there have been times when the owner or the previous owners of the property had the gate. They would close the gate at night. They would open it or they leave it closed. So there were times in the past when the previous owner or owners of the property would have a gate there that they would keep open and close it as well. So there were instances of that. Okay. Um were were there any other documents um or more definitive language in the original approvals other than you know the controlled emergency access. Is there anything that said, you know, occupants or tenants or uh users of this building get access freely?

Not not that I'm aware of. No, I I I I you know, as my presentation says, there's no there's no definitive language saying emergency access only, but there's also no definitive language that I've seen to date which says, you know, any vehicles can use the driveway. So it is a little I would say vague and ambiguous as as legal terms on a controlled emergency ice is what you're what you're saying correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Um I will open the public hearing. Does the uh Oh, excuse me. Uh we're already open. Does the audience want to comment on this item? Anyone from the audience? Okay, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Good evening. My name is Neil Metler. I'm a resident of the city of Newport Beach and also work at the subject property located at 2350 Bristol. My comments this evening are in support of staff approval to continue to allow employees and other delivery vehicles to use the existing driveway on Zenith. As you may be aware, Bristol Street, which parallels southbound 73, is one of the entrance points to the business and for many in the public, is also a place where they are testing the performance limits of their cars every day. People are routinely pulled over for speeding on this road and there are accidents. We can hear it from inside the building every day as they pass by at freeway speed. Unfortunately, pulling out onto Bristol Street creates a frogger style scenario, especially during peak traffic periods. It is also concerning when slowing down to pull into the business. Employees know they must signal early on and break well in advance to avoid getting rearended. This is one of the reasons why continued access on Zenith Avenue is critical to the safety of employees, guests, and delivery vehicles. I would like to address the written remarks of individuals against approval which were submitted for your consideration. Mr. Stuckheart, who voiced opposition to driveway access, lives on a dead-end street and is nowhere near the office. Mr. and Mrs. Salvo live on Southwest Cypress Street, which is west of Orchard and would not be impacted by access. Mr. Barson, who lives on Mesa Drive, is also far removed from the area. Mr. Moher lives 3 miles away off of Irvine Avenue past 23rd Street. So I'm unsure why he is involved in given his distance. And Mr. Cop lives on Bayiew Avenue to the southwest of the business and would head in the opposite direction on Zenith Avenue making a left instead of a right. To those who are worried about safety in the neighborhood, my question to them is, have you asked the city to conduct

traffic surveys of volume and average traffic speed? What are the findings to the staff? How many speeding tickets have been issued on Zenith Avenue or Orchid Orchid Street? How many accidents have been recorded in the 40-year period since access to Zenith has been issued? Even if the city were to restrict the driveway, it will not prevent traffic from this office or others nearby to turn onto Spruce Avenue, then right into Zenith Avenue down Orchid to reach Birch and Irvine Avenue. Restricting the business's access will not end the issue. If the neighbor's concern is with vehicles speeding, which can happen at all hours of the day, including weekends, why not request for the city to install long asphalt speed bumps, and let the business continue their access onto Zenith like it has for the past 40 years? Approval to use the driveway on Zenith Avenue by the business should continue. Thank you. I'd like to submit this for the record.

Thank you. Next speaker. Uh, Chair Harris, members of the planning commission, my name is Jim Moer and I am the resident who lives 3 miles away. Uh, I think the uh attorney and the tenants in in the building have raised what sound like valid safety concerns. I think the issue here is that the application is for a staff approval and a staff approval doesn't seem to be the correct kind of application for the relief that they want. Uh if it is eligible for a staff approval, it has to be something that was originally approved by the county or consistent with that. uh everybody agrees there seems to be some ambiguity as what controlled emergency access meant. But when we see plans that were reviewed by the people who were intimately connected to the planning approval and we find that they're rejecting plans that don't have proper emergency controlled access and indeed have ballards that have to be removed to allow that it's clearly not for free access. The attorney said that the definitive thing that is the county issued a certificate of occupancy. But was the certificate of occupancy? Somebody came and inspected it to see that it was properly set up. Is there any proof that at that time they inspected it and had a free driveway? I certainly don't think so because the plans don't seem to allow that. We we also heard an assertion that our current Newport Beach specific plan for Santa Anne Heights has no connection with what this county would have done. I would point out that the current

specific plan for Saint Anne Heights actually is the county's specific plan for Santana Heights. And as a condition of annexation, the city had to promise not to change the uh specific plan. And indeed if we want to make any change to it we have to get approval from the board of supervisors. So I think continues to be relevant. And then finally as to the recent uh trafficcoming discussion in Santa Heights I did attend those council meetings. And as I recall part of the reason for wanting to leave Spruce open was for emergency access so that uh uh fire and especially fire trucks and uh ambulances could get in and out through that street. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good evening, members of the planning commission. My name is Chris Len and I am an employee at Averick Law Firm, which is the subject property. And I'm speaking as someone who works at this property and sees how this property functions on a regular basis. I use this driveway. I use the Bristol driveway and the Zenith driveway. To me, this is about practicality, but more importantly, safety. As a practical matter, as an employee, if a vendor or another employee had been denied access through the Zenith driveway, then we're all being forced to be going through the main entrance and exit of Bristol. And I've personally seen traffic back up not only on Bristol but in our own driveway to exit. So when this access point is the access point of Zenith is removed, it only further congests the problem. And again, that's only part of the problem. As a practical matter, trash services, delivery vehicles, as was stated, still need to access and service the property. If Zenith isn't available for that kind of routine use, then those vehicles are pushed towards the Bristol side, which is simply not practical practical for a setup like this. Pushing all the daily traffic, delivery, services, and activity onto Bristol is not a practical solution, and it's definitely not a safer solution. Bristol is a high-speed, hightraic highway, as the city stated. If trash trucks or delivery vehicles have to stop, queue, or maneuver, or otherwise try to operate from the Bristol side, that creates obvious safety concerns for drivers, pedestrians, employees, vendors, and the public. Just go down there and you'll see it. So, from my perspective, allowing reasonable employee vendor ingress and egress

through the Zenith access is just common sense. It helps the property function in the way that it needs to function. It reduces pressure on Bristol and it improves overall flow of traffic in and out of the property. And it provides a second practical way in and out if there's ever a congestion accident or some other situation affecting Bristol. Think if there's an accident when there's three lanes traveling down to two in front of Bristol that impacts that driveway. We have no other way out if we can't leave through the Zenith driveway. A properly a property like this should not be forced to depend entirely on one congested highway point in the Bristol driveway when a second reasonable access point already exists on Zenith. For those reasons, I respectfully ask that the commission allow the continued practical use of the Zenith Zenith access point for employee vendor ingress and egress. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Again, I'm Charles Schaef. I live at 2082 Orchid Street and I have since 1982. When this building was built, it took three or four of my neighbors houses to be demolished. So I lost neighbors as a result of this. The 73 was not completed at that time. If I remember, it ended at Campus Irvine. Bristol was not three lanes narrowed down to two. It was only two lanes at that point. We received letters from the county

saying that that driveway onto Zenith would be for emergency only. I don't think I have the Santa Ana Heights newsletter that said so, but I do remember that that was the case. Ballards being installed implies that it would be emergency use only. The gate that has been there in the past few years has been opened, but for a number of years or off and on, it was either completely closed or with just a small gap for somebody to walk through. I have complained to the county and to the city off and on over the years about the unauthorized use of cars coming on to Bristol, coming on to Zenith. Now again, I'm only two houses away from this driveway. Um 2372, which is the next building down, has only one driveway. The lawyers comment that business adjacent businesses have too. That's not completely accurate. That ad that complex only has a driveway onto onto Spruce Street. Um, again, I mentioned that 2424 was supposed to be right turn only. I hope that somebody will look into that. The poor design of this building should not impact our neighborhood. I I think it's too small. There actually is a vacant lot just up the street from it. Let them purchase it and let it be used for additional parking. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Linda G and I live in Bay View Heights and this whole thing about the parking is all about they don't have enough parking spaces. The misuse of the emergency access point puts nearby residents at risk and creates hazardous traffic conditions on Zenith and Orchid. The two biggest tenants at this location are personal injury lawyer firms that support 15 attorneys and 71 support staff with the Newport Beach office acting as headquarters. The property has approximately 65 parking spaces. The gate was opened without authorization to accommodate their need for additional parking. The gate open causes unrestricted public access access to our residential neighborhood. Additionally, valet services on Thursday, as well as car detailing companies and food truck events, create congestion and safety hazards by obstructing the driveway and public right of way. Their Bristol Street driveway is not dangerous to exit. It is functionally the same as the Spruce Street exit at the stop sign. We all use it dozens of times a month. At both locations, you stop and wait to merge into traffic. The building has a driveway apron after the bushes at the Bristol exit that the applicant does not mention. And contrary to what the applicant said, there are no visibility issues seeing oncoming traffic if you're on the apron. What what just the same way as you're sitting at Spruce Street at the stop sign waiting, you can see perfectly. The applicant keeps mentioning that there is only one driveway and the office buildings have two driveways. Convenient. The applicant doesn't mention that the two office buildings next to location 2372 and 2382 Bristol also have only one driveway.

Delivery trucks should be prohibited from using the emergency gate as well. Major carriers like UPS, Amazon already utilize alternative delivery methods for high restricted height restricted buildings. They can employ small vehicles or park and c park and cart packages to location. New York City serves as a prime example where these procedures are utilized. The Santa Ana Heights annexation agreement and the intent of the AFCO was specifically se was was to specifically separate the residential neighborhood from the adjacent commercial professional office uses. Leaving the gate open does the opposite. Any modification must have county approval. Please ensure this gate remains locked and restriction to emergency use only. Please deny the request to access Zenith rear driveway. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker.

Good evening. My name is Mike Smith. I've lived in the neighborhood for uh 25 years now. Um when we first moved in, that gate was closed and over many years, I'll agree with the gentleman here behind me who just spoke that the gate has been closed um for many years. Then at times it's open for a length of time, then it's closed again, and then it's left open maybe, you know, 2 feet. But anyways, in the last couple of years, it's been left open all the time. Cars are coming and going all the time and exiting into the neighborhood. As far as the attorney's comments about not wanting the the neighborhood not wanting Zenith closed or speed bumps, um he is completely mistaken. This has been a very hot issue in our neighborhood. Staff knows it. City council knows it. Um so his comments are flatout wrong. He's uneducated on this issue because we live with it every day. I did submit a letter, an email to you guys along with uh some photos. Um, one's the In-N-Out truck, the other one's the autodetailing truck. So, uh, the last photo that I sent to you is when the In-N-Out trucks are in there, that's all the cars are parked along Zenith. So, it is affecting our neighborhood. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, speaker.

Good evening. My name is Ann Margaret Tediscoco and I'm an employee at Averick Law. Whenever I attempt to exit on Bristol, there are very few safe gaps and limited visibility due to cars traveling at high speeds. Also, drivers emerging from Route 73 frequently cross directly in front of me with little warning, creating a dangerous weaving conflict point in a very short distance. This overlap of high-speed traffic and aggressive lane changes significantly increases the risk of a of a collision. It's not just inconvenient, it is unsafe every time I use it. Being able to use the Zenith side allows me to merge onto Bristol more safely. In conclusion, I feel much safer when exiting the parking lot on the Zenith side. Thank you.

You speakers.

Hi there. My name is Liz Corsy, also an employee at Averick Law and have a few points to speak on. Um, we pointed out the concern for deliveries. Uh, we have many deliveries a day. We are a high volume office. I supervise the reception uh there. So, we're consistently being greeted and visited by our delivery truck drivers. Um and they have also just from chitchat they have also mentioned to us their concern for their own safety um when they are delivering uh off of Bristol versus off of Zenith. Part of my job uh is also to drop off mail each day. um and concern for my safety. Um because of concern of my safety, I choose to go the long way around using the Senith exit rather than using the Bristol uh street exit. Um and because I manage reception, we also have a second office location. Um, and the scenith access, uh, if I don't use the scenith access, it will force me to use the Bristol access driveway to go to our second location. Uh, again, putting my safety further at risk. And because I manage reception, we're consistently in communication with clients of ours and guests. Uh we have had clients that you know come and drop off pick up paperwork or have meetings, guests as well of our office. Uh we have heard feedback from clients in the past um that they've had to use the back access because they did not feel safe slowing down to use the Bristol Street access point. Um so much so that we've now um uh sometimes asked clients that ask us for directions on how to get there. Um they for some reason can't use

technology or don't have access to it to use maps on how to get to us. So we verbally tell uh tell them how to get there. Um, and we've taken it upon themselves to say there's also a back entrance off of Zenith Avenue that you can use um, if you don't feel safe using the Bristol access point. Um, thank you very much. Thank you. Speakers.

Good afternoon. My name is Miam Parman. I am the owner of the subject property and also the owner of Avoc Law Firm. Um, I purchased the building in 2018. Uh, not really thinking that I would occupy the whole building and maybe lease one of the floors. Uh, but thanks to my wonderful staff, we were able to grow. Uh so it's not that the whole staff occupies that building. Uh we have another office um that is on Mesa and Burge. So we have a lot of staff there as well. Uh but mainly I wanted to talk to you about what is really important to me. Uh number one, it's the safety of my staff. um I protect them. Um I am responsible for their safety really. And then of course the public and that's also very important to me. And uh the entrance and exit on Bristol to my building is not safe. Um I'm a resident of Newport Beach. I drive up Irvine Avenue, make a right on Bristol, and then I have to turn right from the Bristol Street onto onto my driveway to my building. I cannot tell you how many times I'm just about to get rear ended cuz you got to realize, okay, when you exit campus, start slowing down. But there are people exiting Jambburye. It's right where the building is.

Um, it's not safe. And using the back exit, you're exiting into a residential neighborhood. What do you think? We're driving 50 m an hour. No, we're not. Now, a lot of times when I go home going down Irvine Avenue, I exit that way. I feel safer than turning right and going down, making a right on Champiri. The traffic is horrible. Like you heard, we hear the accidents. We know what happens. Um it's just not safe. And I think that after this hearing, the city has been put on notice that that is a dangerous condition. and it's up to you to do something about it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers?

Good evening. I'm also an employee at Averick Law and I believe that our safety is more important than an argument over an entrance which is I understand it. We we share with the residents but we are careful drivers. We all have families. We come to work because we have families to feed. We we we are there 8 to 10 hours a day. And um the fact that we have to come in through Bristol where we do have to slow down to turn in, it's a scary thought. I've had instances where I'm driving in. I will put my drive my signal light to turn right into the driveway from the from the light. As soon as I pass the light on Birch, I'm already putting my signal light. And do you think that's respected? No, it's not. I've had people go around me, honk at me, flip me off because I'm trying to get to work. That is something that should be looked at instead of an entrance, which helps us get to work safely. And also it helps the business that we're in get the vendors through and out and also like big trucks that don't fit through the entrance through through Bristol. Um, I just want I would just really like for the the city of Newport Beach to see our point of view and what we're asking for, which is really just the safety of we people who we the people that work at a who just want to get to work safely and go home safely to our families.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. other speakers. Okay. Oh, okay. Good evening. Hello. I'm Crystal from Ava Law. For those of you that don't know, we're personal injury attorney firm. And so if you have an accident, we hope that that never happens, but we would be happy to help you. and they are experts on accidents. So, you can trust when they're saying that it's a safety hazard that it most definitely is. I work in the other location on Birch Street and I feel a lot safer when I'm exiting that direction rather than on Bristol. and it's very concerning when um all of the traffic is merging and speeding. So, I think it's very important to keep both entrances and exits open. Thank you.

Thank you.

I am Patricia. I also uh work at Aric Law and one thing I want to mention is that most of our clients they are injured and they come to visit the office they have some kind of injury and it's it's a hard thing to put them into that position to of entering that driveway and an accident might happen to them. Um, I just want to say that thank you. Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Ra Safy and I work at Averick Law as well. I work over on the Birch Street location. Um, and I do want to say that I do visit the main office on a nearly daily basis. Um, I do social media for the firm, so I'm filming often and working with it and everything like that. Um, I learned very quickly in my short 5 months at the firm to only go onto the Zenith driveway. I have learned the hard way over on the Bristol driveway that it's just not a good move for myself. Um, I've almost been rearended multiple times, knock on wood, nothing had happened. Um, I do think it's just very unsafe for a lot of us employees, but alo also just people out on the road in general, whether they're residents of the neighborhood or people that are commuting to their own other office locations. It's just not safe for traffic to be start stopping and starting over there since everyone moves very very quickly on that street. Um, a lot of the time it kind of does feel like an episode of Speed Racer or something like that cuz how fast everyone is going onto the freeway. Um, I do want to mention too, I do social media for the firm, so we get a lot of clients DMing us and sometimes giving us suggestions or maybe complaints. I do remember back in October when I first started looking through our DMs that I had gotten two complaints from our clients about feeling unsafe on that Bristol Street location. Um, so there is a problem as well too for our clients and them feeling safe when coming to their off our office. And mind you, we are a personal injury law firm. We want to be ensuring that our clients are feeling safe when they're coming to seek out help from us after a car accident, not being at risk for another one. So, it is really important that we do have both of those entrances and exits open available not only to us but also the public. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Sit Lolly Livingstone and I'm also an employee at Aval. I work at the Bristol location and I just want to make some like random points um to you guys. Um our garbage truck is also located by that exit. So for example, if the garbage truck were supposed to come, are they supposed to drag the garbage like trash can all the way across to the front of the Bristol um exit so that they can, you know, take it out properly? Um also, if they want to close the exit, what if there is a real emergency? Do we have to wait for somebody to come and open the door or like the gate um for them to be able to exit and come through? Um do we have to like have somebody standing there waiting for the garbage truck to come by? If there is an emergency, we have to find somebody who has the keys. Um stuff like that. And then also that Bristol entrance exit um I use it to enter to work. Um and it again I want to reiterate what everybody else is saying. Um everybody is driving at the 45, you know, speed limit. I have to slow down and again I also have to use my turn signal like way in advance to be able to enter that location and not you know get rear ended. Um and that's just basically all I want to say as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any last speakers? Okay. Close.

Hi. Um, my name is Monserat Sandovalin. I'm also an employee at Ava Law Firm. I've been working there for four years and the entrance on Bristol is very dangerous. But even if we close the back gate, that's not going to stop cars from going down the neighborhood because it's an open neighborhood. Um, every day that I leave work, I go down the Cenz exit because Bristol is very dangerous. Um, I feel like I'm going to get hit either on my left side or I'm going get rear ended when I go in. that exit I only um entrance I only use it to come inside to work. I don't go and I don't exit through there. Um same reason why because I fear for my own safety. Um I'm here because I'm scared that you guys are going to close the back gate and then I'm going to have to be forced to go through the front. And if I do that, I'm scared that I'm going to be in an accident. And I fear for my own safety, but I still don't believe that if we close the back gate, it's going to avoid more cars going through the neighborhood. Um, if the back gate does close, I will still go through the neighborhood going through that other street because there's a street right there that also leads to neighbor neighborhood. Sorry. But yeah, thank you.

Thank you. Um, okay.

Hello, my name is Reagan. I'm an employee in a law. Um, when I first started, I was told to probably use the back entrance because of how dangerous the first one is in the front. I was a Girl Scout for 13 years, so safety is always my first concern. My main concern is if the back entrance is locked, what do we do in an earthquake? Because that building is kind of raised up on the stilts. And I figure if a big earthquake happens, which we do live in Southern California, it's more likely to happen. It might collapse. If we have to go, are we going to go out onto Bristol Street? that main busy busy road with 400 miles an hour. It feels like sometimes that's my main concern. I also have a fear for the pedestrians that are walking by as we try to pull up into the sidewalk to main to kind of do the frogger thing to go out. So that's my main concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Elizabeth Yoast. I live in Newport Beach. I do not live in the neighborhood that they're speaking about, but I feel compelled to speak. I did not come here to speak tonight. One of the things that I have not heard anybody from the law firm address is the safety in the neighborhood itself. They're constantly talking about their safety. I drive on Bristol quite frequently because I go to the airport quite often and then come back from the airport. Yes, people speed. People speed all over here, honestly. Uh 70 m hour on Jamberee is not uncommon. 50 m hour on those ebikes is not uncommon either. I just really wanted you all to re-evaluate. I hear what they're saying and it's not necessarily the easiest, but El Polo Loco gets much longer lines than they're ever going to have going into their driveway and the people there are very concerned, I'm sure, when they're trying to be parked along Bristol. So, I just really, as I said, was not planning to speak up. But I want people to also understand that this is a neighborhood behind there and that neighborhood needs to be taken into consideration with people walking on that area. I see less people walking on Bristol than I see in a neighborhood. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Okay. Um, would the applicant want to issue a brief response at all? Are you good? Any other points? Terrify. Give me a chance. A brief response, please.

A brief response. Yes. Um, I think the the indication from the occupants, the employees at the property is that, you know, Bristol Street is a fast street. It no one can disagree with that. People are speeding down Bristol. It's two lanes. It leads right into the toll road. um delivery vehicles if they're trying to get into that property, it's going to impact every part of the turning movements of that driveway. If a vehicle is there, you can't exit safely. You can't there's going to be a giant truck right in your way. And so I think keeping both the driveways open uh for purposes of you know employees delivery vehicles it's important to the safe operations of this property. Um there's been no indication that anyone is speeding on uh Zenith or Spruce. There's not enough space. You turn off a Bristol onto Spruce, you've only got a couple hundred feet before you get to the intersection. When you turn from Spruce right onto Zenith, you've only got a couple hundred feet before you get to the driveway, there's not enough space to get going 30, 40, 50 miles an hour. This is a behind the property. It is residential. It's 25 miles an hour back there. Um the city's own report said that people typically the 85 percentile is around 32 miles an hour. And so people aren't speeding. There's been no evidence that people are speeding on Zenith. They're speeding on Spruce. Um, in fact, I've heard from several people from the business that residents of the neighborhood will use will take a shortcut through the property to get to

their residential property um through the property. So, um, keeping them open, um, I think that the, uh, indications in the approvals are are vague at best. Um, our position obviously is that it doesn't say only. So, it's not only uh but I think there is some concern there. Um there's been as as um the owner testified, she purchased property in 2018. As another uh resident testified, he's been there for 25 years. The gates's been open. It's been closed. It's varied. Um, so, uh, and I think the the point that someone made was pedestrians, uh, there is no real sidewalk in on the zenith side. It's more of a there's a there's a driveway and then it just leads to the street and it ends. Whereas on the Bristol side, there is a public sidewalk. And so, you have pedestrians as well who are having conflicts with vehicles coming in, coming out. And so I think all of those things should lead to the conclusion that the safe way to resolve this is to allow the continued use of the driveway as we've proposed. Uh and and ultimately, you know, staff was in support of the delivery vehicles and in fact, they were going to approve it without bringing it to you, but we think that it's necessary for both deliveries and employees uh to use the driveway uh for their safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, staff. Any comments for the record? You want to close the public hearing? Okay, I'll close public hearing.

Yes. Good evening, chair. Um, Hi, Memorial Community Development Director. So, um, with regards to traffic safety, I'll refer to our city traffic engineer, Kevin Riley, uh, and Yolanda somehow may have some closing comments regarding the legal aspects, but I did just want to clarify a few points. Um, there were some comments made about, you know, the property owner having invested land use, right? and non-conforming rights. I just want to clarify from the city standpoint, from staff, all we're trying to do is uphold the original approval from the county of Orange. The County of Orange approval and the approved set of plans that was included clearly show controlled access along the rear for emergency vehicles. Uh condition number three that's included in the county approval. And so, exhibit D of the applicant's letter actually includes the county approval. Uh condition number three specifically states that the application is approved as a precise plan for the location of the uses and structures shown on the approved plot plan. Any relocation, alteration or addition of any of the structures or use not specifically approved will nullify the approving action of this permit and any changes are prop if any changes are proposed regarding the location of any use for structures and a change plan shall be submitted. And so the change plan is what's equivalent to the city staff approval for approved projects. Uh initially when code enforcement, you know, notified the property owner, we were informed that there's difficulties with delivery vehicles accessing the site. And so we were open to possibly allowing for access for delivery vehicles and suggested they submit the application so that we consider it. Uh, as Danny mentioned in his presentation, we did ask for information so we could properly analyze whether or not there could be an appropriate management plan in place to allow for delivery vehicles. Um, however, the applicant, uh, desired to move forward with full access. And

so, uh, that is why we're recommending denial of the application. Um, and so let's see with that, I'll I'll refer to Kevin regarding the traffic safety issues. Uh, good evening, chair and members of the commission. My name is Kevin Riley. I'm the city traffic engineer. It's a great city. Uh it it is true that the the eastbound direction uh the oneway direction on Bristol is uh 45 miles per hour and also they don't benefit from the sign that the temporary red sign u to the west of the driver but that sign does not 100% impact their visibility. You can always inch forward and see the traffic coming from the west. And then also uh with any turning movement out of a driveway, um a right turn is the safest movement and that's the only turn that's offered. Uh you wait for a reasonable gap in traffic. So there there's many gaps in traffic on on that section of uh Bristol that um that increases the the safety of turning making a right turn out of that driveway. Um I I do agree that uh with the delivery vehicles uh with the with the clearance of height of 8 ft um it it could be problematic. Uh if a ve if a vehicle turns into that driveway um and they can't get through, they need to back out of the driveway. That that's a safety concern. I I agree with that. Um in most cases, probably FedEx uh most likely FedEx uh drivers and UPS drivers um you tend to get the same drivers. So it there they learned and this operation uh business has been here for a long time. So I would expect that that's not the case of uh uh many vehicles turning

into driveway that can't meet the clearance requirements. So my comments Thank you.

Good evening chair, members of the commission. Yolanda Summerh Hill with the city attorney's office. I did want to just speak on a couple of the um legal issues that Mr. Kolicowski raised um specifically with respect to references to Goat Hill Tamvern. So I think that's um a case that we're all somewhat familiar with. I actually worked in Costa Mesa so it is uh a little bit more near and dear to me. I think new uh Goatill town is completely in opposite to this case and the reason being is that when um that case was being considered what would end up happening is the um the planning commissioner of the city would grant temporary permits and so they'd let them go and operate for 6 months or one year or two years and then they'd say well we think we're going to revoke it because the neighbors are complaining. Um and then again the operator would go ahead and invest millions of dollars over a million dollars and then they'd you know look back and say well we think we're going to revoke it. So in this case this would not interfere with the operation of the law firm. You can see a whole audience of um employees that work for the law firm that are here today and so this in no way would affect their ability to um operate the law firm. um it's simply implementing or reinforcing a condition of approval that um in my mind and going to the the next piece which is whether it was unconstitutionally vague the condition I don't think it is I think you know many of you have experience in land use and when the plans lay out what the operational characteristics are going to be you don't need to um have additional conditions that say no back access um it was very clear that the ballards were there so that the back exit would only be um for emergency access. The fact that the word only was not in those conditions I don't think is um negates that and I think that the conditions that both Mr. um Mario Rio and Cop Sherber referenced do speak to um consistency with with the plan. So I don't think that we have an

unconstitutional vagueness. Um additionally uh we did hear that it would be a constitutional taking. I think that it goes and and comes into play with um the vested rights. It would not uh this is an economic interest and so again the business would not be taken away. They would still be able to operate. It would simply be um to make sure that the ingress and egress is out of the um permitted area which is along Bristol. I think one thing that has been lost, um, this last piece is not ne necessarily the legal piece, but, uh, there were pieces that the city did ask for to to kind of put together a more fully baked um, response on some of the traffic issues and stuff. We did hear Mr. Krillicowski mentioned that there was no, you know, reference whatsoever to the traffic pieces, but I think that there were some pieces that the city really needed in order to fully bake its uh staff report and the findings and so forth. And so I think without that piece, we really really weren't able to um to to fully consider and synthesize it. And so with that, that was the basis for the uh recommendation. So with that, I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, commissioners. Um, any comments, questions? Madam Chair, uh, this question's for I think Mr. Riley, but just to be clear, there was no traffic study conducted in connection with this application. Yeah, there was no formal traffic study conducted. Okay. And did the applicant request for a formal traffic study? No. Okay, thanks. to to confirm on that point. Typically, wouldn't a the city would require one if it was uh necessary for say a use or an intensity or something? That's typically why we'd have one.

That That's correct. Commissioner Rosie, I'd like to try to separate issues here. And so I heard some valid issues and I heard some issues about what this application actually is. And what this application is is not a it was never complete. There was never a complete application that would allow staff to move forward to really study this if we're talking about deliveries or whatever the case may be. So, it seems like there's something missing and I agree that there's something missing and that is there really isn't an application here. Um, and maybe that would be beneficial. And I don't know if that means this should be continued and give the applicant the opportunity to come forward with a with a full application for whatever they're really asking for. Seems like that starts to make sense. Um because what they're what we are being asked to do is strictly based on a change and that change would be whether or not this would be an operational entry or exit or not. Um having done this been in this business for 30 years this language is not vague in any way, shape or form. This says it's going to be emergency access. So, I'm surprised there's not a Nox lock on it or something to that effect. So, I'm quite questioning that. I feel like there's some there just a lot of pieces missing here. Um, and again, keeping these issues separate. This is the what we're being asked to look at as opposed to I heard a lot of question issues about safety and those sorts of things. I don't know that

that's actually relevant right here. Um, if a full application was made, maybe it would be and so separate issues. So, I'm going to now se and go into another question. There's an actual question here, I promise. Um, Mr. Riley, the Bristol has several businesses that have this or nearly the same condition. Um, this seems like kind of a cumulative issue. So, this I don't even know if I should be asking this because it's not part of the application. Um, but it seems cumulative about Bristol. Are there any plans for Bristol? Uh, it's there's a merge right here in this location where the the lanes are all coming together and there's also several businesses right there with the same condition. I'm just wondering if Bristol has any have any long-term plans, if the city has any long-term plans. If it's jurisdictional, is the offramp jurisdictional or just high level?

Uh, Commissioner uh Rosen, uh, I'm not uh familiar with any long-term plans for uh, Bristol as far as uh, any type of capital improvements.

Thanks, Um my comments in this again there's been I think a lot of information presented to us and some may be relevant and not relevant. I think their biggest argument the applicant's biggest argument is you is it vague as to whether or not there's there's access or not and I agree with both Commissioner Rosine and Miss Summer Hill. It it is not vague. Um, there's several plans in here that reference the emergency access plans and says that it has to be locked for fire department access, which is pretty clear. There's another one on attachment number two that talks about having um two fixed ballards, one removable ballard for emergency access. It that is very clear that it is for emergency access is not to be used, you know, by the public or for deliveries. I think some of the extra information that has been presented by a number of the speakers and the applicant um about safety concerns um or perceived safety concerns. I don't feel like that's necessarily part of um our decision or this application. It feels like you know that should have been something that was discovered during a due diligence process before you move you know your employees in there if you perceive that to be an issue. what what they're trying to do now is put that burden now on the residents across the street and that's not fair to to those residents because that wasn't part of the original application. So, I'm I'm inclined to agree with staff and um support the denial of the application.

Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chair,

um I think it's always tricky when we're trying to uh mix residential and commercial together. Um, I do agree with Commissioner Rosine that it seems like the application is not complete and so therefore the recommendation of denials until maybe something more complete comes along. But, um, I mean the the to me the driveway on Bristol is terrible. um and going into that 8-ft um parking structure, whatever. I I can absolutely understand that that that could be very dangerous and hazardous. And I would absolutely encourage the um moving forward with with a plan for deliveries and things like that. I don't, you know, I think I agree with all the commissioners that uh I think the county's opinion of the Zenith driveway being for emergencies only was is clear and should be continued. Um, but I think there should be some we we should start we should at least think about allowing for some uh deliveries or something to happen somewhere obviously probably there so that it is safer for the employees to leave and for other people to come in because it is it is a it is a difficult uh driveway. Um, but you know, uh, as we I think for the application, for what we're being asked to do tonight, I don't think that there's enough information to to go forward with not denying the application. So, that's kind of where I'm at. Um, similar sentiments as far as um, what we're we're tasked to review tonight is the original approval. I mean the um intent of the original plans are pretty clear and even the the you know the vague language perhaps the the uh exhibit is very clear and it actually has a heavy chain with a you know fire lock. So, um I don't know what I'm

missing there. If there was something additional that, you know, um um showed a different approval or or if you were coming in for a formal approval as as their uh uh the other commissioners said and bringing up, you know, um safety issues or other concerns that we could consider changing the entire permit, changing the access. I think that would be, you know, welcome. I think they're valid safety concerns. I think they're all legitimate. Um it's a you know that highway it really is what it is has turned into has changed a lot since uh what 82 or whatever their 76 whatever their original um time was when before the 73 was completed. Um but I do think that Zenith was meant to demarcate between commercial and residential. Those were originally houses. There's still one hanger on her two doors down. Um and I I don't think it was intended to um have traffic move through it. Um that being said, the the original design surely does not look safe and um I think there are issues. So I think there would be issues to consider if it was a um more of a a submitt for a plan change or something more thorough. So um I would I guess I'll make a motion to um I guess would it be approve the denial unfortunately? Um

unfortunate wording there, but deny the application.

Deny the application. Thank you. I second. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Excuse me. Okay, we'll take a two-minute break. Thank you. Series run off.

Okay, thank you. Um I before item number three, I will be recusing due to a um finan a conflict of a business partner with financial interest in this area being studied. And so I will be taking over. Uh so next item is item number three, Newport Place Plane Community Development Plan Amendment PA. Am I in the right place? Yeah. 2025 uh-0196 uh generally bounded by MacArthur Jamberee Burch and Bristol Street North. Staff, please proceed with your presentation. Excuse me. Thank you, Vice Chair Selene Ben Zadiva, acting deputy community development director. Uh happy to present this on behalf of Roslin Un uh who prepared the staff report for you this evening. Uh so just wanted to orient you to uh the Newport Place community. It is in the city's airport area. You'll see it generally uh represented by the red lines on the aerial photograph. was established in the early 1970s for business and office parks as well as industrial light industrial uses. Um, as you've probably seen over time, those uses have evolved into more professional office with also general service and supporting retail service uses with the ultimate introduction of housing through the 2006 comprehensive general plan and land use element update. Uh as part of a later effort um related to the fourth cycle housing element um in 2012 a residential overlay was established to allow residential units. You'll see the gray denoted on the on the map exhibit to the left. Um those are the overlay properties where residential is permitted in addition to the base uses. Um when it was established it required 30% of the units

proposed to be restricted to lower income households and to be clear that is very low and or low. Um and it was applicable to both for sale and rental housing. There was a prior amendment in recent years in 2023 the city lowered the minimum inclusionary housing requirement from 30% to 15% again for lower inome households for all housing projects. and that was deemed necessary to reduce a governmental constraint or impediment to housing production in alignment with the six cycle housing element. I just want to be clear that that effort did not study or contemplate for sale housing. Every uh financial analysis done was for rental product at that time. So the proposed amendment before you this evening uh it was actually initiated by city council late last year. uh staff has continually been studying inclusionary housing requirements as you can imagine uh you know inclusionary requirements can have a big financial impact and can make projects infeasible if it's not thoughtfully implemented. So city has been working with Kaiser Marston Associates uh to study inclusionary housing requirements and as part of that effort uh added on an addendum uh to study for sale housing in the airport area specifically to responsive to the city council's initiation. Um the findings of that report are basically a recommendation that the inclusionary housing requirement for lower-income households again for very low and or lowincome household limits um would be reduced from 15% to 6% for for sale housing projects only. So the rental uh component would remain at 15%. It is not affected by this proposed amendment. Um and staff would want to note that that particular change is seen as being in alignment with the current housing element, specifically policy action 4A, uh which affirmatively furthers fair housing by reducing again a governmental

constraint that has been identified as a potential impediment to housing production. Uh so today your your recommended action is to conduct a public hearing and then that you recommend city council approval of this proposed amendment because this is in the John Wayne Airport notification area. City staff does have to take it to the airport land use commission for consistency determination and we'll be looking to go to city council in May. That concludes the presentation. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh commissioners, any questions of staff? Go ahead. Um, I appreciate you kind of clarifying in the presentation um about the affordability level. Um, the original SER rate just had affordable and kind of, um, clarifying that it's for low income. And so, um, I just want to make sure that that is included in any of our approvals. But my um other question was in the inloop payment that the um the attachment the Kaiser Marson report also studied an inloop payment. Just wanted to make sure that is not as part of I guess the recommended staff approval for us to consider that that's not part of this. It's just the affordability requirement. No inloo payment is is included.

Commissioner Gazano, thank you for pointing that out. That's correct. No inloo payment is included in this recommendation. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. Did you have a question? Commissioner Z. Okay. I'm sorry. This is going to be redundant. Um, I did hear the word low income in the this this report. Thank you very much. But I'm I'm not certain that that means low versus very low versus moderate. Which classification are we talking about for this? because I don't know that it actually says that in here. Is that Can you help me with that? Or or is there a tiered classification schedule? I was just wondering usually that is something I would expect to see.

Yeah, that's a great question, Commissioner Rosine. Our understanding is low is encompassing low and very low. It is not including moderate, which you might see in the Kaiser Marsa analysis. There's a separate recommendation that's a little bit higher for moderate income. That's perfect. Thank you. That's exactly my question. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh commissioners, any exparte communications? None. None. None. None. Thank you. All right. I'll open the public hearing. Does anyone from the audience wish to comment on this issue? Mr. Moer.

Uh thank you, Vice Chair Seline. and members of the planning commission. Uh as those questions on handwritten page 15, exhibit A to the resolution, you're just seeing a very snippet of what you're being asked to approve and it is referring there to lower income households. And if you saw that, this is an amendment to a clause that is currently in the planned community text. If you actually saw the broader context of where this sentence is, what lower income is defined in a little part, the definitions are before this. And lower income is defined as it it it lists, you know, above, moderate, moderate, low, very low. And it defines lower income as low and very low. But my my my comment about this is not a developer but a member of the public reading this. I frequently come to the planning commission meetings and I follow at the zoning administrator meetings and our staff gets an application for a use permit for a business that wants to that they say they want to stay open till 6:00 or 7:00 and we say why not approve 10:00 to give them flexibility. And we It's not quite how negotiations I would think would usually go. You usually somebody offers to do something and you agree to something a little less. You don't offer more than they asked for. In this case, we have a letter from a developer who has a currently approved project approved by the planning commission with for sale product at 15%. It was approved and they say they would like 7 and 12%. Now they didn't say it's unfeasible to do 15. They said they would like 7 and 12 and now we're saying

6%. I I don't find the logic of doing that. And also as a member of the public, not a developer, we hear that having an inclusionary requirement as an impediment to the development of affordable housing. Uh to to me, I see that as an incentive. If there is no requirement, as a member of the public, I don't see any affordable housing being developed. If you don't have to do it, why would you do it? This seems like an area of the city close to the airport that would be one of the less desirable places. And don't mean to be bigoted, but you would think that the less desirable places is where you would have more opportunity or expectation of affordable housing. So I I don't really see how this advances our plan to have no requirement anywhere in the city for it. We're not going to meet our requirements if we do that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Okay. Um, does staff have any comments for the record? Uh, none, Vice Chair Selene. Thank you. Thank you. Close the public hearing and I'll bring this to the commission for discussion and action. Commissioners, comments, questions, thoughts? Please.

Yeah. Uh, so affordable housing and is something I think we're trying to accomplish. This is an area that we want to to try and focus on some of that. Uh I think what's happening here is the the loss of what effectively is one unit on this 67 units makes quite a bit of difference when you look at it from the perspective of how does this affect the developer and my understanding based on the uh Kaiser Marson document is that it's significant enough that that's where they came up with the 6% and that's on page 38. It makes sense to me. Um I think we should support this action tonight.

Uh thank you, Commissioner. Um my only I guess kind of proposed modification since this is not just for one specific application, it's for the entire airport area. And we do have the supporting document from Kaiser Marston that also analyzes not just the the low income but also analyzes moderate income that we should be uh including both uh affordability levels. So that if there is another site that is within the airport area that wants to provide up to 8% that's at a moderate level they would be able to do so since we're using the same document. This approval is not necessarily for just one specific site or application. And so usually I think you know what um Kushian Reine was referring to earlier is that you typically see in different cases you see different levels and you have different affordability levels that you can um kind of choose from and so that we should include that in the approval for the airport area that an applicant can choose to either do 8% at moderate or 6% at low which also means very low. And then I would just also make the recommendation that we clarify in um the the staff report and the the resolution that what affordab affordability levels we are approving that it's very clear. So I think a few of us had kind of similar misunderstanding.

Thank you Commissioner Reed. Sure. Uh just piggy piggybacking off of what Commissioner Gazano stated this more of a question for the city. I I agree with uh Commissioner Gazano's recommendations, but why did the city come in? How did the city come to the 6% conclusion versus the 8% moderate? Is there was there logic there or or are you really indifferent towards including both? Walk us through the thought process there.

Yeah. Um very good question. So I guess provide a little bit of background in terms of the original intent behind this residential overlay. As Ben mentioned, this was done as a way to reduce barriers to the development of lower income housing. This was a response to our fourth cycle housing element. Um the general plan in 2006 included the opportunities for housing development, but it included requirements that uh development needed to consist of at least 10 acres and develop their own plan community. To get around that barrier and to satisfy HCD's requirements um for our housing element, we created zoning. And this zoning is the residential overlay and it's basically an incentive for lower income housing to get around that 10acre requirement and zoning requirements. And so that was original intent. It was specifically to incentivize lower income housing. The analysis that Kaiser Marston prepared for us. That was originally prepared to evaluate the feasibility of an inclusionary housing ordinance citywide looking at the different focus areas. Uh and so that analysis looks at you know what is the financial feasibility of various percentages of inclusionary housing for rental and ownership units in the different focus areas in the airport area. We never really anticipated for sale housing would be um something that was desirable at the time. and we were getting a lot of applications for rental housing and so that for sale analysis wasn't included in the original Kaiser Marston study and so that's why we asked Kaiser Marston to amend their original study to look at the feasibility for sale housing and so in that analysis they're looking at okay what's feasible for low income and it was 6% what's feasible for moderate income it was 8% and then if the city were to ever adopt an inclusionary uh

housing fee or an inlue fee what that fee would be. And so the purpose of that study wasn't for this specific amendment, but we're just using that analysis to support what would be the appropriate percentage to lower that 15% for for sale housing too. And it's to 6%. And so that's why we focused on just that 6%. If that makes sense. Yep. Thank you. Nothing further in mind.

Um, Commissioner Kazaro, would you like to make a motion? Uh yes, I would make a motion to approve staff's recommendation with um a change to also include uh the moderate affordability level at 8%. And then to further clarify the 6% affordability requirement to clarify that it is for low and very low income. We have a second. A second. Call for a vote.

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you, Chairman Harris. Okay. Okay. Moving on to the next item. Item number four, tobacco retailer business and cigar lounge ordinance PA 20225-0171. And this is a city-wide concern. Staff, please proceed with your presentation. Thank you, Chair Harris. Uh Oscar Orosco here with the planning division presenting the tobacco retailer business and cigar lounge code amendments um known as PA2025-0171. Uh just to begin, I'd like to provide a little bit of background uh on the topic. So in recent years uh there has been some public safety concern over the uh use and sale of nitrous oxide and flavored tobacos in the city. Uh more specifically arrest in relation to uh nitrous oxide have seen a spike of over 700% from the year 2020 to 2024. And more recently uh in 2025 there's there was a total of 50 arrests with 22 arrests occurring uh at present day for the year of 2026. In addition there has been a rising in trend for uh tobacco use and flavored tobacco uh in students as well as um general community concern over the youth access to flavored tobacco and vaping products. More specifically, our police department has been quite involved and uh on the screen here are two examples of enforcement cases that the police department has been involved with. Um the specific locations are plug-andm smoke and sneakers as well as tobacco

and accessories which are both uh existing businesses that uh were located in Corona Delmare. Uh in the case of Plug- and Smoke and and sneakers, there was an arrest made for a employee that was uh ongoing sales of illegal uh substances. And in the case of tobacco and accessories uh business location, there was a seizure by the police department of over 450 pounds of uh illegal substances. With uh that background and the concern or rising concern over these items, the city council um in response to the concern uh took some action towards the end of last year, more specifically in September of 2025. They establish a temporary moratorum over the establishment of any new uh tobacco retailer businesses uh as well as the expansion or relocation of an existing or any existing tobacco retailer businesses. At that same uh public hearing, the council also initiated code amendments to create regulations over tobacco retailer businesses. And similarly that night uh the police department put forth a permanent ban on flavored tobacco and nitrous oxide. Uh subsequent to that original uh temporary moratorum that was established for 45 days in October of 2025, the council also uh moved to extend that temporary moratorium uh for an additional year uh which would conclude in September of 2026. This would allow staff uh additional time to prepare uh more uh solidified code amendments to address the concerns uh in a long term. So before we get into the proposed amendments, it's important to understand how the current zoning code um treats uh tobacco retailer businesses otherwise known as smoke shops. Uh the current code uh does not have a specific definition for them. Therefore, they fall into the category of general retail sales. And for general retail sales uh

within the zoning code, they're more or less permitted in all commercial zones uh with no specific standards over operational characteristics or distancing requirements to any sort of sensitive uses. Uh in addition uh and as part of the amendment, cigar lounges per the current code are prohibited uh identified as a smoking lounge within the definition of the zoning code. With that being said, the proposed amendments uh as a result and at the direction of the uh city council includes um amendments to title 20 as well as title 5. Um more specifically, the amendments would be to establish tobacco retailer business regulations in the form of amendments to title 5 and title 20. Um, the updates associated with title 20 are intended to address and update some of the definitions in the zoning code to introduce new language for definitions such as the tobacco retailer business definition as well as include new references in the land use categories which wouldn't necessarily change the general uh retail um component of the project in terms of uh where they would be allowed. In essence, it would create a footnote to any general retail land use that refers back to title 5, which is where the implementation of an establishment over a permit process is most applicable given that it really is a tool uh that could be used as part of the city's processes to ensure compliance for tobacco retailers and enforcement through the police department. The second part, as mentioned before, for the establishment of cigar lounge regulations is via title 20. So that too would amend some definitions to essentially remove cigar lounges from what is currently a smoking lounge and introduce a new definition for cigar lounges which establishes um that it's generally for premium cigars only and that is in line with the city council's uh original temporary moratorium that

established and uh provided an exemption for the sale of premium cigars over temporary or excuse me over tobacco retails. Um again both these uh code amendments um are generally intended with the goal in mind of establishing a comprehensive enforcable standard as well as uh to protect public safety and prevent access to the youth. So with that being said, what is a tobacco retailer business? With the introduction of the proposed code amendment, there is a new definition that didn't previously exist. So, a tobacco retailer business is a business that sells, offers for sale, distributes, furnishes, or otherwise exchanges a tobacco product, tobacco paraphernalia, or tobacco related items. Uh whether this be located within a physical business or a mobile setup or even delivery through an online platform. Notably, and as mentioned before, um there are some exclusions to this definition uh to really focus in on what it is that the council wanted to address. So, we've included uh an exclusion in the definition for grocery stores, convenience markets, hotels, and motel as well as cigar lounges and premium cigar sales. Uh this is really in line uh with the direction that the council initially provided to study the specific differences as well as um identify the that these are not necessarily the concerns that the council has been uh intending to address. really these are um more or less good operators that don't typically tend to see issues with the police department um and therefore are not necessarily um associated with the regulations that are being proposed. So just to be clear, the excluded excluded um land uses would not be considered a tobacco retailer. Now, if uh a proposed business um is identified as a tobacco retail business per the definition, they would be required to obtain a tobacco retailer

permit. And that ret tobacco retailer permit is a administrative permit that would be reviewed and issued by the chief of police. Um again, going back to it living in title 5 as being most appropriate as administrated by the police department. Um, in addition to um the requirement for a permit to initially open up a tobacco retailer business, there would also be an annual uh annual renewal requirement to ensure that the business is keeping up with all the regulations that are attached to the project or the specific business. Uh these are non-transferable and again require that the project uh or the business would comply with all uh new regulations as well as state and federal laws. Uh the map depicted here is identifying all of the zoning districts in which um generally general uh retail sales are allowed. So the current um zoning code. Now through the amendments that are being proposed, this wouldn't necessarily change uh in terms of locations that the zoning code continues to permit for tobacco retailer businesses. However, it would now require that any tobacco retail uh business that falls within the definition of one adhere to all of the separation requirements as well as the prohibitions associated with what they can sell. So, notably, a tobacco retailer business would need to comply with the following minimum separation requirements. They would need to be 1,000 ft away from another permitted tobacco retailer. They would need to be or they would need to provide a buffer of a minimum 500 feet from a public or private school, a park or playground, civic center, cultural site or religious institution. And lastly, they would also need to provide a buffer of excuse me 500 ft from any residential zoning district or a residential use. Some of the additional standards that I previously referenced as part of a tobacco retailer permit um include and I'll just go ahead and highlight a few

is the limitation on sales of the tobacco itself and tobacco products from the hours of 12 to 6 so that they are not being sold during that time as well as a reaffirmation of uh prohibition on nitrous oxide and flavored tobacco among others. um to once again address the concerns from uh the community as well as council. Now there are a few um existing uh tobacco retailers that are known by the city and I uh would like to also highlight that um both the previous uh existing enforcement cases that the police department um were highlighted earlier uh are now closed. Um, and this map was published right before one of the most recent closures. So, for example, number four there, tobacco and accessories, which is located in Coron Delmare, is also no longer operating. And what really leaves us down to the three that are known by the city um as existing conforming tobacco retailers, which would be affected by this tobacco retailer um ordinance. Now, the tobacco retailer ordinance itself includes a non-con like legal non-conforming establishment for those existing um businesses. So, what they would need to do is through the tobacco retailer permit is obtain a permit within 60 days of the ordinance going into effect uh once the council adopts the ordinance. They would need to maintain continuous operation and not cease to operate or else they would lose their non-conforming rights. In addition, they would not be able to transfer the specific uh business to a different or a new owner or else they would lose their non-conforming rights. And again, they would have to be in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws in order to continue to operate as a legal non-conforming business. And with that being said, I'll move over to cigar lounges and the amendments associated with cigar lounges. So, as uh

previously stated, the cigar lounge uh land use itself is currently listed as a uh prohibited use given it falls under the category of smoking lounges. And as previously mentioned, the city council through the actions by the temporary moratorium and establishing that um premium cigars are not or do not fall within a tobacco retailer business um have made a clear distinction over uh a cigar lounge which would generally be serving premium cigars. In addition, the police department um has no concern over establishment of cigar lounges as they are not ones that they anticipate to have issues that have risen up in the past. Um we staff has also over the past couple years received uh several inquiries over establishing of cigar lounges throughout the city and staff feels that it's an appropriate time to assess and identify where these can go as part of this uh effort to address the tobacco related concerns. In addition, state law does allow cigar lounges under very specific conditions and this in in effect uh would provide a controlled limited pathway for cigar only establishments. Now staff has identified two uh zoning districts in which uh cigar lounges could be uh opened. Specifically, these two are identified as the office airport area uh generally in the airport area as well as the regional commercial office uh zoning district which is generally in the fashion island district. Uh both of these areas have been uh identified as adequate for cigar lounges primarily due to the commercial uh type uses in the area which include a mix of uses um that are unrelated to a more sensitive land use. In addition to the addition of cigar lounges at these locations, they would also need to comply with very specific standards in order to operate. First of them being that any patrons would need to be over the age of 21. They would also need to provide and install fire sprinklers as well as adequate

ventilation. They would continue continue to need to comply with state law. They would not be allowed to operate with a sale of alcohol. And uh similar to the tobacco retailer permit, they would not or excuse me, they would have to provide a minimum buffer of 1,000 ft between established cigar lounges um to ensure there is no overconentration of a cigar lounge. Uh with that being said, staff has one proposed uh revision to the definition of a tobacco retailer business and that is just to include the word hotel and motel for definitions uh given that they were inadvertently omitted from the final draft of this uh report. However, they were always intended to be in there. With that being said, staff recommends conducting a public hearing, finding this project exempt from SQUA and adopting the resolution number 2026-00009 recommending city council approval of the tobacco retailer business and cigar lounge code amendments as revised by staff. This concludes my presentation. I am available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rosco. Um, commissioners, any questions for staff? Mr. Rosine.

Um, what's interesting to me about this is the the non-conforming part about it and that also the the uses that are excluded. And so the one that stands out is convenience store. And if I recall correctly, Hanners when we approved it was a convenience store and that's how we approved it. I'm wondering to they it looks like they now have a tobacco retailer license. Um how do you draw the line between a convenience store and a a tobacco retailer? And because I think that Tanners is one of those places that sort of feels like it's both.

It's in the It's in McFaden Square.

I'll take that one, Commissioner Rosine. Uh so we don't believe Tanner's Tobacco is actually a convenience store by definition. Um and it just to clarify they do not currently have a tobacco retailer permit. That is something that would be created through this amendment itself. So there is no such permit today. Um this amendment would create that permit and they would have to obtain one to operate. Okay. So that makes sense. And then the next piece of that would be that the there's another one right down the way, peace of mind, which looks like it's clearly within 1,000 ft of the other the two. Those two become nonconforming legal uses because they're existing and they can continue to operate as long as they go and get their permit. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay. I I still think that the the exclusion of convenience store seems like something that if there are bad players that one starts to feel unusual. I I leave it up to staff to kind of take a look at that to see what they how they feel about that. Or or Wendy Joe, is it working? Wendy Joe, uh, civilian investigator for for the police department. I think for a convenience store, most of those convenience stores also have ABC licenses. So those are omitted because they're already governed by that ABC license. This is for more of the smoke shops that don't sell alcohol or are not governed by any other license.

Okay, so an ABC license what is what is the trigger and that would make sense for Tanner. I don't believe they sell alcohol there, but they did have an entire wall of beach supplies and stuff like that. So in my head that's a convenience store. Yeah. recently when I went into TARS they so that was their application was to try to um obtain an ABC license. Um but so recently when I just went in there for an inspection they did have one small fridge of sodas um but that was all.

Okay. I I guess my question is the if it's alcohol and that's it or should we clarify that in this or does it not ne is that not necessary it's clarified within the ordinance it is. Yeah. Okay. That's all I needed to know. Thank you. And that's and that explains the difference too. So thank you very much. Commissioner. Yeah. I had similar question on the grandfather rights. So if if there's an existing um business that is selling tobacco, they now have to get a permit in order to sell tobacco. Is that correct?

That's correct. So any existing operator that would fall into the newly created definition would need to obtain that uh tobacco retailer permit.

But then if that business also sells alcohol, they do not have to get this permit. Uh that's correct. So within the tobacco retailer permit uh there's an exclusion for alcohol sales both accessory and and um and uh both accessory and alcohol sales offsale. And the intention going back to what Wendy uh previously mentioned is that through an alcohol license there is more means and mechanisms of enforcement um to ensure that those convenience markets that may be selling alcohol uh come into compliance should they be identified to to not follow the the specific limitations over what they can sell. And then some of those items I think that were I guess you know prohibited with the tobacco retailer permit call like the flavored tobacco. You can't get it at a tobacco store any longer whether it's existing or a new one. But if they sell alcohol then you can sell flavored tobacco there.

Not necessarily. We um to just to to respond to that. So, uh, back in September 2025, uh, the police department proposed a ordinance to, uh, ban or prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco and nitrous oxide regardless anywhere in the city. Correct. Citywide.

Hi. Uh, so flavor tobacco is actually a state law. The reason why we uh created the ordinance was to just have more local controls. Um the issue with if you sell flavored tobacco or tobacco of any nature to a minor, that's an easy u violation of the penal code. If you sell uh flavored tobacco to an adult, it's more of an administrative violation governed by the California Department of Public Health. And so we wanted to create that ordinance so that we had more local control and could um create more of an enforcement standard for the city. Last question. Oh, sorry.

The age restriction to 21 years of age, isn't isn't tobacco 18 years of age and can we change that to I mean, are we allowed to do that? Isn't that an 18year-old requirement in California? I can speak to it for smoking lounges. It's actually 21. Um it would be the same while we're not governing say hashishu. Um it would be the same for that. So for example, even to sell uh flavor tobacco that is more of the hashish. Um is that what I'm calling? Is that correct?

I get the name of that confused. But the one smoked. Okay. Um, so you have to be 21 to actually even walk into a tobacco establishment um that sells that even though it's not necessarily listed under the flavored tobacco ban. So therefore, you have to be 21 to walk into a smoking lounge. Got it. 18 to go to a convenience store and buy it. Yes. Got it. Yeah. I think the delineation is a lounge versus say like at a convenience store a pack of cigarettes you can be 18 but a lounge can kind of Sorry, please elaborate.

I was just going to add Google just told me um I didn't know this but that the legal age to purchase and possess tobacco products in California is 21. It's now 21. Oh wow. Yeah. Okay. Never. Well, don't try to buy some type of cakes of your teeth. Um, and then just to clarify on the um ABC, if you open a community store, you're regulated by ABC. Does that also take in account your tobacco sales, your other other types of sales, or are they just regulating? Um,

no. So, ABC requires, for example, um, like you can't sell drug paraphernelia in an ABC store. So if you walk into a convenience store and you see um you know those little glass pipes that have roses in them um technically those are illegal. So their ABC license could be pulled for p for selling things such as those. Um so ABC has the mechanisms already within their licensing um you know for those violations and for that enforcement. But if you're just a smoke shop that does not sell any um alcoholic beverages, then there's there's no mechanism for enforcement. So that's what we're trying to um bridge that gap with this.

Thank you for that explanation. Vice Chair, did you have another question? Just a quick question. Staff, um is there a discretionary component at all to the retailer permit for the non for the three non-conforming folks or is it just to so they're providing information so they're in a registry of some sort? So when they go in and apply for that application, uh the police department would review the application and ensure that they have no uh prior history of violations uh at the local, state, and federal level, which would be the uh essentially the purpose of the review to ensure that they comply before they get a permit being issued.

Thank you. So as long as they've complied and they've been, you know, good actors, they get the permit, they're down. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, last one. Will the legal non-conforming users be notified? That'd be a bummer. Certainly. So, uh, prior to going to council, uh, staff would notify all of the known retailers, um, within the staff's record. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Okay. Uh, commissioners, any exparte communication? None. And

um I did speak with a um u representative of a potential um tobacco in uh retailer owner. None.

Okay. I will open the public hearing. Does anyone from the audience want to comment on this item? Motion. Uh Chair Harris, members of the commission, my name again is Jim Moer. Uh I apologize for not having found time before your deadline yesterday to put these comments in writing. But uh reading this today, I have these comments on handwritten page 24. The proposed at the bottom of that page, the proposed section 55515 requirements for operation. Part A of that, the permit requirement. It says that you essentially everybody needs a permit who engages in tobacco retailing. And the term tobacco retailing I do not believe is exactly technically defined anywhere. So probably it needs a definition. On the following page, handwritten page 25, the location requirements. The third of those is a little unclear to me what it means. uh they have to be at least 500 ft from the boundary of any residential zoning district or residential use. Residential use means any resident and residential zoning districts. This is not in title 20. in title five is a mixeduse district residential because it has residences possibly in it. And even more confusing, within the last two years, we've introduced all of these housing overlay districts. So, every housing opportunity site is potentially a residential district. So you have to stay 500 feet away from every housing opportunity

site. What does this mean exactly? We saw a map of all the retail locations when the planning commission was discussed and the council restrictions on tattoo services. There was a map showing just where that there actually when you applied all these restrictions there were some locations left. I think it would be helpful to have a map showing if there are any locations actually left after you apply all these restrictions. And then as to the non-conforming ones that want to get a permit, section E5, one of the requirements is that the existing business has no recorded violations. Is that forever in the past? And is that any kind of violation, plumbing violation, uh, misparked car, uh, any kind of code enforcement action, it it seems extremely broad. And then as to the definition, which is in title 20 and is on handwritten page 32, uh if we're really talking about smoke shops, I think the fundamental idea is that they are primarily selling tobacco products. And this definition kind of doesn't go there. It it says anybody selling tobacco or even a tobaccore related item. And when the moratorum came up, I I pointed out, I think maybe staff saw that or not, a tobacco related item might be like a drugstore selling a nicotine patch. And so they under this definition, they're not excluded. There's no exclusion here for drugstores. Uh the definition is so broad that they would be a tobacco retailer business and have to get the permit as I read it.

So I would suggest maybe actually defining smoke shop if that's what we're trying to define and the key element being that the primary business is selling tobacco. Thank you. Thank you. Other speakers. Okay. Uh staff, any comments?

No comments. Thank you. Okay. Um, all right. I'll close public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion action. Um, any comments? Motion. Second. Vice Chair. I'm sorry. Uh, I think Mr. Moser's comment is is pretty valid on the non-conforming use exception with on E5 no recorded violations. I mean, is it possible to maybe tighten that up a little bit to know relevant or something? Absolutely. I mean, between now and city council, we definitely tighten up the ordinance and and take value all of those comments and including the commission. So, we can absolutely look at that. Thank you. Sim similar with the residential I think. Yeah. Thanks.

Anyone else? Commissioners motion way. I'll I'll make a motion to approve. and have staff make any changes they feel necessary prior to going to the council. I'll second call for a vote.

The motion carries unanimously.

Okay, moving on to the next item. Item number five, study session of the Newport Beach 2050 general plan update. It's PA 2022-080. It's a city-wide consideration. Um, this is a study session to give us a progress report on the general plan update and to familiarize ourselves with the refreshed elements which will tentatively be coming back to the commission next month for consideration. The commission will not be taking an action tonight, but we may be providing direction to staff and we will take public comments. Staff, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Zabita. Uh good evening again commissioners. Uh two long meetings in a row and I go last again. So I guess we'll make this a thing and I'll try to breeze through this. I do have uh several slides to get through. Uh so I just want to provide a study session overview on the general plan update. This came to you all in September and October uh for introduction of the land use element, the safety element. Um the entire general plan update will be coming to you all um at your April 23rd meeting for consideration. So this is really serving as a primer on what's coming before you. So I'm going to go and start with just a quick refresher on what our general plan is. Last comprehensively update in 2006. The structure is 10 elements, seven of which cover things that are required by state law. Um we did uh start a comprehensive update in 2019 but we had to shift focus to housing due to the higher arena requirement and making sure that we are adequately addressing that and getting it done in time for the state mandate. With that done we shifted back to focus on the remaining elements. Uh the benefit of doing a housing element in unison with a comprehensive update is we're able to look at all the other elements uh to true them up essentially to the housing element projections and making sure that we are creating a document that scales with the city's growth or contraction over the years. Uh

you'll see here a quick little wheel diagram showing the elements that were reviewed through this comprehensive update. Again, you'll note that housing and circulation uh are not part of this comprehensive review and update. I want to highlight that this effort was led by community members. Uh there was the uh general plan update steering committee chaired by former mayor Nancy Gardner and the general plan advisory committee uh chaired by Jeremy Evans and Arlene Greer. Um together those two committees composed about 27 members of the community who provided a cross-section and provided guidance on the up elements being updated along the way. Um I do want to note that both those committees concluded their efforts and were sunset by the city council early this year in February. Uh that is after 104 meetings of those bodies including any subcommittee meetings. So they did meet uh quite a significant amount of times. Uh we took a phased approach to the general plan update. We are toward the end of phase three entering phase four which is hearings. Um, as you'll see throughout the way, we've had community engagement and outreach trying to get the word out about the general plan update. Um, it's not always the most interesting topic for many, so we don't get a ton of participation, but we do get comments about things that people are passionate about. We've tried to capture that with the update. Uh, so again, trying to get the word out. Uh, the biggest number here is reach. Uh the city used the city's manager's newsletter, Stew news, daily pilot trying to get advertisement and word out to the community that a journal plan update is being uh embarked upon and you'll see we did pop-up events where we had people come provide feedback on things they love. We had an interactive map, people put pens on things they loved or things they hate throughout the city. Uh phase two community outreach again we dove a little deeper went into ideas that support uh the vision for the city moving into the future and again would highlight that a significant amount of residents were reached uh to try to raise awareness. Phase three again

continued to dive deeper into the actual goals and policies and draft elements and again tried to reach as many individuals as possible. And at this point we had a number of people lean in and collectively between the city's boards, commissions and committees and members of the community we had 130 unique comments received. Uh phase four that's the review public hearings. So I know talk has been had about uh you know this process and how it has transpired. Uh this is really important to point out that we have taken the various elements to various city boards, commissions and committees for input along the way uh and have gone back for formal recommendations of city council adoption. So you'll see here um we've gone to four of those boards, commissions or committees and have received um fairly unanimous recommended council adoption on those elements. I'll note that uh you all reviewed again land use and safety and your uh formal recommendation on that is pending as part of the entire review coming April 23rd. Um we are still going to water quality coastal tidelands that's actually April 2nd. Uh so we'll be looking forward to bringing that to them uh to hopefully get support as well. So I'm going to fly through the general plan elements and components. Uh the general plan starts with a vision statement and the horizon year we look at here is 2050. So the question becomes what does Newport Beach look like to you in 2050? Became very evident that Newport Beach is already an exceptional city. So how do we maintain that exceptional city? Uh with all the changes and things that can come at us in the future, how do we make sound decisions? So we included guiding values to help with those decision-m all of that is part of the restructuring of the vision statement and that uh trickles into all the different elements in the general plan. Arts and culture element very important to Newport Beach but not a required element. Just a couple things to highlight. I'm not going to read through all these, but I think um through the public engagement process, we found that music was important. Culinary arts were important and those

are not included in the current element today. So things that are added as well as new technology, historical resources element, another one that's not required um and it's largely implemented by SQUA. Uh we're really looking to celebrate the city's historical resources. And I think something that's interesting here is considering a legacy business program. Things like the Baba Ferryy for example, long-standing business that's really shaped the fabric of the community. How do we highlight and celebrate and protect those uses? Harbor Beaches. Uh again, not required but very unique and important to Newport Beach. This one I like to highlight that u beaches was actually added to the name. Today the element is harbor and bay. uh the general plan advisory committee and the steering committee felt like adding beaches is really important to provide emphasis on the city's beaches as an asset something that needs to be celebrated and protected. So here you have um integrated coastal access and emphasizing the economic strength and vitality of not only the harbor but the beach recreation element does contain some required parts from state law. Um, one new legislative piece that's addressed is SP 1425 where we have to look at um, open space access for all and co- benefits, which basically means you can have uh, open space that is not only a um, wildlife connectivity area, but it serves as a buffer from uh, pollutants as well as maybe fire hazard areas. Making sure that um, all of the adequate buffers are provided. Again, part of SP1 1425. Uh this looks at creating new innovative park spaces uh that serve the growing community. As you know, it's hard to find vacant land. So, how do you pivot and create green open space say in the airport area? Maybe you can do that on a rooftop. Who knows? There's some integrated um innovative um thought thought leadership in this recreation element that's intended to provoke those thoughts. Uh natural resources element

covers again some state law components. uh sea level rise plan is required as uh the one of the main highlights. So that is included in the natural resources element in terms of um what should be considered when the city does embark on the sea level rise plan. Um and then just raising awareness of clean energy and alternative energy sources. One thing I want to highlight here that came out through the community process and the general plan advisory committee is moving away from focusing on electricity. Um, you know, the state is really heavy on electrification, but the general plan advisory committee had the foresight to say, well, maybe electrification's not the rage in a few years. Maybe we want to look at just alternate energy sources in general. So, I think that's pretty neat to look at here. Uh, noise element. This is a stamp statemandated element. I'll note that this was recently updated in 2023 as part of the housing ele implementation. So this one did not get as much attention as the rest of the elements, but there was a refresh and an overhaul to update the roadway noise measurements and the modeling therein uh to project into the future. And then there's a renewed emphasis on construction noise as being one of the biggest issues in the city and how can we um implement some best management practices for construction to limit those noises and just planning for emerging technologies like drones, advanced air mobility vehicles, things like that. safety element. Again, statemandated. One of the hot topics with this one is evacuation routes. I mean, we started doing this during uh the Palisades fire happened while we were preparing the safety element. So, the GPAC and the safety subcommittee became very passionate about evacuation routes. How do you get off the peninsula if there's an emergency? There's really only one way. Uh so, talking about, you know, scooters, boats, things that are alternative to cars, how do you get off the peninsula? That was a really interesting topic. uh land use element. You got again a primer on this at an earlier meeting. Uh but we've really streamlined how the land use element operates in terms of

walking through the various uh land use controls in the city. It's a very complicated city in terms of development pattern. So we've reformatted it and restructured it to make everything go in sequence. Um and I think one of the things I'll highlight here is again staff administered updates to the development table for transparency sake. Um, I'll just note that that is not done in the draft that you have with you today. That is still in preparation. It'll be prepared uh for your consideration at your April 23rd meeting. Uh the last component is the implementation program. This is not required uh but cities are required to investigate practical means of implementing all the policies. Um I like to highlight this one because our current implementation program is clunky. It's hard to use. Uh this proposed implementation program includes a crosswalk that's like a checklist for staff. It's a checklist for the community to go through and understand who's responsible for administering which policy and what the timeline is. That's something we don't have very clear today in the implementation program. So we're excited at this new format. This is my last slide, I promise. Uh online general plan. This is what the format is going to look like. I just want to show a recording to show you that there is a vision that's pretty neat. Um, this is fully searchable. You can search a keyword. This would be what the community, what staff, um, what electeds would use to, um, you know, search different terms when they're evaluating a project. Uh, this is much and far improved from what we have today. That's a static PDF document. Uh, but to be sure, there is intended to be a button that you could click and you'd create a full-on printable version to make it very easy for someone to go through that's not as computer savvy. Uh so with that, uh we're looking for you to discuss, provide any direction you have to city staff at this time. I provided some prompts that will hopefully get your brain moving at this later point of the evening. Um and we're looking to come back for a public

hearing April 23rd, a study session at city council on the 28th, similar to what we're doing today. And I will note that I actually ran over here from the airport land use commission meeting where I had a seat next to Mr. Moer actually. Um and we brought the general plan update there for consistency determination and ALOUC did determine that this is inconsistent with the airport environments land use plan because of the noise contours that were recently updated being perpetuated and carried forward. So city uh council will now look to do a notice of intent to override and the public hearing to finally adopt the entire general plan update is planned for June 23rd. Thanks for bearing with me. That concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Okay. Uh, commissioners, any start of discussion or questions for staff questions right now? Um, um, on the land use, you know, in the land use, I thought it was, you know, it's very interesting. We're trying, you know, one of the first goals is to contain density in some type. And I know, you know, it's kind of like that tug and pull or that tug and pull with um with Reena and and housing overlays. And anyway, it's just interesting to see how this evolves. Um I think resolving or or regulating some of the anomaly areas. I'm interested to see how that shakes out. Um I mean all the goals on cohesion continuing oil gas I mean um um I want to comment on Mr. Moers too if we can I think we talked about there's going to be um uh pretty definitive charts showing changes from existing code and what their actual implemented changes are.

Yeah. No, I appreciate you bringing that up, Chair Harris. Uh I know that last time I provided a very illeible table so I did not forget Commissioner Rosine. Um at the April 23rd meeting uh the intent is to have as part of the SQA document a table that shows revised policies, new policies, omitted policies for the entire general plan that provides a walkthrough for environmental clearance. So we have to do that anyway. We'll provide it in a very clear and easy format to read.

Okay. Um, open public comment. Um, does anyone from the audits wish to speak? Mr. Moer, uh, Chair Harris, members of the commission, it is getting late, so I will be very brief. First, uh, one of the earlier slides mentioned the process and it highlighted the 24 member GPAC that had provided input to staff on this. I I just think it's important not to lose track of the fact that GPAC actually started with 28 members and the council cut it down to 24 at the end. And I think we should honor and recognize all the people who participated in the GPAC which started as 28 and not just acknowledge the 24 that survived at the end. And the other comment I wanted to make is about which kind of here in writing you may or may not understand it. Two other things in addition to the implementation plan are not mentioned or linked to from what you're seeing here. One of there's an introduction document and that is important because I believe it's going to contain in it some kind of a disclaimer about how the general plan should be interpreted. um saying kind of that it's an aspirational document. The goals are aspirations rather than commitments and the policies may not turn out to be quite enforced the way they seem to be. So that statement is probably important for you to review. I think that's in the introduction. And then many people miss this, but general plans like the zoning code have associated with them a set of definitions or a glossery. And sometimes you're reading something and you think you understand what the word means. But if it's defined in the

glossery, it may mean something different. And so it's important to see the glossery. And I have been advocating, I don't know if it will be part of the online version, those defined words should be highlighted in some way so that somebody knows that it may mean something different than what they think it means. And I think both of those documents are important to see. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Um, okay. I'll bring it to the commission. Further action and direction. Um, does anyone want to make any comments or start any discussion or um we can just move on and um assume to hear it in in April? Okay, thank you. I'll end the discussion. Okay, moving on. The next item number six, uh motion for reconsideration. Are there any motions for reconsideration? Okay. Item number seven, report by the community development director or request for matters which a planning commissioner would like placed on a future agenda. Director Mariel, just a brief update. So, just a reminder for our next planning commission meeting, it's going to be a special meeting on April 2nd. Uh we'll have two public hearing items. One is 1500 Quail Residences. This is another housing development project. And then a restaurant conditional use permit. Uh, additionally, we plan to bring back a discussion item on HOA limitations due to recent state law. This is uh in response to Commissioner Langford's request uh to have that item. And then I also wanted to update the commission that the 300 Newport Center Drive condominium project uh that was approved by the planning commission at the last meeting uh was appealed. So, we received two appeals on that application and staff is working on scheduling that for city council review. Thank you. Does anyone want to comment? Uh, anyone

from the audience want to comment on these items? Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Resine. Would this be an appropriate time to ask um for something to be added or to ask staff to look into something for us?

Yes. um on Ridge Park Road going eastbound once you get up and just prior to getting to Ridge Park and directly across from Zeani. There are there's a long section of that that's no no parking that I'm not exactly sure why. And it would be really beneficial if we could at least look into it and if it's possible add that as additional curbside parking for the park site and for people that are using the open space. Yes. Um we could take a look at that and provide an update the next planning commission meeting.

Thank you. Comments. Okay. Um okay. Moving on. Next item number eight. Um request for excuse absence is okay.