Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Check one, two, three, four.

Got audio back there?

Hey, there he is.

Welcome back. Good to see you.

Thank you.

What? What?

WHAT WAS THAT? YEAH, APPARENTLY THE STOP SIGN IS WITHIN 500 FEET. SORRY.

YEAH, IT'S NOT EVEN A STOP LIGHT, IT'S A STOP SIGN. YES.

VICE CHAIR SELENE, WE'RE READY?

YES.

WE'RE READY.

ALL RIGHT. Call of May 21st, 2026 planning commission meeting to order. Pledge of allegiance. Will everyone please stand and will Commissioner Rosin please lead us in the pledge.

Ready, begin.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, STAFF. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONERS HARRIS AND ELMORE WHO ARE EXCUSED THIS EVENING.

THANK YOU. PUBLIC COMMENTS. THIS IS THE TIME WE TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA THAT ARE GENERALLY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS? All right, seeing none. Moving on to the next item, request for continuances. Staff, are there any requests for continuances?

Yes, good evening, Vice Chair Saleen and Commissioners. We do have one request for continuance, and that would be item number one for the minutes of April 23rd, 2026. You currently do not have enough voting members who are at that meeting to entertain those minutes, so we would recommend that you push those on to the June 4th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, which is your next meeting. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Okay, moving on to public hearing items. Item number four. or I don't know, two, Soul Cachino Patio Expansion, PA 2026-0199, site location 251 East Coast Highway, and offsite parking at 151 and 201 East Coast Highway. All right, staff, please proceed with your presentation.

Good evening, Vice Chair Saleen, Planning Commissioners, Liz Westmoreland, Principal Planner. I'm presenting tonight regarding the Seoul Mexican Cochina Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit. First, to orient you to the project site, the project's located at 251 East Coast Highway. This is an existing restaurant. The offsite parking is located in the Balboa Marina parking lot shown here in orange. Additionally, there are residential homes in proximity to the project located on Linda Isle. first a little bit of background on the project so there are a few historic approvals here to note so in 1960 is when the original use permit was authorized to allow a restaurant to operate at this site with alcohol service in the late 90s permit was approved to allow for an attached patio to operate until midnight with live entertainment on the interior of the restaurant And then through 2020 to 2023, there were various approvals that allowed for a temporary patio. This was generally during the COVID-19 pandemic. This item may look familiar to the Commission as an approval was received late last year, September of 2025. The Planning Commission actually approved the retainment of the detached patio on a permanent basis. THAT APPLICATION ITSELF INCLUDED A VOLUNTARY REDUCTION IN HOURS AS WELL AS REMOVAL OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT. FURTHERMORE THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS RESIDENTS DID EXPRESS CONCERNS RELATED TO NOISE AND CONDITIONS WERE ADDED TO RESTRICT OPERATIONS. AFTER THE APPROVAL THE APPLICATION WAS ACTUALLY WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE DUE TO CONCERNS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING REDUCING THE HISTORIC ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY. So tonight the application before you is relatively straightforward. It includes retaining all the existing rights for the restaurant and the attached patio and then adding the detached patio on a permanent basis. So the detached patio shown over on the right-hand side of the screen would operate until 10 p.m. So no late hours would be permitted for that detached patio. I think it would be helpful to show a comparison here of the existing entitlements, those historic land use rights, compared to the project that was withdrawn, which is null and void at this point, and then the proposed project. So notably here, looking at the hours of operation for the interior of the restaurant, those would stay the same as today, going until midnight daily. For the detached patio, as I mentioned, would operate till 10 p.m. And then the attached patio would continue operating until midnight as well. Live entertainment would also be included in the application as currently allowed. And notably, no dancing is allowed. So just quickly going through some of the key findings for the conditional use permit here, notably offsite parking is requested. So there is a historic right to offsite parking at the Balboa Marina parking lot. So the project requires 65 spaces, 16 would be provided onsite and 50 offsite. In terms of compatibility, which is one of the key findings here, it's important to note that the only change to existing operations is that retention of the detached patio. Furthermore, we have not received any complaints in the last couple of years through the police department or code enforcement. Our police department did not have any concerns regarding the alcohol service at the late hours. Furthermore, an operator license is required at this point, and that provides an additional enforcement tool for our police department. I'd also like to note there are several conditions that are intended to reduce potential noise concerns for those residents, in particular across on Linda Isle. I think the easiest way to describe the conditions of approval that are proposed tonight would be to go through a typical day or a typical operation for the restaurant. So at 10 a.m., the business would open. At 8 p.m., amplified sound, which includes background music, would be required to end on both outdoor patios, so you don't have any music playing on those patios. At 9 p.m., a retractable awning would be required to be in place or extended, and that basically sort of encloses that attached patio and assists with the noise. At 10 p.m., the detached patio closes and the operator will be required to encourage the timely exit of patrons. At 11 p.m., if there is live entertainment occurring inside the restaurant, that would be required to end. Additionally, whether or not there's live entertainment, doors and windows would have to close at that time as well. And that also includes the vestibule area, which is an accessible area between the patio and the restaurant. At midnight, lights would go on and the attached patio and the entire restaurant would close. A few other notable conditions include a barrier that would be located on the detached patio, which would help with the transmission of noise. As I mentioned, no dancing is allowed and an operator license is required. And that's really an additional enforcement tool to assist with any concerns. NOTABLY CONDITION NUMBER 15 REQUIRES A ONE-YEAR REVIEW WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. AND SO THE DIRECTOR AT THAT TIME WOULD DETERMINE COMPLIANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THOSE CONDITIONS. AND IF THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT CANNOT BE RESOLVED, THE DIRECTOR CAN REFER THE ITEM BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATION WHICH COULD INCLUDE CHANGING HOURS OR OTHER CONDITIONS OR REVOCATION IF NECESSARY. And then lastly, regardless of whether a project has live entertainment or late hours, they are obligated to comply with our noise ordinance. A couple of notes about the coastal development permit that's included here. The project is consistent with development standards. It's not visible from any viewpoints. The guardrail that's required to be installed would be transparent and there's adequate parking provided on site. So with that, that concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR A WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

WHAT ARE THE CURRENT HOURS FOR THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT?

THE CURRENT HOURS OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT ARE NOT EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE USE PERMIT, BUT GENERALLY THEY SHOULD GO UNTIL ABOUT 11 P.M.

Because I know that's what I think the new condition had. I just didn't know what was, how operations were today. So there's no cap on live entertainment today?

That's correct.

Thank you.

Commissioner?

No?

Okay. Commissioners, any ex parte communication? None.

None. None.

None. None.

All right. We'll open the public hearing. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation or comment?

Good evening. Gary Wiggle, Keisker and Wiggle Architects, representing Seoul. Just here to say we concur with the staff report. We're here to answer any questions. I have a representative of the restaurant and the property owner here as well.

Thank you. You say you concur with the report. You also confirm and agree to all the conditions of approval?

Yes.

Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant?

Mr. Wiggle? Wiggle. Wiggle. All right. The kind of grass area and the tree between the patio and the water, is there any intention to do something different with that or leave it the way it is?

Right now, I think all that needs to happen is the grass needs to be revived. It's not doing too well. And by the time we construct that transparent wall and things on the edge and clean all that up, I'm sure that's going to be part of the scope of what we have to do.

Do you know if that tree is on the property that is owned by this ownership?

It's close because that property line comes one space over from the existing patio and then cuts over to the bay parallel to the wall at 333 So I'm not sure which side it stands on. Okay, look at the map.

Yeah, I like having the tree there I know it eats up a lot of ambient sound and noise and kind of helps.

Yeah, we have no intention of taking it down Okay, very good.

Appreciate it Thank you. Commissioner? No?

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Does anyone from the audience want to comment on this item? Yes, please. Jump up to a microphone.

My name's Leanne Benvenuti, and I live at 106 Linda Isle, across the way from Seoul. And I guess my very first question is, we were here on Thursday, September the 18th, and my memory was that it was denied, and that there was not gonna be live music. The patio closed at nine, and the music ended at eight. and that we were supposed to have a one-year review before it was going to be up to be discussed again about turning from temporary to permanent. So I'm just curious why was that September and now it's only May the 21st, which is not a year later, number one, time. Secondly, my neighbors, this came out very, very late, and this is the beginning of a three-day holiday weekend, so people have been gone ahead of time. Most people impacted are not here tonight and were furious when they got this. I think that um quite frankly this meeting should be re-adjourned when the people that are living right across the way have the ability to know that this is taking place and be here in person i'm i'm two houses over but the one that is directly in front of them the one to the right they are not present tonight and they're pretty upset about it so i mean am i wrong that when we decided in september that the music was to end at eight and the patio closed at nine

Again, this is not question and answer time. This is just for comments. And the application was withdrawn. This is a new application.

OK. All right. So I guess then. I guess as a resident, I just have to say that during COVID we all really supported soul. We all really supported tavern house. We all are local restaurants. We wanted things to survive and they got that outdoor patio. But the reality is, is that for the longterm, it doesn't work being so close. what, 100 feet from people across the bay, our quiet enjoyment's gone. The noise level gets high. You've got Taco Tuesdays. The original agreements that Seoul made about closing the cantilevers, they do not do that at 9 o'clock like 333 used to do. They're open at 11. So the music comes right across the bay. And I don't see that that's not going to change. And I guess I'm kind of questioning because we went through all this with decibels and sound with 333. So I don't understand why now that all those rules that we kind of established with the city and the planning commission and with the restaurant owners is now kind of null and void. We all want restaurants to survive. We all are business owners. But 11 o'clock for loud music and people leaving the restaurant is too late for people that work.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker? Mr. Moser.

Vice Chair Saleen, members of the commission, my name is Jim Mosier. I had two comments on the conditions of approval. Number eight on handwritten page 46 is about closing the doors. That is presumably a noise concern and I'm a little puzzled why the doors and windows would close at 11 p.m. rather than 10 p.m. because 10 p.m. is the normal quiet time in Newport Beach and it would just seem like 10 o'clock would be reasonable and better than 11. And then a trivial comment in condition of approval number nine about the partition. In the second sentence, it refers to the noise-mitigating partition as a petition. And I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a wall or partition petition. And then finally, as I noted when this was before you in September, Many years ago, and I looked it up, it was in December 2015, the Planning Commission approved a much larger restaurant at the west end of the parking lot, 14,000 square foot restaurant, which came to the council on appeal and it was approved by the council in February. 2016 I don't know if that permission is still active but if it was there was a big parking issue with that because it would more than it needed more than the entire parking lot to park that large restaurant so if that approval is still active and I have no idea if it is after 10 years it would seem it would have to be harmonized with this restaurant in some way thank you thank you next speaker

Seeing none, does the applicant wish to respond to any of the comments that were made?

Okay.

In terms of the doors and windows being closed, Seoul will agree to 10. OK. And as a quick response to your comment, it just happens that I know the information from all the meetings I've gone to. The parking for that restaurant included the allocation for parking already for this restaurant as part of their plan. So we're joint venture with them on that. OK. Thank you.

Thank you. Staff have been in comments for the record.

I'm Pat Simonian. I live on Linda Isle.

Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. OK.

I oppose just the modifications that are being made right now because of the time that just Leanne just Benvenuti had also just mentioned and of the holiday weekend it doesn't seem quite equal ground where we had just many homeowners that are very concerned about this and they wanted to attend this meeting this evening but being gone so I ask that you postpone this Until we can have more of our just community on hand to See how we're gonna just resolve this issue Thank you.

Thank you Any other speakers, okay staff have any comments of record

Thank you, Vice Chair Selene. We have a few comments here. So first I'd like to clarify that this application is intended to, the only additional privilege being provided as part of this application is the detached patio. So the existing live entertainment is already allowed and the existing late hours are currently allowed and those are in place. Additionally, to provide clarification, the prior application that was approved by the Planning Commission in September was withdrawn and has no force or effect at this time. So the applicant has come forward with a revised project to hone in on their request here and also retain the existing privileges that they have. Additionally, I want to note that the operator license is required as part of this project and would provide that additional enforcement tool to our police department should there be any issues. As I mentioned, the noise ordinance would still apply to the project regardless of these features. So if there is a violation, it would be addressed through our code enforcement program as well.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'm gonna close the public hearing and bring this to the commission for discussion and action. Commissioners, any comments?

Commissioner Rosin. Question of staff, since the applicant is willing to change the time and that could be updated in these conditions, that is, we could make a recommendation that that would be added to these conditions, and that's okay. I mean, as far as I know it is, but we were talking about rescinding and all that, so not part of the application, but certainly we do have the ability to do that right here.

That is correct, Commissioner Rodin.

Okay, thank you. Chair Gazzano? Thank you, Chair. Staff, can you pull up, there was a chart you had, I think, laying out some of the different conditions. It was the first one of the conditions comparison. It was the next one.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF SLIDES THAT MAY BE HELPFUL.

IT WAS THIS ONE I THINK WAS WHEN I WAS TRYING TO GET IT. FIRST THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT AND MR. MERCHANT FOR POINTING OUT IN CONDITION NUMBER 8 ABOUT THE WINDOWS AND DOORS TO CLOSE AT 10 O'CLOCK. THAT WAS ONE OF MY COMMENTS. THE SECOND ONE WAS ON CONDITION 10 WHICH HAD THE RETRACTABLE AWNING WAS AT 9 P.M. AND I BELIEVE THAT AMPLIFIED SOUND ON THE OUTDOOR PATIO HAD TO END AT 8. Is that correct?

That is correct. The condition regarding the 8 p.m. background music was carried over from a suggestion from the Planning Commission at the prior meeting, so we wanted to include that. And then for the 9 p.m. here, this was a carryover from the historic use permits. But that could also be modified as well to be consistent with the background music.

I was just thinking as I was kind of looking through these and trying to lay it out how you did here, it's just like every hour something happens and just trying to, if the concern is about noise, I think maybe we just use eight o'clock for the amplified sound and that retractable awning. And then I think we also have at 10 o'clock, you would have the detached patio closes and the windows and doors also close. I think it would just make a little more sense to keep that consistent there. And then I think on the live entertainment, if there is no cap today and if windows and doors are closed and everything else is done, you know, I'm fine with the 11 o'clock there. But I think just to kind of keep some of the hours consistent and the concern about noise to pull back both of those. So it would be as the applicant already agreed to on number eight to pull that back to 10 p.m. from 11 p.m. and then the retractable awning from 9 p.m. back to 8 p.m. to be consistent with the amplified sound.

Thank you. Any other comments, Commissioner Rood?

Yeah, I would also, I agree with Commissioner Cassano. I would be willing to support that as well. But quick question for the city. What do you consider amplified sound?

Essentially, it would be music that's from a speaker. That's the most simple way to put it.

So it's music from a speaker. OK, that's the technical term.

And it includes background music as well.

OK, thanks.

We don't often get to see a project like this and get to try it out for a year or two and then make a decision. But thankfully, the detached patio has been there for a while. And if we approve it, then it'll only become a better situation I think for the public and for the nearby neighbors, adding the seven and a half foot sound wall. So I like that since there hasn't been a big problem with it for the last couple of years. So I intend to support it. I am Careful to want to go back to the main restaurant and kind of tinker around with the conditions there That's just my opinion since they already have a good operation going and and all that and it hasn't seemed to be broken so I probably wouldn't wouldn't want to go there but Yeah, those are my thoughts Okay, I would like to ask the applicant if they have any thoughts on they were trapped retractable awning moving from nine to eight

We can just reopen the public hearing.

I need to reopen the public hearing, apparently, to ask the applicant. I've reopened it to ask the applicant if they have a comment.

The manager indicates it's generally closed by 8.30 or 9 anyway because the customers get cool. So if it was a condition. What would the specific question be then, the exact time?

Yeah, the retractable, sorry, I'm having a problem with that word, retractable awning would have to be closed by 8 p.m. 8 o'clock?

Does that work?

Again, it's a noise consideration.

Yeah.

That's okay?

Yeah, that would be acceptable.

Okay, thank you very much. Thanks.

I will close the public hearing.

and bring it back to the commission. Any further comment, commissioners? Any motions?

I'd be willing to make a motion based on the applicant's feedback and the concept that the retractable awning be closed by eight and that, help me out here.

Doors and windows. Doors and windows are at 10. And then Mr. Moser's comment about petition changing to. Yes.

Do we cover them all? Make a motion in that regard. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Any other further discussion? Okay, call for a vote.

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you, congratulations. Moving on to the next item, item number three, Newport-Birch Medical Plaza, PA 2025-0220, site location 20071 Birch Street. Staff, please proceed with your presentation.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. THIS ITEM IS FOR THE NEWPORT BIRCH MEDICAL PLAZA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SAN ANA HEIGHTS AREA OF THE CITY. IT'S JUST SOUTH OF THE AIRPORT AND THE 73 FREEWAY. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT. but it was historically developed with a single family residence that was demolished in 2024. the commission notably did approve a conditional use permit also in 2024 for the relocation of the fletcher jones airport shuttle facility onto this property however since since that approval the property owner has sold to the current property owner and so that conditional use permit would no longer be exercised Generally, this area of Birch Street is developed with a variety of other office and medical buildings. The property is located within the Staten Heights specific plan within the Business Park District, as are many of the other properties within this portion of Birch Street and a variety of other commercial zones in this area. The project is for a construction of a new medical office building. It's approximately 19,000 square feet. It would include a shell design, as there's no specific medical operators that are identified. And if this building is approved and constructed, the future medical operators would be required to apply for commercial tenant improvements for the full belt out of those interior spaces. The building does have a podium structure design with ground level open parking as shown there on the lower picture on the right and the two main levels of medical office space above. The total of 89 parking spaces that are proposed, 29 of which are within that first level and 60 parking spaces that surround the building within the service parking lot. Now there are a variety of approvals that are required for this application. There's a minor site development review required since the building is between 10 and 20,000 square feet. A minor use permit is required for medical use within the specific plan. There's also a request for staff approval for a minor parking reduction, a seven space parking waiver, which is 7.2% of the requirement. And so typically the minor site development review and a minor use permit THOSE ARE NORMALLY APPROVED BY THE CITY'S ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. STAFF APPROVAL IS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. BUT BECAUSE THIS PROJECT DOES REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY, THE ENTIRE PROJECT APPLICATIONS BROUGHT FORTH FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THESE ARE SOME OF THE KEY FINDINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. GENERALLY THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING CODE AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION, THE BUILDING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT. The project does conform to many of the site development standards, including providing much more than the required setbacks, allowing for large open areas on the property. It conforms to the overall height limit. However, there is a small parking waiver that is requested. 96 spaces are required, and 89 are proposed, which I'll discuss in a later slide. This is a rendering of the project and includes a very high-quality design. The Santa Ana Heights specific plan also does include some design guidelines, which ensures that the several properties that are within this business park corridor are consistent and ensure that they are compatible with any of the nearby residential properties within the Santa Ana Heights area. The project has been reviewed and has been determined that it is consistent with those design guidelines. In terms of scale and compatibility, as I previously mentioned, there are a variety of other medical and office buildings that are three stories and range between 20 and 50,000 square feet. And so the project at 19,000 square feet in its current scale would be very much compatible with what's already existing in this area of Birch Street within the Santa Ana Heights area. Now, with regard to the minor use permit, there are findings that are required specifically for the use of the building, which is for medical office spaces and how they will be, whether they're compatible with adjacent development and the use would not be detrimental to the area. There are a variety of conditions of approval that are proposed, including hours of operation that are included to ensure that they are consistent with the existing hours of operation of the other medical and office users in this area. There is a prohibition on patients from being discharged outside of these hours of operation or allowing any patients to occupy the building outside of these hours of operation. And also prohibiting any of the future uses from being hospitals or emergency urgent care uses. And so staff has determined that based on these conditions and the proposed medical uses that exist already in this area, the use is expected to be compatible again with this business park area. Now with regard to the parking waiver, so parking is required at a rate of one per 200 square feet of gross floor area. So for this project, 96 spaces are required. However, 89 spaces are proposed. Now there are tools within the municipal code that allow for administrative relief for parking. If one parking space is proposed to be dedicated as a pickup and drop-off space, there is an allowance for up to a 10% waiver in parking. Additionally, if there are bicycle spaces provided, up to a 5% parking waiver can be also provided. The applicant has proposed one pickup and drop off parking space on site and also open and enclose bicycle racks which meets the intent of our more than complies and substantiates the seven space or seven point two percent parking waiver and Additionally, there are conditions of approval that allow staff to require additional parking mitigation measures if parking spills over into the adjacent properties and causes a nuisance to any of those other office and medical properties. So the project is projected to produce a net increase of 643 average daily trips within a typical weekday and does require a traffic study. A traffic study was prepared and reviewed by the city traffic engineer. The study did include an analysis of 12 intersections in this area and did conclude that the project would not cause or worsen any unsatisfactory level of service within any of those identified intersections, and the project could move forward without any improvements or mitigation measures necessary. I did want to note the project is also subject to traffic impact fair share fees, which would fund any local transportation infrastructure in this area and throughout the city in general. So with that, staff recommends the commission to conduct a hearing, find that the project is exempt from CEQA and adopt the resolution approving this application. Staff is available for any questions and we also have the applicant present who's available to answer any questions as well.

Thank you very much for the presentation. Commissioners, any questions for staff?

Mr. Langford. Mr. Ergue, thank you. Would staff generally approve the parking waiver on a project like this where there's kind of, I'm just looking at it and there's no public parking nearby. It's a flat, boring rectangle. And I would hope that it would just all be parked out on site, especially for scraping and building whatever we wanna build. But to start with kind of a parking deficit, I was just curious the philosophy of our staff, if they do have the, pickup drop-off spot and some of this bike parking, if it had just been that, would staff have approved the waiver?

I THINK GENERALLY IF THIS BUILDING WAS ALREADY BUILT AND IT WAS AN OFFICE BUILDING AND IT WAS TO BE CONVERTED TO A MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE, THERE ARE TOOLS IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT ALLOWS FOR THE DIRECTOR TO APPROVE JUST MINOR PARKING WAIVERS. AND SO RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET THERE WAS JUST THAT. THERE WAS AN OFFICE BUILDING THAT CONVERTED ONE ENTIRE FLOOR TO A MEDICAL SPACE AND THAT I BELIEVE REQUIRED EITHER ONE OR TWO PARKING SPACE. THERE WAS A DEFICIENCY IN ONE OR TWO PARKING SPACES. ACTUALLY IN THAT CASE I BELIEVE IT WAS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SINCE IN THIS AREA IT'S ONE OF THE FEW AREAS IN THE CITY THAT MEDICAL USE REQUIRES A MINOR USE PERMIT BUT IF THAT WASN'T THE CASE THE DIRECTOR COULD HAVE AUTHORIZED THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY SO SOMETHING THAT'S PART OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT STAFF BELIEVES IS APPROPRIATE.

OKAY. BUT USUALLY KIND OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR OLD BUILDINGS OR SOMETHING ELSE LIKE THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

I HAVE A QUESTION. THE TRAFFIC STUDY SAYS 643 ADDITIONAL TRIPS. IS THAT FROM ITS CURRENT CONDITION AS VACANT?

THAT'S FROM THE, THERE WAS A VERY SMALL CREDIT THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY. NOT VERY MUCH CREDIT. BUT THE NET INCREASE WOULD BE 643 FROM THE PREVIOUS HOUSE THAT EXISTED THERE.

OKAY. IS THAT MORE OR LESS THAN WOULD NORMALLY OCCUR IN A BUSINESS SITUATION? I DON'T UNDERSTAND MAKING APPOINTMENT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC WHEN THE CURRENT TRAFFIC IS ZERO, ESSENTIALLY. AGAIN, IS THIS NUMBER, 643 TRIPS, IS THAT ABOVE AVERAGE NORMAL OR DOES THAT FALL?

Thank You vice chair ceiling I'll try to take a stab at this and I might punt to Kevin Riley our city traffic engineer if I need to but I would say that When this area was developed this was intended to be a business park corridor on Long Bird Street It just so happened that it was developed with a non-conforming single-family residence so I would venture to guess that the infrastructure including the streets in the area as proved up by the traffic study really do support this type of development and So although it seems like a very drastic increase from the single unit that was there previously, I would venture to guess that it's in line with what was intended for the area and therefore in line with the infrastructure and compatible with it as it is today. Okay.

Agreed?

That's correct, and also, you know, we use the ITE trip generation manual, so the increase of the 600 and some odd trips is based on the gold standard of what we use as ITE trip generation.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Next. Sorry. Commissioners, any ex parte communication? None. None.

None. None. None.

I will open the public hearing. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation or comment?

Thank you, Commissioners. I'm Fred Alegband, the applicant with ACS Development Group, and our architect, Giselle Walter, with Architects Orange, is also here. We concur with the staff report and the conditions in the report. Okay. We'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Gazzano?

No. No? Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. No?

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Does anyone from the audience want to comment on this item?

Good evening. I'm Diane Hornby. I'm the property manager of two zero one zero one Southwest Bird Street, which is on the south side of the vacant lot. And we are a two story office building with a four to one ratio. And as I understand it, medical is required to have five to one. We currently have an issue with parking problems from the apartment complex across the street. They're only allotted each apartment one parking space. So we have overflow of people coming all the time to our parking lot. The next to the development that is here before us is a medical treatment facility and they have even come to us asking for additional parking because they don't have enough parking. So I have to deal with that problem as well. My concern tonight is them asking for a waiver of the nine spots. It may not sound like that many spots, but I already have an issue with people overflowing into our parking lot. And so my concern is that they are not going to have enough. And as they said, they even addressed it. Maybe they will mitigate if there becomes a problem with overflow. I just want to stop it before it becomes an issue. I don't want to be a parking lot monitor. So I would just respectfully ask that the Commission considers the importance of waiving and not waiving the spots that they're requesting to be waived. Thank you. It's a problem already. Thank you. I would question what is their idea to mitigate any overflow that they presented.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Does the applicant wish to respond?

Yes, we manage other medical office building properties in Orange County, and our experience has been that five to one is obviously a very good number for parking, but we have other properties that have four to one parking, and the sweet spot seems to be the 4.5 per thousand, and we have more than that here. And we would be cooperating with the city in case if there's any problems, but based on the uses that we anticipate coming to the building, we don't see any issues coming up. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Staff have any comments for the record?

None at this time, Vice Chair.

Thank you. Then I will close the public hearing and bring this to the Commission for discussion and action. Commissioners, comments, thoughts?

Yeah, Commissioner Lankford. Thank you, Vice Chair Saline. Yeah, probably not a surprise based on my initial questions to staff about parking. This would be, you know, that would be the big thing here for me, the parking issue without any available public parking nearby. I would be concerned adding, you know, starting with a deficit with a brand new project on scraped you know graded sites where they should build it to code and if our code is not satisfactory we could look into changing the code but if code is code because that's what our code is then maybe we stick with it or you know I'd be open to having to drop off and pick up spots if we think that if Mr. Riley tells us that would help alleviate some of the parking issues, maybe there's some more creative ways to make sure that this won't be a problem in the future. But yeah, the parking for me is the issue. If we get to start from a clean slate and develop a brand new project, starting with a problem doesn't seem like a problem. A fantastic idea, but I'm open to solutions.

I would just interject. I think my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I mean, the code says there's a certain number of spaces allowed, but it also allows for certain reductions if certain things are provided. And they're providing the drop off and the bike parking, which would allow for 15% reduction of parking, and they're asking for seven. So, and please, again, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me they're still offering more than is allowed by the code, per se. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct, Vice Chair. So just to add a little more context, the city did a comprehensive revamp of the commercial parking standards. At that time, medical parking was studied as something that could be potentially lowered. Some of you were on the commission, you know that we steered away from that because medical office is one of the more resilient COVID-proof uses, if you will, where it still has a demand for in-person visitorship. So the rate remained the same. However, we did provide flexibility with more objective waivers, as you mentioned, 10% per ride share where it makes sense. Here we do believe it makes sense. You have people getting Ubered if they are older, maybe being dropped off. And you potentially have people riding bikes who are working in the facility or going to appointments. So objectively, we do have some very clear waivers that can be offered in the code and the director would be able to authorize those um just very objectively yes or no is this provided or not and does it make sense um so again they they could be eligible for up to 15 they are asking for seven percent and as was pointed out there is a condition of approval or if it does become a problem uh we can revisit and could look at some sort of mitigation measure or not a mitigation measure but rather a way to alleviate that issue okay thank you thank you

I don't have any issue with this project and I find that it's consistent with the area and plan on supporting it. Would you like to make a motion? I'd like to make a motion to approve this project as presented.

I'll second.

Any other discussion? If not, we'll call for a vote. motion carries unanimously congratulations moving on to study session items item number four results of the reap 2.0 mixed use study pa 2026-0257

And vice chair before we get too far into us. I need to recuse myself based on Property ownership interest of an employer and source of income of mine. So I will see you after the item. Thank you. Thank you

This is study session for all of us to become more informed about the study prepared as part of the REAP 2.0 program. The commission will not be taking an action tonight, but we may be providing input to staff. Staff, please proceed with your presentation.

Good evening again, Vice Chair Saleen. Liz Westmoreland once more, principal planner, and I'm joined tonight by Jerry Oregui. So we'll be sharing this presentation for you. Eager to share the results of the mixed use study. So first a little bit of background on this study. So the Regional Early Action Planning Program is a state program and the intent of it is to accelerate infill housing, affirmatively further fair housing, and reduce vehicle miles traveled. So reduce the amount of time that people are spending in their cars. A grant was provided directly to the Orange County Council of Governments, a regional organization that will be administering the program. And so what they chose to do with the grant funds was to establish a technical consulting bench to assist member agencies such as the City of Newport Beach in implementing housing element implementation programs. And so the city was selected, one of a few cities that were selected to receive technical assistance. And the policy action that we selected was the housing element policy action 4H review of mixed use zones. And so generally this action is intended to identify regulatory constraints for mixed use development. And then recommend policy and code changes to encourage infill housing. And so I want to recognize our partners on this project, including Housiel Levine and others that are here tonight to assist us as well, and also recognize the funding that has been provided by SCAG and OCOG. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON OUR MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS. I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT TO DESCRIBE FIRST. SO IN 2006, THE CITY CREATED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR MIXED USE. AND THEN IN 2010, THE CITY GENERATED ZONING TO IMPLEMENT THESE NEW LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. AND WE ALSO REMOVED A LOT OF THESE OLD SPECIFIC PLANS, SOME OF WHICH DID ALLOW FOR MIXED USE. So since 2010, although we expected to see some reinvestment in these mixed-use areas, we largely have not seen that. And so there are some historical mixed-use buildings out there largely that were built under the specific plans, such as in the Cannery Village, the lofts that are there. There's some other large ones like Peninsula Village, formerly known as The View, and a couple others. Under our current zoning, we have seen one project on Mariner's Mile, 2510, that was a mixed-use project. And then we've seen some scattered development in Balboa Village in particular. One of the reasons we think that has been the case is that there is a special parking overlay in Balboa Village. So the non-residential parking that's required for mixed use can be waived. administratively. So that's a unique circumstance here. And so I also wanted to note that five of our six districts are located in the coastal zone. The only one that's not is up on Dover Westcliff. So the mixed use study includes several components. So first, we provided a review of development review processes. So what kind of entitlements are required to implement a mixed use project? We looked at the development standards, so zoning standards, height, setback, floor area, et cetera, to see if there's any barriers there. The consultant also prepared conceptual plan test studies. So they developed conceptual plans for three test sites in the city to figure out if a project could fit based on our standards today. Not only did they do that, but they also looked at the economics of those projects. So do these projects actually work out financially if they're developed per code? SO TONIGHT WE ARE PRESENTING THE RESULTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN WE'LL BE PRESENTING THE RESULTS AND ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION TO OUR CITY COUNCIL IN JUNE. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THE CITY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE ARE MEETING OUR OBLIGATION THROUGH SHARING THESE RESULTS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL. SO WITH THAT I'LL HAND IT OFF TO JERRY WHO WILL PROVIDE THE RESULTS.

Thank you, Liz. So in reviewing the existing development review process, a mixed-use project within any of the mixed-use districts, it requires approval of a site development review application, which we actually previously just heard of the previous item. The zoning administrator can be the review authority for more small-scale mixed-use projects that have one or four dwelling units and have less than 10,000 square feet of commercial floor area. And the planning commission's the review authority for any of those projects that exceeds those thresholds. And so because many of the projects, excuse me, many of the mixed use districts are within the coastal zone, there's also a requirement for a coastal development permit. And so from a developer perspective, the public hearings for these different entitlements can introduce project complexity, can extend timelines and reduce the predictability of whether a project may be able to move forward. And so in looking what and determining whether there may be some issues with regard to mixed-use development our current code There were a series of conceptual plan test studies that were prepared for three different properties I went on to overdrive one in Canary Village and one in McFadden Square within their respective zoning districts and so these properties are typical properties that are representative of the properties within their respective AND SO REALLY WHAT THIS AIMS TO UNDERSTAND IS CAN A PROJECT BE BUILT UNDER THESE CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS? AND ALSO, THERE IS ALSO AN ECONOMIC COMPONENT TO UNDERSTAND ARE THESE PROJECTS THAT CAN BE BUILT, ARE THEY FINANCIALLY VIABLE? And so there's a detailed financial analysis that's been prepared and provided as an attachment to the staff report. And some of the considerations are construction costs, soft costs and entitlement risk, commercial and residential assumptions, and overall the target return thresholds to determine whether these projects can be financially viable. And looking at the first property, this is 881 Dover Drive. It's one of seven properties within the mixed-use Dover-Westcliff zone. It's a three-story office building. It doesn't include any residential units. It doesn't take advantage of any of the mixed-use opportunities THE ZONE ALLOWS AND NEITHER DOES ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA. SO THE CONSULTANT DID PREPARE TWO SEPARATE PLANS FOR THIS SITE. PLAN NUMBER ONE, IT'S A MIXED USE BUILDING, THREE STORIES, INCLUDES 31 DWELLING UNITS WITH 14,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 135 PARKING SPACES. THIS PROJECT WOULD CONFORM TO ALL THE ZONING STANDARDS. There was also a second plan that was provided, which includes an affordability component for the residential units, includes a total of 34 units, includes 19,000 square feet of commercial space to try to offset some of the financial burden with providing affordable units. It does provide 132 parking spaces, but because it does include more commercial space, the parking requirement is increased to 163 parking spaces. And so in this case, the parking requirement would not be met. In the lower right, there is an image of the plan number one. It includes the commercial non-residential foyer within the front with the residential units surrounding the center parking deck. And so what this conceptual plan reveals is that though plan number one meets all the standards, it's not financially viable. And plan number two which a court which includes the affordability component an additional commercial floor area It would require a waiver of 31 parking spaces or 19% So in addition to your site development review there would be a conditional use permit potentially for waiver parking or any other mechanism to waive parking as an additional discretionary application and so Really, the height limit may restrict the amount of stories that the parking structure can have. And so there is an opportunity for this project to request an increase in the height limit. However, that also requires an additional discretionary component furthering the complexity of that application. And so this project was also determined to not be financially viable. This is the second conceptual plan location. It's within the Cannery Village area. These two properties are commercial buildings. They don't include any residential units, so it, again, doesn't take advantage of the existing mixed-use zoning opportunities. THERE WAS ALSO TWO PLANS THAT WERE PROPOSED ON THESE TWO PROPERTIES AND TWO PROPERTIES WERE SELECTED BECAUSE HISTORICALLY IN THESE AREAS LAW CONSOLIDATION PROJECTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND HAVE BEEN PROPOSED AND SO THIS WAS APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE PLAN NUMBER ONE INCLUDES TWO COMMERCIAL SPACES ON THE FIRST FLOOR WITH THREE DWELLING UNITS ABOVE. THERE ARE SEVEN PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED WHICH MEETS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, BUT THE 12 SPACES FOR THE COMMERCIAL, IT'S NOT PROVIDED BECAUSE IT'S PHYSICALLY INFEASIBLE TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 12 PARKING SPACES ON THESE HEAVILY CONSTRAINED LOTS SINCE THEY'RE VERY SMALL. and so similar to plan number one plan number two has a similar design it does include an additional third story to further maximize the floor area ratio for the residential component but again it doesn't meet the parking requirement again none of those parking spaces for the commercial is is fits on the property and on the lower right is the conceptual rendering of what plan number one would look like and so what this conceptual plan reveals is that Again, a parking waiver would also be required for these 12 spaces for commercial. It's physically impossible to be provided. And because it does include two lots, there'll be another application for a lot merger that would be required. And so that would require a potential developer to acquire two separate properties Although one property could be acquired that really results in a scaled-down Project, which really only allows for one Residential unit and a very small commercial space and it would still actually require a parking waiver in the in that case because There's just not sufficient space to provide into the parking for the commercial component and in this case Plan number one was also not financially viable PLAN NUMBER TWO, IT DID LOOK TO INCREASE THE FLOOR AREA FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SPACE, BUT ONLY 69% OF THAT PROJECT WAS RENTABLE SPACE. LARGE AREAS OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE NOT TYPICALLY QUALIFIED AS RENTABLE SPACE INCLUDE LIKE THE COMMON HALLWAYS. The parking areas or some of the common and private open space requirements which result in those balconies and so this project was also not determined to be financially feasible and so the really the biggest impediment for development within these properties is Meeting that commercial parking requirement begin again because it's physically infeasible to provide those spaces on these on these small lots even even when multiple lots are purchased and consolidated for these projects Finally, the third location was these two duplex properties within McFadden Square. It's located right in front of the beach lot within the McFadden Square area. There was also, interestingly, these duplexes are located in between two commercial components of McFadden Square, so it doesn't allow for the continuity of commercial properties to exist in this area. And so there was one conceptual plan that was provided, again, on two separate lots as a consolidation project, which would include two commercial spaces on the first floor, three dwelling units above. Similar to the last conceptual plan, only the parking for the residential can be accommodated, those seven parking spaces, and none of the 12 spaces can be provided onsite, again, because these properties are very small. And on the lower left is a conceptual rendering of what that project would look like. And again very similar to the previous projects there would be a parking waiver that would be requested in addition to the site development review and the coastal development permit and also a lot merger application since it's a two lot project and again similar to the previous a single lot project would result in a very scaled down version again in this case only 55% of the project is rentable space and and it wouldn't be financially viable. So common theme among all of these properties is really the commercial parking is the issue when it comes to these projects proposed in these mixed use districts. SO THE CONSULTANT DID PREPARE A VARIETY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MIXED USE ZONES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HELP SOLVE SOME OF THE POTENTIAL BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT IN THESE AREAS. STAFF DID SORT THROUGH THESE SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND IDENTIFIED THOSE STAFF BELIEVE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE CITY AND THOSE WHICH MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE. SO WITH REGARD TO THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS, THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR Smaller scale mixed-use projects that include one or four units and less than 10,000 square feet of commercial space There's also a recommendation to allow additional density with many of these lots being very small There's only a one unit allowance that can be proposed and so this recommendation will allow for a minimum of two units to be allowed within those mixed-use districts and similarly the R2 two unit residential zone also has a similar provision where regardless of the lot size, it allows for two units. With regard to parking, there's a recommendation regarding residential parking requirements to be bedroom-based. And so this is actually something that's already within the housing overlays, within those projects that the commission has been consistently seeing. And so what this would allow is it would encourage smaller bedrooms, which, excuse me, smaller units which would require a less amount of parking and so under the current code a 3 000 square foot single family house would require the same amount of parking as a 400 square foot duplex it's two parking spaces so this would incentivize smaller units and also there would be a recommendation to waive the non-residential parking only for certain uses And so that way there can be an incentive for resident or visitor-serving uses within these specific areas. And the Balboa Village has a similar program that has been successful in that area in only incentivizing certain uses to waive parking for certain uses. Some a parking Recommendation that was not supported by staff is for just an overall administrative waiver for all commercial Staff wouldn't believe that's not necessarily appropriate since some uses may require a lot of require a lot of parking and most of these mixed-use districts are within the coastal zone and similarly for removing residential parking requirements that would potentially provide issue with the Coastal Act with providing coastal access to the coast. And so this recommendation would essentially not allow any parking or not require any parking and these folks would essentially park in the street, which again is an issue from a Coastal Act perspective. Now there's additional recommendations regarding the mixed use Mariners Mile zone. So currently there is not an allowance for properties, residential units to be located within 100 feet of Coast Highway. Staff would believe it is appropriate for units to be located within 100 feet of Coast Highway, as long as they're on the second floor, that would be an appropriate configuration. Additionally, for common open space, as we previously discussed, a lot of these common open space areas, it really removes the typical areas that qualify as rentable space. And so with those small projects, it's very inefficient to provide common open space because the lots are already very much constrained. So the recommendation would be to only require that for projects that are four or more units. And generally speaking, these mixed use zones, they're in high resource areas where common open space wouldn't necessarily be beneficial since they're in areas that are near the back bay and the beach. And so there's a lot of outdoor recreation opportunities that already exist. There's also a floor area ratio recommendation for the residential component of mixed use districts that was not necessarily supported by staff. There was a recommendation to increase the FAR. Staff believes that it would likely result in larger units versus more units, which is not necessarily intent of removing this residential barrier. There's also a recommendation for height. So the mix used over Westcliff is the only zone that's not in the coastal zone. And so the recommendation would be to increase the height limit to 55 feet for flat roofs and 60 feet for sloping roofs. And so that is already currently allowed through a discretionary review process. And also for this consideration would be requiring upper floor setbacks to offset any bulk and mass. And staff believes this would be an appropriate recommendation since it's in an area that doesn't have any coastal views or expect any impacts for buildings of this size. There was a recommendation that was not supported by staff regarding the removal of discretionary review for high increases in all zones Because many of the zones are within the coastal zone that would potentially have it result in issues with coastal views and coastal resources

Okay, and then finally, the final recommendation that we have here is a unique one. And this is related to the requirement for non residential uses on the first floor. And this is something that came from the affordable housing consultant. So currently, the requirement is in most districts is to have it on residential use on the first floor and for affordable housing in particular, that can be challenging. WHEN IT COMES TO THE VARIOUS FUNDING MECHANISMS THAT ARE INVOLVED. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS INTENDED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS ONLY AND IT WOULD ALLOW FOR US TO CONSIDER NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, SORRY, TO REDEFINE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO INCLUDE RESIDENT SERVING USES LIKE AMENITIES, A GYM, A COMMUNITY ROOM, THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT STILL MAINTAIN THAT KIND OF active pedestrian oriented frontage that we want to see in these mixed use projects, but doesn't provide that financial burden to these affordable housing projects. And so with that, we have a few key takeaways for you before we get into discussion. And so at the end of the day, what we've learned from this study is that there are zoning barriers to housing development in these mixed use zones. And we've explored a lot of those today. There's also several key zoning changes that can incentivize investment in these areas. We've learned that affordable housing is definitely challenging or sometimes infeasible, in particular as part of small mixed-use development projects. Project economics are challenging even without the affordable housing component. Another thing I wanted to note is that as part of this study, we provided this opportunity at a study session for feedback, but if we do pursue these recommendations, we'd like to conduct outreach with the property owners and to learn more from their perspectives as well. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE ARE NON-GOVERNMENTAL FACTORS AT PLAY HERE THAT WE CANNOT CONTROL. THOSE INCLUDE MARKET CONDITIONS, FUNDING SOURCES, AND THESE SMALL LOT SIZES THAT WE SEE IN A LOT OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS. SO WITH THAT, IT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION, AND WE'D LIKE TO SEEK FEEDBACK ON THE STUDY PRIOR TO HEADING TO THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION IN JUNE, AND WE HAVE A FEW PROMPTING QUESTIONS HERE TO PROVIDE SOME DISCUSSION. THANK YOU.

Sorry, thank you, that's a lot to take in. Commissioners, any questions of staff?

Commissioner Rosin. Thank you, excellent presentation. One of the things that I think I heard was that this zoning designation is recent in terms of the last decade. What was the, is that correct or did I mishear something?

The zoning itself was implemented in 2010. Many of these areas had old specific plans that had some form of mixed use allowed. So a lot of the mixed use you see was built under prior zoning.

Okay, so yeah, that was where I was headed, was what was there before, and did it change something? And I'm not sure that it did or not, frankly. And this might seem a little bit out of the box, but I mean, as I'm sitting here listening to this, the whole concept of this is to incentivize residential to a certain degree, it sounds like. And if that's the case, maybe there are areas within our mixed use code that would benefit from an overlay or something of that nature depending upon a lot of criteria, and I'm starting to get into spot zoning, and I'm concerned about saying that, but the concept of, hey, well, maybe if it's got a large enough site and it meets, you know, checks a bunch of other boxes like overlay zones can, maybe it waives the mixed-use component completely, if that seems appropriate in any way, shape, or form. And so if we're talking about ideas to bring in residential. It seems like the commercial component is the, and I don't think anybody up here would disagree that making these pencil has always been a challenge. And so, because you don't really get paid for the commercial component. So maybe with an overlay in an appropriate location, you disregard the commercial component completely. So just an idea for something And an overlay, it'd end up just like the overlay districts that we have already that sort of check boxes, waivers, et cetera, things that you can do to get creative with appropriate densities that are appropriate for certain mixed use components. Just a thought.

Okay. Sure.

Thank you, Chair. Similar to what was also shared, I believe the goal of this is to try to incentivize mixed use developments, correct?

That is correct. Specifically through the lens, for this particular grant, it's through the lens of developing additional housing opportunities.

Got it. So I had a couple of thoughts as it went through it. And I was looking through the attachments for the analysis that was done. And so this is maybe part of questioning it for staff or for the consultant. But what I didn't see ANY ASSUMPTIONS FOR IS FOR LAND VALUE. I TALKED ABOUT HARD COSTS AND YOU HAVE SOFT COSTS AND INCOME, BUT WHAT'S MISSING IS THE LAND VALUE COMPONENT. MAYBE IT IS IN THERE, JUST NOT INCLUDED IN THE ATTACHMENT. BUT IN ORDER FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER TO GO BUILD SOMETHING, THEY HAVE TO GO BUY THAT that land and so right what are the assumptions for that land cost because if we're determining whether something is economically viable or not um you have to make sure you can actually go buy it and what is that assumption for land and if something is currently listed as viable but the land is actually going to cost you another 10 million bucks now it's not viable and so if we're kind of the goal is to incentivize this mixed use development and add more housing to it i just want to make sure that we're WHEN WE'RE ANALYZING THESE PROJECTS, THAT WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT WHAT THE LAND COSTS ARE. WAS THAT LOOKED AT OR HOW WAS THAT ADDRESSED? I DIDN'T SEE ANY COMMENTS ON THE ATTACHMENTS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT. I BELIEVE IT WAS LOOKED AT AS PART OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, AS PART OF THE ASSUMPTIONS TO UNDERSTAND THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE PURCHASING A PROPERTY, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY SIGNIFICANT TASK, BUT THE CONSULTANT COULD COMMENT ON THAT FURTHER.

Yeah, exactly what Liz had mentioned. Yeah, it's factored into the hard costs and the soft costs of the development. But yeah, understanding that coastal communities do, that's a big burden, right? The cost of the dirt is the starter or the stopper, right?

But it's not called out separately? It's just rolled into the hard and soft costs, the land is? Yeah, correct.

Yeah, in that assumption.

It would be good to kind of see what those numbers are because I think as you go around the city, that land cost is gonna be different. I know a number of people that have looked at some of these sites specifically and can't offer the current landowner enough money to actually sell. And so is it make more sense just to stay as a three-story office building? I'm talking about the one on Dover specifically. So it's like, where are we adjusting those numbers to understand if there is a project that's viable? Because I think what we're saying is if it's not viable, then we need to look at development standards for this zone to then make it viable. Correct.

Yes, that is correct. And so if I'm understanding correctly, Commissioner Gazzano, something that could be helpful before we go to the city council would be to delve further into that hard cost associated with purchasing a property. And I think that is a really important thing to note. As Jerry mentioned, a lot of these projects we looked at include lot consolidation. So not only do you need a willing seller to have multiple lots, but you also need to be able to afford to purchase multiple lots.

Yeah. And I would just to clarify what you just said is it's it's not HARD COST. TYPICALLY YOU SEE IT AS LANDS BROKEN OUT SEPARATELY OF LAND HARD AND SOFT ON TYPICAL UNDERWRITING FOR THAT THING. JUST LOOKING AT THE LAND SPECIFICALLY. A SEPARATE COMMENT ON THE PARKING WAIVER FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU HAD SOMEONE, LET'S SAY IT MADE MORE SENSE TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL PROJECT, BUT IF I JUST PUT TWO UNITS ABOVE Now I get a waiver for my non-residential uses. So maybe there's a way to, you know, the residential uses has to be at least 50% of the overall floor area so that you make sure that we are actually getting the benefit of the housing there. Might be something to look at. And then the last one was, have we looked at other areas or extending some of these mixed use districts? Like the one on Dover and Westcliff, it stops at Westcliff, but I think the city's boundary still continues all the way over to Irvine from there. So that stretch between Irvine and Dover on Westcliff. Maybe there are other areas as we look at kind of the mixed use zones, they might want to try to expand the district too.

Thank you. Commissioner?

the only real comment i had that commissioner gazzano really caught was i just think we should did piggybacking off what he said we should break it out to be clear hard hard cost soft cars and then land because that's consistently commercially how projects are looked at it's really broken into those three chunks and i don't think you can accurately portray this without having some sort of land composition broken out explicitly and bearing a percent of it percentage of it on hard cost or soft cost doesn't really make sense to me

OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL HAVE TIME FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, BUT AT THIS POINT LET'S MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM?

Vice Chair Saleen and members of the commission, my name is Jim Mosher. I'm just slightly confused as I often am. One of the three examples, 881 Dover Drive, if I'm not mistaken, already has the housing overlay on it. And as I understand it, that gives the property owner currently the option to develop 100% residential if they meet the minimum density requirement for the overlay. And so is the objective here that we're trying to save the commercial component or we're trying to allow residential without that minimum density or I'm confused what we're trying to do. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else from the audience wish to speak? Staff have any comments?

Mr. Moser brings up a great point that there is a housing overlay on several of these sites within the Dover West Cliff area. But as part of our study, we're really looking at our existing mixed use zoning districts that are generally pretty much the same across the board with some nuances amongst the various zones. We're really looking at a variety of sites, and on Dover Westcliff, these are the largest sites by far. So we wanted to explore if that's something that would be viable as well. As Mr. Moser mentioned, the housing overlay that we have in place today allows for 100% residential, whereas our mixed use does not. So we wanted to understand if there were any barriers in place for developing under the current code without the overlay.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'll bring this to the Commission for further discussion and direction. Commissioners, any comments on the report? I think, you know, a lot of them have already been made, but are there any further ones? I would like to just offer that I'm concerned about the consistent discussion about parking waivers when it comes to these things. You know, we've all driven around, we've all had issues parking. and I struggle with the idea of allowing further parking waivers for just to encourage more residential. I think there should be a better way. I'm okay with doing away with some of the common open space, because particularly in these areas, there's plenty of RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AROUND, BUT, YOU KNOW, TO ME, UNLESS THERE'S SOME REALLY GOOD REASON TO WAVE PARKING, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MEDICAL COMPLEX AND THERE WERE SOME REASONS THAT MADE SENSE, BUT TO JUST GIVE UP A SPACE IN SOME OF THESE AREAS IS A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. I WOULD JUST OFFER THAT COMMENT. All right, so search for any other comments, anything else we can offer to city council? Any thoughts?

I think we've gotten some reasonable feedback from all of you, so I think we can take that and run with it for city council.

Okay, awesome. All right, moving on to our discussion item. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 5, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER UPDATES.

COMMISSIONER LANGFORD. EXCUSE ME. SORRY. WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU.

I HEARD. YES. SORRY. ITEM NUMBER 5, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER UPDATES PA 2026-0085. SITE LOCATION CLIP DRIVE IN KINGS PLACE SOUTH SIDE OF RIDGE PARK ROAD NEAR THE ZAHANIAN COMMUNITY.

And Vice Chair Saleen, the property, or excuse me, Commissioner Reed's property is within close proximity of the first location that we're going to be discussing, Cliff Drive in Kings Place. So with that in mind, he will be recusing on that item. So I think how we can structure the discussion is go ahead Mr. Riley can do his presentation. You could have a discussion and then we can bring mr Read back in so that he can participate in this in the second piece.

Okay. Thank you Okay, so this item is a discussion item and not a public hearing however We will still be asking for public comments staff. Please proceed with the presentation

uh good evening vice chair celine and members of the commission my name is kevin riley i am your city traffic engineer and i'm here to present on two items the first item is cliff drive in king's place there was requests at a prior planning commission meeting related to 601 dover there was a public comment where there was concerns about traffic safety at the intersection of cliff drive and kings and and the request was to consider and always stop. So the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices is a document that's developed by the federal government and It's used to determine when a traffic control device is necessary or needed. And then states, they modify that document, either crossing lines out or adding additional lines in the document. And we use that here in the state of California. So in considering the always stop, there were several approaches that we took to determine if it's warranted. So warranted means it's an assessment to determine if the traffic control device is needed and justified. So the first approach we looked at was traffic volumes. The requirement is to meet a minimum traffic value per hour for an eight-hour period. This intersection does not meet that requirement. In lieu of that, what we can look at is the split between the traffic on Cliff Drive versus King's Place, and that's what we did. The second approach is to look at the collision experience. So the numbers include having five correctable collisions within a 12-month period. And we were able to look at a period of 10 years. We could go as far back as 10 years based on our police database. And the correctable collisions that always stop would essentially mitigate our broadside collisions. Over the past 10 years, there were no broadside collisions that will be susceptible to correction by always stop. Other considerations is visibility. We looked at visibility and that wasn't a concern. Then also reasonable gaps in traffic. The question is, is there so much traffic on Cliff Drive that the residents or drivers from the side street place, they cannot make a left or right turn? So this is the intersection, Cliff Drive and Kings Place. Cliff Drive has two lanes. It's a two lane road with buffer bike lanes on and then also on the east leg. No parking is allowed on the west leg there. There is parking on the west leg on the south side there, their driveway. So Essentially there is no parking unless the owner of those properties fronting those driveways are blocking their own driveway. And then also there's stop approach on Kings Place and free flow on Cliff Drive. So as it relates to the traffic volumes, I mentioned that this intersection does not meet the minimum traffic volumes over an eight hour period. So what we looked at is the split. This intersection is experiencing 5,408 vehicles per day. The split, 85% of the traffic is experienced on Cliff Drive and 15% is on Kingspace. So if we were to install always stop, we would be stopping 85% of the traffic on Cliff or 15% on Kings, which would not justify an always stop based on traffic volume. And I mentioned the collision experience. There was only two collisions that were recorded at this intersection in the past 10 years. And they were single car collisions. There was one, a vehicle hit a tree. And then there was another one, a vehicle hit a curve. And looking at visibility, we did measure the grades. So there is some vertical curve on Cliff Drive. The vertical curve, it does descend on the east leg is about 8%, and then on the west leg is about 2% to 3%. And we did assess the... the visibility from both side street approaches. So looking left, we were able to see approximately at least 400 feet to the left, the vehicle lane and then also look into the to the on both sides actually to look into the left. And then on the right, we were able to see at least looking to the right about 300 feet, which is more than satisfactory as far as visibility from the side street. And then also there are reasonable gaps in traffic on Cliff for the drivers at the side street approach of King's Place to be able to proceed left or right. Traffic does pick up in the afternoon when school lets out, but it's not as significant enough to not grant adequate gaps in traffic. Based on those evaluations, I don't recommend always stop at this point. Once the development is 100 percent occupied at 601 Dover, we can reassess for gaps in traffic to see if potentially any added volume would impact. THE VEHICLES FROM SIDE STREET ABILITY TO TURN LEFT OR RIGHT INTO THE INTERSECTION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

MR. REILLY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? YES. COMMISSIONER ZEN.

SO I THINK EVERY TIME I'M AT THIS INTERSECTION, IT'S REALLY SPEED THAT IS THE ISSUE, AT LEAST for me and one of the things that is interesting on this particular diagram that we're looking at is that Signal Road has a four-way and I'm wondering how it, somehow met that criteria, although it probably has slightly more cross traffic. I'm still kind of wondering if that's true in my mind. And, you know, a traffic calming devices are there's like lots of opportunities for that. And if you put in a pedestrian crossing something bless you Does that add some sort of traffic calming for that location that would be beneficial and or These are I don't know that you're I don't expect an answer to be honest. I'm just bringing it up that this is the kind of thing that I'm often surprised by something so close being qualifying but right down the street doesn't and then thinking about well, what other things are out there as opposed to I you know, full stop. And I'm assuming if you have a pedestrian crossing, you should have a full stop anyway, right? I guess that's not true at CDM. There isn't one on East Bluff, but there is a light mechanism for people to cross. So thinking out loud of other opportunities that might exist here that would help the neighborhood, because I think we all heard the neighborhood say, this is a needed This is something that's needed, so maybe some ideas to add around a little bit.

Thank you. Commissioner Gazzano.

Go ahead. I can respond to that comment.

Go ahead. Yeah.

So please, I think the second part you mentioned about providing a pedestrian crossing crossing cliff at Kings. So right now, this intersection does not experience a lot of pedestrian. So we would not mark a crosswalk here. Pedestrians, they can cross. I mean, it would be considered an unmarked crosswalk. There are a lack of like ADA here at this intersection, so there's no ADA ramps at the corner. So this is not a location that we would consider installing a crossing. As far as the always stop at Signal, I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY BEEN THERE FOR MANY YEARS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS, WHAT WAS THE DETERMINATION TO INSTALL THAT ALWAYS STOP.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. I HAD ALMOST THE EXACT SAME THOUGHTS AS COMMISSIONER ROSIN ON THAT. ONE WAS LOOKING AT SIGNAL WITH THE ALWAYS STOP THERE AND ALSO As I experienced me to drive through there, as you come up cliff, I mean, you don't see any driveways or anything like that, and you tend to go a little bit faster, and then all of a sudden, as you see the stop sign at signal, you tend to slow down. The other thing to maybe look at is average speed on cliff drive. I don't know if there was a speed study done or if there was anything else I was looking at other than just a stop sign.

So we did gather some, we did get some speed data on Cliff Drive. As far as speed, so I know it's kind of like a stop sign, you would think that it's used to control speed, but from a traffic engineering perspective, like always stop, speeding is not a consideration when implementing, when justifying an always stop. because it's important to warrant the always stop based on either collision experience or a balance in traffic or other traffic volumes. If we install a warrant to always stop, then we may have drivers running the stop sign because oftentimes though they'll approach this stop sign on cliff and um if if the stop sign was installed at clifton king it would approach the intersection and there's a high probability that they'll run the stop sign because there's no vehicles on the side street and then and then proceeding they'll have another stop sign always stop at signal so um all uh speeding is not a consideration We have looked into installing driver feedback signs. So those are the speed radar signs along Cliff. We are installing one adjacent to the middle school on Cliff soon. So we're looking for opportunities in other locations on Cliff that we can install a driver feedback sign to regulate the speed.

Are there, I guess maybe just looking at other options and whether, I think the speed feedback sign, for lack of a better term, as you described it, those are, I think, good deterrents. Are there other items like that that can maybe make that intersection safer?

So existing there, the buffer bike lanes, they do offer a narrowing of the vehicular lane. That is another soft mitigation that's used to help control speed to narrow the vehicular lane. Other options we can look at installing like speed stencils on the road Well, the speed limit, it will be, this error is 30 miles per hour, so we can, like, that's another way to advise the driver that, you know, the speed limit is 30 miles per hour. So that's.

And going back, I think it was some of the justifications to install an all-way stop. It didn't meet that threshold were we was it close or was it like we're not even close You know it you know no chance.

It's gonna happen Yeah, so for example for traffic volumes on cliff you the eight hour so every for eight hours for every hour on cliff The volume would need to be 300 vehicles. Well, it could be a combination of vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, but it needs to hit 300 for eight hours, 300 per hour for eight hours. And then on the side street is 200, considering all modes of transportation. So it wasn't even considered because it's not close. And then also 85% of the...

So what was the threshold and where was it? It's threshold 300 and we're at 200?

No, it's far less than that. It's not even close. And then there's essentially no collisions at this intersection, you know. So collisions are, so potentially there could be like, you know, fender benders. Those are typically collisions that are not reported. So there's no report. Generally collisions that are reported are injury-based collisions. So that's, we assess based on injury-based collisions. And then the visibility, it's acceptable at this location because there's no parking on the street. And so the driver on a side street approach, they can see clearly east and west on Cliff Drive.

I guess my recommendation I think you had brought up was after the project is built down at Dover and Cleft to revisit this. And I think that's a good idea. I would support that.

OK. Good.

Any further comments or questions of staff? No? OK. We will now move on to public comments. Anyone from the audience want to comment on this item? Thank you. Staff, have any other comments?

If we can move on to the 2nd location now and bring commissioner read back.

Moving on.

Yes. So the second item was, um, a request from commissioner Rosine to evaluate, uh, parking on, uh, rich park, um, adjacent to the, uh, the Ziani, the, the side street Ziani. Um, so we, um, I'm sorry, sorry. So you can see, so the yellow, it represents on-street parking, and then the signs are the location where the no parking signs are located. This stretch of road, it does have vertical and horizontal curve. So we believe that this no parking signs were in place because of that. I did look at opportunities to the east on the south side of the street where the last no parking sign is located. We can remove that sign and it would provide approximately 130 linear feet of additional parking and that amounts to about five spaces. I think the final assessment could determine opening up those five spaces is based on the need for those five spaces. So if the area is parked during the peak period, WE ASSESSED DURING THE WEEK. I THINK THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY IS TO LOOK OVER THE WEEKEND TO SEE IF THERE'S AN ISSUE ON THE WEEKEND AND THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE CAN ADD MORE PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET.

COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS?

I FEEL COMPELLED TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS HERE ON THIS ONE. I'M SORRY. I understand the reasoning and I appreciate that and I certainly wouldn't want additional parking at the entry to Pacific Ridge so that there's clean lines of sight. But during the weekend, you really should go here to see it. The park has several places where there's soccer fields are put up and so there's people playing soccer. There's people, significant amount of people that use this area for hiking and maybe even a larger group of people that use this for access to mountain biking in this area. We have people right now parking all the way at the top of the hill going the other direction from what you're seeing here, and even over the top of the crest. And I'm one of those people occasionally. So I think that it should be looked at from the perspective of walkability to access the parks. But especially along that curve, that south, the curve that is closest to Coastal Peak Park, that area in particular is, people park there anyway, frankly. And once there's enough of them, they all get pretty comfortable. And so I know that there's a book that tells us exactly how it's supposed to work, but I wonder how much leeway there is there in the future. So that's my only comment.

And I agree with you. I did witness that there was vehicles parked there. So I think we can open it up. I can drive by this weekend and take a look. And I can report back to planning next week on Tuesday and provide direction if we will.

Yeah, I think the community would really benefit from that. So thank you very much.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. TO ADD ON TO THAT, I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE PARK UP HERE TO GO HIKING BECAUSE THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES IF YOU PARKED AT THE STATE PARK UP PCH, IT'S LIKE A 15 OR 20 BUCKS. SO THE FREE PLACE TO PARK IS YOU JUST GO TO THE TOP OF THE TRAIL AND YOU START UP HERE. SO THE WEEKENDS, I'VE BEEN THERE A BUNCH AND IT'S PARKING IS TOUGH TO COME BY. MY OTHER QUESTION WAS I THINK YOU SAID IT WAS A CURB ISSUE OR WHAT WAS THE ISSUE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET WHERE YOU HAVE THE FIVE SIGNS CURRENTLY WHY WE COULDN'T DO MORE PARKING THERE? I KNOW ONE TO THE EAST COULD LOOK AT POTENTIALLY TAKING OFF BUT WHY NOT THE REST OF THEM?

SO EASTBOUND THERE'S A DESCENDING VERTICAL CURVE. SO, YOU KNOW, DESCENDING VERTICAL CURVE.

CURVE IN THE STREET. I GOT YOU.

I GET IT NOW.

Thank you.

OK. Thank you. Commissioner, any further questions? No? Do we move on to public comment on this item as well? Yes. OK. Open for public comments. Any? OK. Thank you. Staff have any further comments? All right. Any further discussion, commissioners? No? OK. Then we'll just move on to the next item. Thank you. Item number six, 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 commission member would like placed on a future agenda.

Thank you, Vice Chair Selene. Ben Zadiva here on behalf of Community Development Director Jaime Murillo, who's taking some well-deserved time off. Just wanted to put on your radar, next week at City Council, there are two ordinance being introduced that are quite notable. The first being the Housing Element Implementation Program amendments, a long time coming. These are making the housing opportunity overlay effective in the coastal zone. So the city did receive coastal commission Approval of the local coastal program amendment with suggested modifications at its April meeting This will be a brand new public hearing where the city will be considering City Council will be considering introducing the ordinance with the suggested modifications from the Coastal Commission to effectively make the zoning effective in the coastal zones that's a big milestone that would complete the city's rezoning efforts for the housing element and And then secondly, the zoning code and amendments related to the tobacco retailer enhanced regulations that you all reviewed with the cigar lounge component is being introduced at city council next week as well. In terms of your June meetings, you do have two, both June planning commission meetings do have items. On June 4th, you have the 1300 Dove townhome project, which is another airport area. Focus area project with 132 for sale units and then on June 18th You have the West cliff at Dover residential development. It's a 30 unit for sale residential project This one is adjacent to the environmental nature center notably. So that concludes my report. Thank you.

Thank you commissioners request for future agenda items

It looked like the Bristol Street driveway access that was appealed to council.

Yes, that is correct. It was appealed, and I believe it will be heard at the June 23rd City Council meeting. Thank you.

Okay. Anyone from the audience wish to comment on these items? Okay, moving on, request for excused absences. Are there any requests for excused absences? Gentlemen, no. Then we are adjourned.