Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Okay. We'll call the April 23rd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order. Will everyone please stand and will Commissioner Elmore please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Staff roll call please.

All commissioners are present with the exception of commissioner Celine and Rosine 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 that are generally within the purview of the Planning Commission. If you wish to speak, please keep your promise to three minutes or less. Are there any public comments for non-agenda items? Okay, I see none. Thank you. Moving on to the next item. Staff, are there any requests for continuances?

No, Chair, there are no requests tonight.

Thank you. Okay, item number one, the minutes of April 2nd, 2026. Would anyone from the audience like to comment on the minutes from the special meeting on April 2nd, 2026? Nobody, thank you. I'll make a motion to approve with, I believe there were a couple edits.

And I'll second that motion.

Call for a vote.

The motion carries 4-0 with Commissioner Gazzano abstaining.

Thank you. Okay, item number two, Rogue Collective Conditional Use Permit. It's PA 2023-0103. Site location is 828-852 and 858 Production Place. Staff, please proceed. Mr. Roscoe.

Thank you, Chair Harris. Oscar Orozco here with the Planning Division presenting the Rogue Collective Events-Based Conditional Use Permit. The project site is located at 852 and 858 Production Place with a offsite parking location of 828 Production Place. Both properties are located within the general industrial general plan land use designation and are within the industrial zoning district. The existing site is developed with a approximate 10,000 square foot professional office building as depicted here in blue with a total of 17 parking spaces located onsite depicted here in green. As mentioned, the project request is for a conditional use permit specifically to establish an assembly and meeting facility use within that existing professional office building as well as establish offsite parking. The proposed project includes the sectioning off of 750 square feet depicted here in green within the existing building for assembly use. The rest of the building would be sectioned off as mentioned here depicted in gray to ensure that the area is limited to the 750 square feet. In addition, there would be or they would be maintaining the accessibility to the restroom facilities as well as two separate ingress and egress locations for the purposes of building and fire safety and to ensure emergency access. As described by the applicant's project description letter, the types of events that they would be hosting would include workshops, classes, networking functions, nonprofit fundraisers, corporate gatherings, and similar community-oriented activities. It would be limited to 750 square feet, and live entertainment would be allowed as part of the land use. IN ADDITION, ALCOHOL WOULD BE ALLOWED AS AN INCIDENTAL SERVICE FOR ALCOHOL EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING A SPECIFIC ALCOHOL LICENSE, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED ON AN EVENT BY EVENT BASIS TO OBTAIN WHAT'S CALLED THE DAILY LICENSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO REVIEW ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE USE TYPES. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES PROPOSED HOURS OF 5 P.M. THROUGH 11 P.M., WHICH ARE FOR MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY AND 5 P.M. THROUGH MIDNIGHT ON FRIDAY, AS WELL AS 8 A.M. THROUGH MIDNIGHT SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. THESE HOURS NOTABLY ARE OFFSET FROM THE DAYTIME USE OF THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, WHICH CLOSES AT 5 P.M. ON THE WEEKDAYS AND IS CLOSED ON THE WEEKENDS. IN ADDITION, THE LAND USE TYPE IS ALLOWED TO HAVE LATE HOUR OPERATIONS AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE. Lastly, the land use type requires a total of 22 parking spaces. That's one parking space per 35 square feet of area used for event or assembly purposes. The project provides a total of 17 spaces on site and five spaces off site, which combined include the total required parking. AS MENTIONED, THE ZONING CODE REQUIRES A USE PERMIT AS PART OF THE PROPOSED USE, AND STAFF'S EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT DETERMINED THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN IN ZONING AND COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT SITES. MOST SPECIFICALLY, I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT FOR NOISE, THE PROJECT INCLUDES A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD LIMIT THE NOISE THROUGH LIMITING CLOSURE OF WINDOWS AND DOORS, EXCEPT FOR EGRESS PURPOSES. towards the rear of the building to ensure that noise is brought down to an acceptable level. In addition, they are required to comply with the noise standards set forth in our zoning code. The project also includes a condition of approval that would ensure that the event space does not turn into or become a bar, lounge, or nightclub and prohibits dancing as well. And lastly, the parking, as mentioned, is supplied in terms of the overall required parking spaces. This is being done, as mentioned before, via the 17 spaces which are located on site and depicted here in green. as well as the proposed offsite parking spaces here, which are depicted in blue, which is for a total of five and collectively meet the 22 total parking space requirement. The site is located towards the east, which is approximately 250 feet away and is accessed via this public, excuse me, public sidewalk depicted here in orange. I'd like to note that there are conditions of approval that also require that employees park at the off-site parking space to ensure that the full on-site parking spaces are made available for event patrons in the green area there. And then as required by our Public Works Department, there's also a condition of approval to ensure that event patrons park on-site and limit or essentially prohibit the parking of those event patrons on the public street to ensure that the public street is made available for additional uses in the area. That being said, staff recommends conducting a public hearing, finding the project exempt from CEQA, and adopting the resolution as drafted. This concludes my presentation. I am available for questions. The applicant, Matt Barnes, is also available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for staff at this time? Okay. I don't have a, I guess I have a little quick one question or kind of a comment is we have some residential coming soon, you know, behind the project. So almost I want to put something on the record of, you know, these, this is getting approved as is, you know, residential is coming in this zone. So there are going to be some other diversity of uses that, you know, could have some effects moving forward, but, you know, just kind of put it out on the record. That's all. Okay. Commissioners, any ex parte communication? None. None.

None for me.

None.

None.

OK. I will open the public hearing. Does the applicant want to make a presentation or comment on anything? Thank you.

good evening chair and commissioners my name is matt barnes i am the founder and ceo of rogue united a newport beach based holding company built to launch and grow ventures that combine innovation storytelling and measurable impact i'm also the founder of rogue collective one of those organizations and the business before you tonight seeking approval of the cup first off i want to thank the city staff for their work on this matter and for the recommendation before you tonight i appreciate the time and effort and professionalism that brought us to this point and i'm here to answer any questions you may have Rogue Collective is a membership-based creative and co-working space during the day, but it is much more than that. It's a place where entrepreneurs, creatives, and small business owners, nonprofit leaders, and community builders come together to work, collaborate, learn, and grow. Today, Rogue Collective is home to 10 independent businesses that use our space as their full-time offices, bringing additional activity and revenue to the city of Newport Beach. We also have 50 other professionals who use the space daily or as needed, filling an important need for flexible community-oriented workspace. The networking events, workshops, monthly art exhibits, and community gatherings we host are not a side feature of the business. They're central to what makes Rogue Collective unique and valuable. To provide some context and history, Rogue Collective opened in July of 2022. At the time, we were assured that the types of events central to our model would not require a CUP. In early 2023, we pursued one anyway to create flexibility for larger events and additional revenue, but by 2024, after a prolonged process and rising costs, we stepped back. Then in September of 24, we received a cease and desist notice from the city regarding events we believed were permitted. That uncertainty has cost us a great deal, an estimated $1.53 million in event revenue and roughly a half a million dollars in lost membership opportunities. At the end of the day, we're a small business. We're trying to offer the residents of Newport Beach something meaningful, a place for community business development, nonprofit gatherings, creative exploration, and commerce. We're trying to create a place where people can come together, not just to rent space, but to build something and to create good in the world. um that's why this approval matters it creates clarity it allows rogue collective to move forward in a way that is aligned with the original vision for the space and it allows us to serve the community more fully as a gathering place for creators founders non-profits innovators and our neighbors i would invite the commission to see rogue collective for what it truly is a jewel of the city a place for gatherings for collaboration for creative exploration for commerce and for community a place that reflects the entrepreneurial forward-looking and community-minded spirit that makes Newport Beach special. And I would invite all of you out to visit Rogue Collective and see what we're up to there. I'm thankful for the opportunity to be here tonight and grateful for the staff's recommendation and hopeful for your support. Thank you.

Well, Javier, are you in agreement with the conditions?

Yes.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? It's okay. Thank you so much. Okay, does anyone from the audience want to comment on this item? Thank you.

Please state your name for the record. Certainly. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Kara Stewart. I'm the founder and CEO of Wonder Marks, one of the businesses based at Rogue Collective. And I'm here to express my support for this CUP and hope that it is approved tonight. But let me tell you a little bit why beyond the staff report. For me, Rogue Collective represents something even bigger than just a workspace or an event venue. And that's because the future of business is not about going alone. We all know it is about collaboration. So much time in America is spent on corporate entities, but really the engine of every community, including Newport Beach, are micro businesses and small businesses. And I say that because that is the source of innovation in our community. I chose to base my business at Rogue Collective for three reasons. One is that sense of innovation. Second is that sense of collaboration. The other businesses there allow us to create offerings that are much bigger for our clients, but also to expand our businesses in ways that were not otherwise possible. On May 1st, I'm celebrating my 25th year of entrepreneurship, and I can sense a growth and a trajectory because of the other businesses at Rogue Collective. In addition to that, the creativity really is a business strategy, and that leads into this space being used for events. It's not just about renting a room or renting a venue. It's about creating a community's identity of civic pride and about its cultural fabric. Having a space here in Newport Beach for art, for nonprofit gatherings, for entrepreneurial innovation and events that bring people together in meaningful ways. These kind of event spaces are pretty rare, but they're so important to the future not only of my business, but of Newport Beach and all the other businesses that are based there and our nonprofit community. I also want to say something about leadership and ethics. I've been able to know Matt Barnes and his family for about two years now, and I can attest to his ethical leadership. He models that in his family. He models that in his community and private life. and deeply within his business practices. In fact, attracting partners, collaborators, and those who host events or could possibly host events there, all have a sense of not only a commercial aspect, but really a sense of doing good in this community, and that's so important right now. um this is really why rogue collective matters this is why this request for a cup is so important tonight so i thank the staff for working with the team to find a right solution and the recommendation to approve this and i thank you as a governing body for considering this thank you any other speakers tonight motion

Chair Harris, members of the commission, my name is Jim Mosier. My comment is among the conditions of approval there is number 12 which says strict adherence to maximum occupancy limits is required. I would suggest perhaps that this should include some number for what the maximum event attendance would be rather than some calculation based on square feet. My concern is that the The group here has a website. Their website continues to advertise the larger event venue of 2,000 square feet and it says it can hold up to 150 occupants. The events can be for as many as 150 people at a time. I think on handwritten page 43, it's a little hard for me to see at this scale, There's something defining what the event space would be, and I think it says 50 people occupancy, which would be more reasonable for the 22 parking spaces that is planned. I just, in the conditions of approval, I don't see anything about the 750 square feet or the maximum of 50 people. So perhaps those should be in the conditions rather than just in a somewhat obscure diagram here. And then finally, I share with Chair Harris Concern in the future, this is allowing the events with the 50 people to be leaving at midnight on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, immediately adjacent to the new townhome project that you approved. And I would just suspect some of the future residents of that may be, if doors are being slammed at midnight, they may not really appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Okay, Stephanie, your response?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, just a few items to respond to. So we do have the condition of approval limiting their occupancy to what is established by the building code and fire code. So through the analysis, it was determined that at the 750 square feet, the appropriate number would be 150. However, the project is also conditioned to go through the building permit process for which building and fire will review and confirm what that limit is. And it's dictated by the building code. And then secondly, with regards to noise, as previously mentioned, there are conditions of approval specific to the windows and the doors, but also to the compliance with the zoning code as it relates to the overall noise that's being generated by the use, which staff can use through an enforcement mechanism with code enforcement to ensure that the applicant is adhering to those limits. Thank you.

Does the applicant wish to respond to anything? Are you okay? Thank you. Okay, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for discussion and action.

Any comments by anyone or a motion?

Thoughts? No comments? Down here?

Sure. I'll make a motion to approve as drafted.

I'll go ahead and second. I think it's appropriate. I like the diversity of use over there. I think it's a cool, different use. And I like that building. I drive by it a lot. It's well taken care of. And I'm excited for it.

Call for a vote.

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you, congratulations. Okay, moving on to the next item, item number three. Apologize for the, I mispronounced the Pointevin residence. It's PA 2025-0179. Site location is 2441 Crestview Drive. Staff, when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair Harris and commissioners. My name is Laura Rodriguez. I am the project planner for this item. So the subject property is located within a private community known as Bay Shores, which is outlined for you here in red. And on the top right corner, we have it is abutting a 39 unit apartment complex. And to the furthest west of the community, we have the Balboa Bay Club. Start off with some setback background. So to the left you see districting map number 23. And I have outlined for you in red the 2400 block. And historically those districting maps were used to establish front yard setbacks at a block level. And you can see that at that time a 10-foot front setback off Crestview and a 10-foot front setback off an unnamed street was applied. now when setback maps were introduced as part of the 2010 zoning code update the numbers that you see in the district maps were transferred over into those setback maps and applied and could be applied in any setback area as far as the 2400 block that would mean that a front setback would be applied again off crestview drive and off that unnamed street that you see to the right To continue on into the setback background, abutting the rear, I'm sorry, along the rear of those properties within the 2400 block is an unnamed street. And that street is 20 feet wide and carries alley-like features, typically such as a V-ditch for use for stormwater runoff. IT'S NARROW IN WIDTH AND ALSO CARRIES A FEW EASEMENTS. SO FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION, I'M GOING TO CONTINUE REFERRING THAT ON NEW STREET AS AN ALLEY. HERE OUTLINED IN GREEN, YOU CAN SEE THE APPLICATION OF THAT 10-FOOT SETBACK AND ALSO NOTICE THAT THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT 2400 BLOCK ALREADY IS INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TODAY BY CODE. What I shaded for you here in gold shows the properties that are neighboring to 441 Crestview Drive. And these properties were approved through modification permits to have a setback encroachment five feet into that 10 foot setback that is required today. Now past justifications that were used for that was that when typically residential properties that are abutting a 20 foot wide alley, they're not required to have a minimum setback. And the application of the 10 foot setback from that districting map was inconsistent with what we see today, including with what is shown today in setback map six. The project today is for a coastal development permit for the demolition of an existing single unit dwelling and the construction of a new three-story single unit dwelling along with an attached ADU. The variance and coastal variance portion is going to be for that five-foot setback encroachment into that five-foot setback encroachment into that 10-foot setback that is abutting the alley. In terms of zoning code consistency, the project is consistent with Title 20 and Title 21, with the exception of what I wanted to highlight for you here, with the exception of that five foot setback encroachment on the first and second floor. In regards to variance findings, the incentive of variance is to waive or modify standards due to special circumstances. So in the case for the subject property, we have the application of those two double front setbacks that you see on crest view and the alley. but typically that application is not common for this type of property. Usually the application of double front setbacks are more related to specific site conditions and they're more common along waterfront properties, usually intended to preserve views and to regulate accessory structures. Again, as previously mentioned, when you are dealing with residential properties within the city that are abutting a 20 foot wide alley, there is no minimum setback required. And the variance would actually allow the project to be in line with the neighboring properties that are there today. The encroachment is not going to affect traffic maneuverability. As confirmed with the Public Works Department, you typically need a 20-foot wide alley in order to successfully maneuver a two-car side-by-side. And the variance isn't going to be approving any additional floor area. The project's buildable area and floor area is compliant with what the code would permit today. Additional coastal considerations is as far as the project, the project is consistent with our local coastal program to the maximum extent feasible with again the exception of that setback encroachment. There wouldn't be any impact as far as the subject property to coastal resources. I have highlighted for you the coastal view roads that we have today in the public viewpoints which would be Castaways Park and the location of the subject property here to the right. And the project wouldn't be impacting any public coastal access. Again, this is a private gated community. It was developed prior to the Coastal Act, so the public does not have access into that community. Vertical and lateral access, which is vertical access highlighted for you out in pink, and lateral access in purple to demonstrate that the public can still access the harbor from the Balboa Bay Club. Therefore, staff's recommended action is to conduct a public hearing, find this project exempt from CEQA under class three, and adopt resolution number PC2026-014, approving costal development permit and variance. This concludes my presentation. I am available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Rodriguez. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Okay. Ex parte communication. None. None.

None. None. None.

Okay, I'll open public hearing. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation? Is there an applicant here?

Good evening. Bruce Manzer with Manzer and Associates. We wanted to take a time to thank the staff for the amount of effort they've gone into this. So we're here for any questions. That's all we have to say.

Are you in agreement with the conditions of approval? Yes. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. I'm assuming no questions, right? Okay.

Does anyone from the audience want to comment on this item? Mr. Mosher? Anyone? Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'll close the public hearing and bring it up for commission. Discussion, action, motion?

I'll make the motion to approve PA 2025-0179.

And I'll second as this is consistent with the neighboring properties.

I call for a vote. Congratulations.

The motion carries unanimously. Oh, thank you. Sorry.

Congratulations. Thank you. Okay, moving on to the next item. Item number four, the Comprehensive General Plan Update. It's the Newport Beach General Plan, PA 2022-080. This is a citywide conversation. Staff, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Zabita. Yeah.

Thank you, Chair Harris, commissioners, Ben Zadiba, acting deputy community development director, again presenting on the, what we're calling the Newport Beach 2050 general plan, which is the planning horizon for this document. You'll notice that there will be some slides that repeat from previous presentations you've had, but I've spared you the 30 plus slides that you've seen in the past. This is a very far condensed presentation for you. You did have a study session on March 19th where I did go through each element and the changes. If you do wish to speak about those specific elements, I do have those slides in my back pocket, but I will not be going through each element this evening. Just a refresher that our current general plan was last comprehensively updated in 2006. It has 10 elements, seven of which cover state required elements. A comprehensive update was initiated by the city council in 2019, but given the high arena requirement, we pivoted to the housing element. circulation, and land use for implementation. With those items complete mostly in 2022 and 2023, we pivoted to focus on the remaining elements. There are eight of them. We took a phased approach with reviewing those elements, including background analysis and visioning, policy development general plan amendment, California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, environmental analysis, and then now we're into phase four, which is the hearing component and final city council adoption. So a long-standing project, very excited to get near the finish line here. I want to emphasize this was led by community members. We have council appointed Brown Act committees that have since been dissolved because it was determined their work has concluded. And that was with a unanimous or 25 to 1 vote by those joint groups at a January meeting to support this draft going forward to you all that you're going to see this evening. The General Plan Update Steering Committee was a three-member committee chaired by former Mayor Nancy Gardner, and that was tasked with overseeing the public outreach, guide the update process, guide the General Plan Advisory Committee, which was at one point comprised of 28 members and then reduced to 24. That was chaired by Jeremy Evans and Arlene Greer. They were charged with reviewing the changes and making policy recommendations for the updated General Plan. to the general plan update steering committee for support from that committee to move forward to council. That's not confusing or anything. Community outreach and engagement happened along the way. We had three phases. It started out with a broader effort to spread the word and then we started to drill into actual goals and ideas that support visioning components that were identified as values for the community. Ultimately with phase three where we had actual draft elements to go through. and share actual draft language so when you look at engagement it starts with a broader reach and then as it moves up it's almost a pyramid where people start to lean in who really are heavily engaged but you don't have as many at the top because not as many people are as invested or interested in the general plan Phase three also included environmental analysis. So before you this evening is an addendum that was prepared to the Housing Implementation Program Environmental Impact Report. It was found that there are no substantial changes and no new impacts. I put two screenshots for you here. The one on the right is attachment A to the addendum. And that is that comparative analysis of which policies are removed, which have been revised, or which are existing carried forward, which is something that the Commission had asked for previously. I also want to note that the city is engaging in Senate Bill SB18 Tribal Consultation. This was kicked off March 16th. We've gotten three responses, one of which did not wish to consult, one which consultation is closed, and one which consultation is in progress. This will conclude prior to City Council action in June. Phase 4, this is just an update. Since we came for study session, Water Quality Coastal Tilelands Committee unanimously recommended City Council adoption of Harbor Bay and Beaches Natural Resources and Safety. And now we're before you this evening for the entire general plan, you know, as recommended by the city charter since most of these involve land use matters. One thing I wanted to highlight, it was noted in the staff report that you'd get additional material on Table LU1 for the anomaly limits. Staff was unable to complete the entire draft. However, I wanted to show the format just for visual purposes this evening. What you see on the screen today is what is in the draft. Staff is looking to add two columns, one that talks about changes or transfers, This again refers to transfers of development that have happened that do not have a general plan that accompany them. This results in a very accurate ledger for developers, property owners, community members who are interested as well as staff to make sure we're giving accurate information. As you can see on the far right, there's a reference document. So the idea is that any changes or transfers are substantiated by an actual council action or some sort of reference document. It's not going to be staff just making assumptions or throwing changes in inherently. I want to just remind you that the intent is for this to be a streamlined online plan with a printer-friendly version. So again, this is a quick video showing how it's searchable. It's clickable. You can click through it and expand and collapse policies. The idea will be eventually that you can highlight words that have a term associated with it, and it'll define it for you. It'll be very slick, and I think a lot of cities will be envious, especially the nerdy planners that I run in circles with. So key takeaways for you this evening. There are no changes to development limits or land use patterns, which is very different from the 2006 general plan, which did make a lot of changes therein. Again, streamlined general plan. It's compliant with current state law. Preparation was led by our community members who helped refresh and match the community vision of today. And again, those committees supported the draft moving forward. One thing I do want to share is that we've since updated the cover since it was attached to your agenda and we may end up retitling it. I just want to show it's still an iterative process. This may change before council, but we are looking to update the cover and I may end up saying Newport Beach 2050 General Plan just to show it's a forward thinking document. I do want to make some acknowledgements here. This is a list of all the committee members. It started in 2019 when we had a former general plan update steering committee. They actually helped with all the branding to find the icons and the colors and the fonts that went into the general plan update. And that was all carried through. I'm proud of that component. It's carried through to today's iteration. You'll see that even Diane Dixon was an ex-officio member on that committee. That's how long ago that was. And then we've got the most recent members of those dissolved committees off to the bottom in the right. I just wanted to share our team photo. I thought it was kind of cool, especially with Laird Hayes off to the right, you know, football fame. And as you'll see, Mr. Mosier is in the corner, not to call him out, but he is here. So appreciate that. So just again, I wanted to share that. This is a photo we took at the January meeting celebrating the successful vote. So today's recommendation is to conduct a public hearing and ultimately recommend city council adoption of the general plan update. As you'll see, there are next steps. We have a study session next week at the council meeting, followed by a consideration in a public hearing to issue a notice of intent to override the airport land use commission's determination of inconsistent, ultimately bringing this back to city council for final adoption end of June. Nearly there. That concludes my presentation. And I'm here for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Director. Commissioners, any questions?

Back to the photo. Is there a reason why Jim Mosier was not smiling in that photo?

Do we know? That's a question best directed to Jim Mosier himself. Thank you. Thank you.

OK. Ex parte communication. It's on there. None. None. Okay, I'll open the public hearing. Does anyone from the audience wish to speak?

Chair Harris, members of the Commission, I can't explain the photo. I think I was feeling happy they had cake at the final meeting. I have one of the few copies here, which I got from Beatriz. I believe there's about 567 policies in here. to comment on those in 180 seconds would be difficult. So I'm not going to attempt that. I very much admire you if you've read all of them. I can't say for sure if I have actually read all of them. And as to the process, I would point out, I believe it is true to say that the majority of the 567 policies in here were never actually discussed by the GPAC. The GPAC generally saw policies that the consultant thought needed comment on them, and the others were kind of just scrolled by on a screen, like five or 10 at a time, any concern about these, that sort of thing. who has reviewed them exactly, I still cannot say. The two big issues I have with this is the absence of the circulation element from what I'm seeing here, whether that's gonna be part of the online product or not, I don't know, it would be very unusual to have a general plan with all the elements except the circulation and housing elements. It's not so unusual to not have the housing element printed out with the others because it changes more rapidly and more extensively. But the circulation element almost always an integral part of this. And the GPAC did not look at that or make any findings of consistency. It seems it should be in there. And the other one is in, I think it's in the overview section, where it says that we're projecting our population to only grow by 3,750 people over the next 20 years. And if we're only expecting 3,750 more people in 20 years, it's really hard to reconcile with why we are wishing to approve at least 8,174 new housing units in the next few years and probably more in the years following that. We must be expecting most of the units to be vacant. It's hard to understand. And the final comment I would make, as I noticed in the lobby, there was one more printed copy. And since the city council is having a study session on next Tuesday, rather than shredding that one other copy, I would really suggest that somebody put that in a binder and try to let the city clerk put that in the lobby so during the study session people can see this. I think seeing the printed document is really useful and a better experience than trying to view it online currently. And it would be useful to have it there. Without that, I don't think there will be a copy for the public to look at. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mosher.

Staff, any comments for the record? Sure. I'll take the opportunity. Mr. Moser mentioned consultant. I neglected to identify that we do have Elizabeth Dixon from Dudek with us, who has helped along the way, and I'm really appreciative of that, and Taylor Funderburk from Kierns & West, who's our outreach consultant. Just wanted to identify that they are here in case you do have really deep dive and detailed questions. I'd also just note that the circulation element will absolutely be part of the online plan. I'm working with the consultant on how best to incorporate that. We're still struggling with how to best incorporate the housing element as it is a very complicated element and probably best as a standalone PDF that is not integrated into the structure that we're creating for the online plan. It's also updated on a different cycle. So I think it makes sense. And I think that's all I'll comment on unless you have any questions. Thank you.

Mr. Mosier has some thorough questions or comments. Any comment on those? Some of those seem like they could be applied, potentially.

Yeah. So the written comments by Mr. Mosier, we're reviewing them. And those refinements, as applicable, can definitely be made. As I mentioned, this is not going to council until June 23, prospectively. So we do have some time to make some refinements and are combing his comments as such. Thank you.

Questions?

IT'S A QUESTION, BUT I THINK IT COULD ALSO TURN INTO A COMMENT. THE QUESTION IS, WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR, ACTUALLY I PUT MYSELF ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS AS IT HAPPENED IN DEALING WITH DIFFERENT PLANNING DOCUMENTS FROM GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENTS AND SPECIFIC PLANS AND ALL THE SORTS OF PLANS THAT ARE OUT THERE. Almost inevitably, there creates some sort of discrepancy between the different documents. I know everyone tries to obviously do their best. That's not the intention, but sometimes it just happens and it gets kind of frustrating. And typically at the beginning of some of these documents, what I didn't see, maybe it's in there if you could point it out. But is there some language that talks about which plan supersedes other documents? And I think in this case, I think the general plan is more broader brushstrokes. And usually as you get into more specific plans, whether it's the housing element or specific plans or other plans that are out there that those typically will supersede. If it's not in here, I didn't see it, but if it's not in there, can we add something that talks about conflict with other planning documents and which shall prevail if there's a conflict?

that's a good question commissioner gazzano and i what comes to mind is i know we have that sort of a discussion in the zoning code but as far as the actual general plan introduction itself i don't know that that is a clear statement it sounds like you're talking about consistency between say the housing element and the rest of the general plan since they're prepared on different cycles so that's definitely something we'd look at refining and making sure it's clear as part of the introduction statement okay

Secretary Langford. Thank you, Chair Harris. I think that's a wonderful point by Commissioner Gazzano. I know one of the things that we have been trying to protect on the Planning Commission at City Council is our certified housing element that we're in compliance. It's always been a plan from the beginning, plan to comply, stay in compliance. That's what we've been wanting to do. So yeah, should there be conflict between the two, we'd want the housing element to prevail. and not come under the ire of the state. So I'd like that to be incorporated as well.

Any other questions? OK. All right, I'll close the public hearing. Call for motion, comment overall?

Chair Harris, I just wanted to, I think it's important to honor significant milestones, so I just wanted to thank staff and their leadership, Jaime, Mario, and Ben, and their alumni, Simone Jurgis, Jim Campbell, people that worked on this for years since gone on to other places but we really appreciate everything that you guys have done i know we've been there in the trenches with you and a lot of these meetings and been to some gpac meetings and i think i started on gpac before coming here to planning commission so it's been a long time coming but really just wanted to thank staff for all their time and dedication and consistency over these years great

Yeah, and I just wanted to echo that thank you guys for your steady hand and approach here And this was in effect well before I was ever appointed to this commission, and this is really terrific work So thank you for all of the time spent And I'll I'll echo both sentiments and if appropriate I'll make I suppose it's a motion or a recommendation to approve and pushes the council I

Yeah, I'll second.

Call for a vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

OK. Thank you for everything, guys. Thank you so much. Okay, item number five, motions for reconsideration. Are there any motions for reconsideration?

None, none, okay.

Item number six, report by the community development director or request for matters which a planning commission member would like placed on a future agenda. Any items? No, no, no.

I WANT TO NOTE THAT WE WILL BE COUNSELING THE MAY 7TH AGENDA. WE HAVE NO ITEMS FOR THAT HEARING. HOWEVER, ON MAY 21ST, WE DO HAVE THREE ITEMS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, INCLUDING A STUDY SESSION ITEM. We did receive a grant from the Southern California Association of Governments, or SCAG. They've provided us with a consultant to evaluate our mixed-use zoning districts. We've had these zoning districts in effect for a number of years, and a lot of them have not really created too many projects that have come to fruition. So they'll be providing an overview and look at our standards and recommendations. So that'll be an interesting item. And then I did just want to note that last Friday at the California Coastal Commission hearing, they did approve our local coastal program amendment that completes our housing element rezone efforts for properties in the coastal zone. So that was a significant milestone. It was approved with suggested modifications. We'll be bringing that back for our city council approval. But that's the last component of our rezoning needed to complete our REZONING PROGRAM IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. SORRY, JUST WANTED TO NOTE ALSO COMMISSIONER ROSIN HAD TO ASK FOR AN UPDATE REGARDING SOME PARKING STANDARDS UP IN NEWPORT COAST AND SINCE HE'S ABSENT TONIGHT WE'LL SAVE THAT AND PROVIDE THE UPDATE AT THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

WONDERFUL. IT'S GREAT NEWS ON COASTAL AND I'M INTERESTED TO SEE HOW IT SOUNDS SO THEY ACCEPTED ESSENTIALLY THE WAY WE PROPOSED IT. ANY BIG CHANGES?

They did incorporate some modifications. So for sites that have a base zoning of recreation or visitor serving commercial, the condition that housing be allowed to be developed is essentially if the existing use of recreation or visitor serving commercial is retained or redeveloped in a manner that provides THE FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT USE IN TERMS OF VISITORS OR USAGE. SO ESSENTIALLY WE DON'T LOSE WHAT'S THERE AS FAR AS THE COASTAL PRIORITY USES BUT IT PROVIDES THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSING SO KIND OF A WIN-WIN.

THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS? REQUEST FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES, ANYONE? THERE'S A CHANCE I MISSED THE MAY MEETING. THANK YOU. Okay, adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.