Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

I haven't seen too many kids in the office.

Good evening. Good evening. Thank you, everyone, for coming. We're going to wait just a couple minutes here. Please find a seat. If you need overflow in the second room, they will also be displaying the meeting, running in there if needed. We're waiting for one more planning commissioner who's running a little behind, so please bear with us a couple more minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. There are words there.

I don't know of a place to hand them in. I don't know if you need to hand them in. It's very instructive.

Okay, good evening, good evening, good evening. Thank you everyone for being here tonight. We have all the commissioners present that are gonna be here. As I mentioned before, for anyone just trickled in, there's extra seating in the room just out the center of the back. They'll be displaying the meeting in there. So if you wanna watch from there, that's totally fine as well. Can we please? All right, we'll get going. If we could keep it down as much as possible, please. Okay, I'll call the June 18th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order. Will everyone please stand, and will Commissioner Elmore please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag,

under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

OK, staff roll call, please.

All commissioners are present, with the exception of Commissioner Ruzin, who is excused this evening.

Everyone, you're totally fine to chit-chat and stuff, but can we please do it in the other room, just so we don't have the background? It was really hard for us to hear, and we've got presentations, so we're totally fine if people are visiting and stuff, but if we could please do it in the other room. You can still watch the meeting and everything, but in this room, we have to kind of keep it as quiet as we can so we can all communicate properly. Thank you. Okay. 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. These are items not on the agenda tonight. Any speakers? Okay. Moving on. Request for continuances. Staff, any requests? There are none this evening, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Okay, consent items. Item number one, the minutes of June 4th, 2026. Would anyone from the audience like to comment on the minutes from the June 4th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting? Seeing none. All right, I will call for a motion to approve.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of June 4th.

I'll second.

The motion carries 5-0 with Commissioner Elmore abstaining.

Okay, moving on to the next item. Item number two, Westcliff at Dover Residential Development. It's PA 2025-0254. Site location is 1501 East 16th Street. Staff, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair Harris. Oscar Orozco here with the Planning Division presenting the Westcliff at Dover residential development. As mentioned, the project site's located at 1501 16th Street, depicted here in yellow. The project site's also located in the general commercial general plan land use designation, as well as the office commercial zoning district. The project site's also located within the Housing Opportunity Overlay, known as HO3 for the Dover-Westcliff area. The project is adjacent to an existing church located to the north as well as a large multi-unit residential to the north as well. To the east, there is an existing commercial office building immediately adjacent to the site, as well as a church across the street from Dover Street. To the south, the project site is immediately adjacent to the Environmental Nature Center's preschool, as well as an existing single unit residential development. And to the west, the project site is immediately adjacent to the Environmental Nature Center, as well as the Newport Harbor High School. The project request is for the demolition of a vacant medical office building and for the construction of a 30-unit four-cell residential townhomes development. The project site would include five detached three-story buildings with rooftop decks. The project buildings range from a minimum of 44 feet 1 inch from established grade all the way up to 44 feet 7 inches in height from established grade. The buildings include units, which include three bedrooms and two car garages. In addition, the project includes nine guest parking spaces and waste storage for the development is located within the individual garages. Here you'll see a rendering of the project from 16th Street. The project is designed with a Cape Cod style for the architectural design, which is characterized by symmetrical massing, side gable roof forms, and horizontal lap siding. The project applicant will speak a little more to the architectural style and as it relates to the compatibility for the site within their presentation. Here you'll see the site plan for the proposed project. As mentioned before, it's comprised of five different buildings. That's 100 through 500. Buildings 400 and 500 in orange there are seven unit buildings. Buildings 200 and 100 in blue are five unit buildings. And building 300 in green is six units. The project takes access from 16th Street on the left-hand side there. And as mentioned before and highlighted here in yellow, there are a total of nine guest parking spaces per post. Project implementation requires the following approvals, a major site development review, that's for a project of five or more units with a track map, as well as the deviations that are being requested, or five deviations from the multi-unit objective design standards. In addition, the vesting tentative track map for the individual sale of the units, and the SQL review given it is AB130 statutorily exempt. As mentioned before, the project site is located within the Dover Westcliff Housing Opportunity Overlay as depicted in this map here. The red depicts all of the properties within this area that have been included in the housing overlay. The specific project site is 142 as a housing opportunity site. These housing opportunity sites came to be as a result of the six cycle housing element. This six cycle housing element is derived from state mandates, which require that cities plan for a certain number of units. The regional housing needs assessment allocation for the city of Newport Beach is a total of 4,845 units, which the city has planned for through 50 public hearings and meetings as part of the preparation of the housing element. AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, THE CITY IDENTIFIED A TOTAL OF FIVE SUB AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, WHICH ARE LISTED HERE. AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DOVER WEST CLIFF AREA. THESE ARE DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE CITY. NOTABLY, THE DOVER WEST CLIFF AREA IS THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY THAT HAS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF UNITS. AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, THIS PROJECT WAS INITIALLY IDENTIFIED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS BEING POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. That housing element, which was prepared, was adopted by the city council in September of 2022. Subsequently, the Department of Housing and Community Development at the state level certified the housing element as compliant with state law. In September of 2024, the city council established the housing overlay, which requires that projects meet a minimum of 20 dwelling units to the acre as a minimum to ensure compliance with state law. In addition, the council also created multi-unit objective design standards, implementing several of the policy actions found within the housing element. As mentioned before, the project requires a major site development review. Here are some of the topics that I'll be discussing with regards to that review analysis. There's a consistency with zoning standards, design, scale and compatibility, landscape and amenities, objective design standards, and traffic. To begin, you'll see here a zoning compliance table depicting the minimum requirements for the HO3. The project as designed meets all of the minimums. I will highlight the minimum density is met through the 30 units. The project also complies with all the setbacks and includes additional setbacks For example, along the sides between the project site and ENC, there's a setback of a minimum 10.5 through 12 feet for two of the buildings, as well as on the opposite side between the existing commercial development of 10 feet. In addition, the project is proposed at a height well below the overall height limit, ranging from 44 foot 1 inch to 44 foot 7 inches, well below the 65 foot limit. And lastly, with respect to parking, the project proposes two parking spaces per unit in each garage, as well as nine spaces on site, as previously mentioned. As discussed, here is a copy of the site plan identifying those required setbacks. The front along 16th Street is a minimum of 10 feet. The rear along the rear property line is a minimum of 20. And along the sides, there is a zero foot setback as required by the HO. In green, you'll see the proposed landscape buffer areas, which provide additional setbacks for all the buildings throughout the site, notably along the side yards, there is a enhanced setback, but also along the fronts and the rear, along the corners. In addition, the project is required to provide a minimum driveway width of 26 feet, which is depicted here in yellow, and designed to meet that minimum. The project also includes landscape throughout, more specifically in these enhanced setback areas. The landscape perimeter provides for passive green space along with walkways as well as seating areas for residents. In addition, the project meets the minimum and exceeds the minimum open space standards by providing approximately 3,200 square feet of common open space throughout the site. Zooming in on the landscape plan here, you'll see the amenity area, which is required per the objective design centers. One is required for the site based off the project unit count. It's being provided in a residential courtyard depicted here, which will include barbecue pits, a fire pit, seating areas, and some tables. The project is also required to comply with objective design standards. Of the 42 that are required, the project meets 47. There are five specific standards that are being requested to be waived, which are listed here. I'll highlight two. Item number three, which is the requirement for buildings to not exceed 150 feet in length. Two of the five buildings, more specifically building 400 and building 500, exceed that by six feet for building 400 and 14 feet for building 500. This is done intentionally to meet the minimum dwelling units per acre that are required by the zoning district to ensure compliance with all other setbacks and building separation requirements. I'd like to also note number four, which is a maximum of two recesses for the project, and this is for building articulation. The project provides more than the minimum two to ensure that additional articulation is included in the project design to accommodate for scale, massing, and compatibility. With respect to traffic, the project was analyzed and as proposed would generate 134 average daily trips. In comparison, the existing medical use would generate 101 average daily trips. However, given the site has been vacant for several years, no credit was provided to the project as part of the analysis. Without the credit, the project remains 134 average daily trips, which is less than the 300 threshold to require a additional traffic study as part of the traffic phasing ordinance of the city. In addition, I'd like to provide for comparison's sake, given the site is zoned for office commercial, a new 20,000 square foot medical office building proposed on site would generate approximately 680 average daily trips. With respect to compatibility and scale, the list here identifies specific design choices that the applicant has made with respect to compatibility and scale. Garage locations, building heights, enhanced setbacks, landscape buffers, rooftop deck orientation, and safety railing material. as well as perimeter walls. The applicant will expand on these as part of their presentation. And I'd like to note that the city can only review objective standards. So going back to the housing overlay, which includes the development standards as well as the objective standards of the ODS. Second component of the project, as mentioned before, is the vesting tentative track map for condominium purposes and the individual sale of those units. Infrastructure, including sewer and water, as part of the review, have been included as conditions of approval to ensure sufficient THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A 12-FOOT DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY ALONG 16th STREET. THIS IS TO RECLAIM SIDEWALK AND PARKWAY BY THE CITY. ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING AND FIRE CODES AS WELL AS PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS. With respect to environmental review, the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Public Resources Code as well as Assembly Bill 130. The project meets the eligibility criteria to qualify for AB 130. Therefore, under AB 130, there is no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. As part of AB 130, city staff is required to consult with the tribes Staff has conducted those consultations, and the conclusion of those consultations is included as conditions of approval for the projects monitoring during the development. The project has also seen quite a bit of community interest. More specifically, in early 2025, community expressed concerns over compatibility, the ENC interface, as well as neighborhood impacts. THE APPLICATION WAS MADE IN DECEMBER OF 2025, AND DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, THE ENC HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER RAISING ISSUES WITH MASSING, PRIVACY, LIGHTING, NOISE, AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT DESIGN, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS HAVE RAISED ISSUES WITH COMPATIBILITY, TRAFFIC, PARKING, AND CONSTRUCTION. Opposition letters have also been received, both before publishing of the staff report, which were included as attachments, and after publishing of the staff report, which were included as additional materials for the planning commission. There were approximately 110 of those received. As part of the staff report, there was also an attachment as a applicant's response to ENC's letter. And in addition to that, the applicant also provided approximately 44 support letters. With that being said, staff requests to revise condition of approval number 53 to strike out the language as listed there and revise to private streets improvements, excuse me, private street improvements that comply with Public Works Department standards, as well as strike out condition of approval 77, 78, and 79, given they are duplicate conditions of approval. In summation, the project site is a housing opportunity site pursuant to the housing element as well as the zoning of the housing opportunity overlays. The project complies with all of the housing opportunity overlay development standards and in addition includes a lowered height, an increased front, side, and rear setback as well as enhanced landscape buffers. With that being said, staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, find the project exempt from CEQA, and adopt the resolution recommending approval of the project as amended. This concludes my presentation. I am available for questions. The applicant is also here and ready to make a presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Orozco. It's a very nice presentation. Commissioners, any questions for staff at this time?

THANK YOU. TWO QUESTIONS. ON MINIMUM UNIT WITH, IS THERE A MINIMUM UNIT WITH, THIS RELATES TO ONE OF THE WAIVERS, THAT IS A CODE REQUIREMENT HERE IN THIS DISTRICT?

THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC MINIMUM UNIT WIDTH. OF COURSE THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODES RELATED TO THE SIZE OF BEDROOMS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE WIDTH OF THE UNITS ARE DRIVEN BY THE SIZE OF THE GARAGE. THE CITY HAS A MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIREMENT OF 17 FEET 6 INCHES.

SECOND QUESTION, THIS KIND OF GOES TO THE ORIGIN OF THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY SITES WHEN IN THE CREATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT KIND OF APPLY TO SEVERAL SITES, WAS THERE ANY SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO INDIVIDUAL SITES GIVEN CHARACTERISTICS AND ADJACENCY OF NEIGHBORING USES when creating these development standards? Or was it more of a blanket set of development standards that could be applied kind of throughout and then as a project or application comes forward, it is evaluated at that time? I wasn't on the commission when those came up.

Thank you, Commissioner Gazzano. Great question. It is more of a blanket program. There are many sites within the housing element that are identified as opportunity sites. And there are five different sub areas, as Oscar indicated, that have blanket standards. And they are intended to cover density ranges between the 20 dwelling unit per acre minimum up to the 50 dwelling unit per acre maximum. And we have to demonstrate that that's a feasible development. So that's why some of the restrictions, such as the height limitation for this property is 65 feet. And being that the developer is coming in with a proposal of 20 dwelling units per acre, which is the minimum, the height limit, or the height limit is being complied with, and in fact, 20 feet below the maximum.

Got it. Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions at this time? Okay. Commissioners, please report any ex parte communication. Start with Commissioner Reid.

I have spoken with the applicant and also a representative of the E&C. I spoke with the applicant.

I met with the applicant and the director of the E&C.

I've met with the applicant and I have met with or spoken with two board members of the E&C.

I also met with the applicant and toured the site with him and also met with the neighbor at the ENC and toured the site from their perspective as well.

I met with the applicant and with one of the board members of the ENC, even though I don't think we are required to disclose that, but might as well.

Thank you. Okay, I will open the public hearing. Does the applicant want to make a presentation or comment tonight? And quickly, just for the audience, now is not public comments for everyone else. If we could keep proper decorum, I'll probably remind again before we actually start public comment and give some direction on how we're going to handle this. I believe the applicant has no more than 15 minutes to speak at this time. Yes, sir. We'll try to keep it closer to 10 if we can.

15 would be great.

Thank you.

Do your best. But I would respect that. Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission, first of all, good evening. My name is Daniel Boyd, Vice President of Entitlements for D.R. Horton. Proud to be with the firm for now 27 years. It's been a pleasure to work with staff. I appreciate staff's attention to detail and their level of service has been exceptional. And so I really want to say a shout out to the staff. We are pleased to present to you a proposal that you heard from your staff report, which we have reviewed as well. And we totally concur with the staff report, its resolutions. And we have reviewed the conditions of approval, including those proposed amendments. And we approve the same as authored. I'd also like to make a notation. There are several conditions of approval that rate specifically to E&C's concerns. We will not go over that. But I would point out that there are a number of conditions that related to their concerns. I'm now going to push this button. This height plan has been thoroughly reviewed, and from the north, south, west, and east boundaries, we can all concur one thing. This subject site is definitely within a very urbanized area. I think that's recognizable. However, more importantly, it's within an area of Newport Beach, which I belong to Newport Heights. I've been a resident for over 55 years. This site is uniquely qualified for this housing opportunity from the standpoint that obviously it's near churches, parks, it's near extraordinary amount of shopping, bars, specialty stores, coffee shops, et cetera, et cetera. It's further surrounded by existing residential. Obviously a major neighbor is the Newport Harbor High School. They actually own a portion of the subject site at ENC. They have major play facilities, baseball facilities, next. Furthermore, the Bob Henry Park is located nearby, which obviously provides for a high level of athletic activities. I'm proud to say that I too was once a reserve police officer in Newport Beach, and I remember Bob Henry personally. So I'm very fond of that park.

With respect to the site plan,

Again, the site has been thoroughly reported to you, but I'd like to point out just a couple of things. The setbacks are not to be underscored. We do not have side yard setbacks, although we have provided a side yard setback, particularly in view of E&C, and that ranges between 10 1⁄2 to 12 feet. What's going to be occurring in that setback is a four foot wide sidewalk, along with some landscaping adjacent to our buildings, and more importantly, ample area to plant our landscaping program that we have been developing over the last several months. There's no question in our mind that We all know that this is a housing opportunity. We all know what the law says, but that's not important to us this evening. What's more important to us is working closely with ENC, and I'd like to spend a minute on that. We initiate our discussions with ENC board, and those discussions transpired over a period of approximately 10 months. During that time, we listened and we learned and we also visited the site. We truly understood from Bo's perspective, from Bo's board's perspective, the two primary issues was visual and noise intervention. And to that degree we made a special point to come up with a landscape plan which will be more thoroughly discussed here in a moment. At this point in juncture we feel firmly that while we comply with all the bells and whistles we have developed a landscape plan that would basically provide the following. We are going to install plant species and trees. that have a potential of 20 feet at the time of planting with the potential projected growth of up to 30 feet over a period of time. That would be adjacent to the E&C campus. When I refer to E&C campus, I'm referring to the E&C Environmental Center. What E&C has accomplished over the last 25 plus years is amazing, it's respected, And we, too, are very sensitive to that. I particularly graduated from Harbor High in 1979. And so I was around when ENC was just initially getting started. And we have to remember the historical use of this property has been a psychiatric, involuntary, rehabilitative center. And it operated for multiple decades. at the same time that ENC campus was operating. I believe the preschool was actually constructed somewhere between 2014 and 2015, and so during that time, the actual facility had closed down approximately 2021 to 2022, and the property owner essentially has been maintaining the property in a secured fashion. Any comments or issues relative to the property ownership, his attorney is present today, so he may answer any questions. From that standpoint, I'd like to introduce Dan Dugan. He is our designer for WHA. Dan's gonna spend a minute or two to walk through some of the illustrations that we'd like to showcase. Dan, would you please come forward?

Hello, my name is Dan Dugan. I'm with WHRE Architects. I'm here with our Vice President of Architecture, Gary Cunningham. And here are the proposed features for our units. We've got 10 different floor plans ranging in the square footage from

You got it.

Is that better? Okay, sorry about that. The range is from 2,088 square foot to about 2,400 square feet. Each unit will provide three bedrooms, anywhere between two and three bathrooms, and each unit will provide a rooftop deck. and some of the units will have second floor balconies. Each will have the traditional two-car garage, and each unit will have a standard residential fire sprinkler system. Like we talked about, we were inspired by the staff and suggested to do the Cape Cod style for our elevation. Exteriors and the Cape Cod style is synonymous with coastal areas and also compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods of similar to the castaways, Newport Heights and Dover Shores. And some of the features of Cape Cod style is simple symmetrical building massing and roofing. Exterior horizontal siding complemented with a secondary accent material such as born battens or shingles Windows are usually vertically proportioned there's painted wood elements throughout such as pot shelves columns and Also, the colors for the exteriors are usually light neutral exterior color palettes of white grays and blues and And this first slide is a view from the corner of East 16th and Dover. And you'll see those are two buildings. The one on the left is building 500. The one on the right is building 200. And just to note, the presentation that Mr. Roscoe gave stated that the building 500 was 164 feet wide. It is actually 159. There's a slight skew in the building, but an overall linear dimension comes in at 159. And from the view here, you can see that the different materials, it's a little bit hard to see, but we have horizontal lap siding in the middle with the banding and the vertical board and battens on the end, which happens to coincide with the ODS guidelines of horizontal and vertical modulation. This view is down the street on E 16th, and this is also building 200, but I just want to point out before we go too further into the details that that grass strip that you see along the red curb In reality, if you go back to the site plan, the landscape plan, there'll be two 36-inch box carrot wood trees, basically six feet in from either end of the two drive entrances. But we did want to put them in this view just so you could see the architecture and the detailing and all the different details that we're adding to our architecture. The next view is a view of our building 500 as you're going up Dover Drive. This is the building that is actually 159, and around the middle of the building, there's a slight skew, about 10 degrees, that follows the curvilinear arc of the property line.

Pick it up on time and get it short. Okay.

And this is just a close up of building 500. I just want to point out the windows on the side facing closest to us. Those are all two foot by two foot windows. And those windows occur on all three sides or all sides of the three buildings that overlook the preschool. The sill of these windows are at six feet the top of the windows are at eight feet So there's really no way to look out those windows and down. They're mostly they're primarily there to bring light into the spaces And with that I'll give the floor back to mr. Boyd Thank you

I'm now going to introduce Jeff Tronowski, who is our landscape architect. Before he stands up, though, recognizing the time constraint will be very quickly going through these images. The purpose of these images that you're going to see is to show the actual visualization with respect to sensitive areas within ENC, both looking from us and then looking towards them. We've also prepared line of sight exhibits that we too will quickly go through. It's very important that we kind of digest this because this is really the focus of major concerns from ENC. and we've worked very hard to get through these concerns. Jeff, would you step forward, please?

Good evening. So I've been on site multiple times, and we want... I've been on site multiple times. Please state your name. Oh, this is Jeff Trojanowski, BMLA Landscape Architecture.

All right. We'll ask him to speak in the microphone. Thank you.

My name is Jeff Trojanowski, BMLA Landscape Architecture. I've been on the ENC site to look at the sensitive areas multiple times. I'd say this is probably one of the most sensitive areas. And this image right now shows the site at installation, or what our buildings would look like from this space at installation. And then within 10 years, having an extra 10 foot of growth, all you see is the roof lines. from the patio area here's another view at installation and then at 10 years and this one we have a outdoor classroom and with the the mature growth of the landscape as is on site there's very minimal views to our our project We also took elevations from our site to ENC. The light green is the existing landscape as is now, and the upper elevation is our landscape and trees installation, and then additional 10 years of growth on the bottom. Now for the line of sight, we wanted to take a look at what could be seen from our site or from ENC's site. So this is the, SOUTHEAST CORNER, UNIT 30, AND AT INSTALLATION FROM THE ROOF DECK, YOU CAN SEE THE TOP OF THE BUILDING, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT FROM THIS LOCATION BASED ON OUR WINDOWS. AND AT 10 YEARS ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NO VIEWS WHATSOEVER. THE NEXT LINE OF SITE, WE HAVE NO VIEWS INTO THE SITE AT ALL AT INSTALLATION OR AT 10 YEARS. Here on the southeast corner of the preschool site, we have no views into the preschool based on the landscape provided, and then at 10 years, you can't see the buildings at all. Here is the gathering space to the north west of our property and there are multiple views that we can get into, only one view you can get into the site from our third story at installation and then at 10 years there's no views into ENC or only roof lines from ENC to our site. Now this last line of site is of our southwest corner. And here, with the grade change of our site to their site, there is no views down into ENC. And at 10 years, there's no views into the ENC.

In the interest of the time remaining, I would like to advance our presentation to effectively our conclusion. But I want to conclude by making a notation to the modifications and concessions that we have provided to ENC. There's approximately 9 to 10 items. Basically, from the visual and the noise concerns, we have agreed to relocate the rooftop decks that normally face the westerly portion of the ENC's project. They're now facing to the east. and therefore our rooftop decks have been relocated to further accommodate EMC's concerns. With respect to recessed balconies, we have reviewed their concerns. And with respect to that, we have removed five recessed balconies in that gathering area which represents one of the more sensitive areas. With respect to window placements facing the preschool, they were concerned that there would be potential view intrusion We made sure that the architects designed the windows no less than six feet windowsill height, and so therefore, from the side elevations facing the preschool, they're not the front to the rears, there is very little opportunity for view intrusion. There were a number of other modifications that we agreed to, but primarily speaking, I want to leave us with this. With respect to the noise intrusion, we've all been to this site. We all know the John Wayne Airport. We all know the proximity to 16th Street. From the standpoint that in the evenings, E&C and the preschool is closed. Our homes, our residences are home having dinner. During the weekends, the preschool is closed and while E&C remains open, that Saturday and Sunday could be an active opportunity. However, during the week, our homeowners are at work making their mortgage payments. at which time there would be very little activity for noise intrusion. I would go back to the fact that this is a highly urbanized area, and I don't think that the ambient generation of noise is a substantial factor of consideration. So we have worked closely and as closely as we possibly can with ENC and by all means. You'll see this evening we didn't reach consensus. But what we tried to do is try to modify this project both in terms of the site plan design and the architectural designs to bring in elements that would go towards their concerns. The landscaping program is essentially the biggie. And frankly speaking, we felt that we had designed a campaign for landscape that effectively shows at planting and over a period of growth of 10 years that these buildings, the first floor and the second floors, are immediately diminished with respect to the boundary walls that would be in place on the westerly. That's gonna be a 10-foot wall on top of a four-foot retaining wall. On the preschool side, staff is supporting the use of an eight-foot wall. But we also can't discount the fact that E&C has substantial growth on their side of the fence on both those boundaries. So our goal was to design a plan that took an advantage of what they have grown versus where we need to provide additional enhanced landscaping. In that respect, we appreciate the patience of ENC, we appreciate the patience of the community. We don't have consensus, and I think we're gonna hear some of that, but we are prepared to respond to any question that comes from the commission and or the community. Again, on behalf of D.O. Horton, we've got 10 seconds left here. I wanna say thank you very much for listening to our presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Boyd. You mentioned at the beginning you agreed with the conditions of approval. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Thank you. Okay, commissioners, any questions for the applicant at this time?

THANK YOU, CHAIR. MR. BOYD, I'M CURIOUS FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARD RELATING TO OPEN SPACE. IT'S ONE OF THE FEW YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO HIT. CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THE RATIONAL ON WHERE YOU PUT IT AND WHY IT WOULDN'T WORK AS THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE WRITTEN?

Are you referring to the community recreation area itself? Are you referring to something else?

The recreation area being on the side closest to Dover instead of somewhere else, like on the side next to the ENC, for instance. No, great question.

I appreciate that. Part of that decision-making was the fact that we're going to have an interior private sidewalk that basically loops around the project and in that it leads our front door access. When we looked at where the most available square footage was that we could place efficiently that use without encumbering on the 20 unit DU requirement, that's where it landed. But as staff may have suggested or not, there is a requirement that there's gonna be a block wall there PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FROM THE ADJACENT COMMERCIAL USE. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR DIRECT QUESTION, IT REALLY TIED BACK TO WHERE WE COULD PLACE THAT AREA WITHOUT IMPEDING OUR ABILITY TO MEET THE MINIMUM 20 INCHES PER AREA. THANKS.

When I walk the site with you and I look on the plan, I noticed some large wood power poles that go along the exterior of the site. Can you explain to me, help me understand? I think you had referenced one was going to be taken down, but the order of magnitude of how that is or not going to be taken down for those power poles and the justification behind that.

Sure, absolutely. I can respond to that. Our proposal is taking all of its power off of 16th Street through an underground system conduit. On the property, there are two existing power poles. One of the power poles is coming down. That is no longer of any service. So as part of our bringing our power generation from 16th Street, we're able to remove that pole. The poll I believe you're referencing is a poll that we are proposing not to take down for the following couple of reasons. Based on the information that we have received off of the Southern California Edison maps, it is our determination that the power that's being provided to that poll is serving E&C as well as the neighbors to the south along the St. James corridor, if you will. So that would mean that we would have to go on to E&C's property. and go onto private property to remove those. Now the question then becomes, when Edison actually receives our order, they will make that determination. So we, in taking down that pole, E&C has what we call a sub-pole on their property. And they've got a conduit system that comes down the pole and feeds their pedestal. So there's evidence that that is being fed by those overhead lines. And then those poles lines go into the residential areas. So for that reason, Mr. Elmore, we're not proposing to take that pole down.

When you've done other projects in the past and there are power poles that are existing, is it relatively common that those power poles will serve more than one APN or one property line and be amongst multiple users? Yes. Okay. So in the past and other sites when that happens, what are your course of magnitude to address that? Is it different or is it every time if it just serves two different property lines, therefore you're just not going to address it or touch it? That's correct.

You are correct. Okay.

I'll piggyback on that real quick. Are you saying that the second pole now has conduit that runs down from it underground to power E&C from that pole?

It's not underground. They're above lines that are on that pole suspended that goes to what we call a subpole located on E&C's property. with conduit that comes down that feeds their pedestal. And then those lines, if you trace those lines, they get fed into the residential neighborhood.

Well, but the residential would actually be feeding those lines, from what I understand, because it terminates at your property, correct? That's correct.

It's a dead-end system.

Look, and I've talked to staff about a potential condition of if it's the end of the termination and it can be removed, I'm not asking you to underground on someone else's property, but we'd like that as a condition that I would hope you would support.

I would support that.

Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Reid.

Mr. Boyd, let's talk about the rooftop deck. Can you walk me through and this might be a better question for your architect to address, but walk me through the concept of kind of how you came up with this design on in particular the entrance and exit? And was there different design elements, excuse me, for the rooftop deck, did you come across different ways that you could possibly do this versus having this distinguished pop out? And really what I'm getting at is if you go back to the renderings of the visualization from the ENC, when you look at the 10 year growth, these i don't know what you want to call them dog houses a better term they they continue to protrude out and they're pretty noticeable from both the preschool and from the uh enc's perspective so walk me through that a little absolutely and to the point that i'm not answering your question is at the point i'll bring our designer back

First of all, the rooftop decks serve a very vital component for compliance, and that is those decks serve for our private open space requirements. The reason for that is this site plan does not have room to provide what we call pocket yards. So each of these units do not have any yards. And so the main recreation component would be, relief would be on those decks, including their recessed balconies. Now in terms of the specific design, the average square footage of these decks ranges between 315 to maybe 340 feet. So they're not quite these big, huge decks. And so when we relocated these decks from the E and C side back over to the opposite side, there is a six foot wall that prevents a homeowner jumping onto that portion of the roof. The dong houses, let's just be candid, there's not a whole lot we can do with design. There are a couple of options, but those options are not acceptable to our company, and that would be Removing the decks and then having exterior stairwell leading to the deck that provides a great deal of liability of water intrusion So we typically stay away from that. But what we did further to address Commissioner Reed your comment is not only did we flip those decks Well, we actually redesigned the framing so that the framing of those decks is less vertical massing and and more on an angle accent so that it's more soothing looking at those dog houses. The before version was very symmetrical, vertical and then going to a traditional roof. Now what you see is we lowered the roof by approximately two feet but also redesigned the rooftop so it's on an angle so it's more soothing. But to EMC's credit and to your question, they will be partially visible even after that 10-year projected growth. But I think over a period of time, eventually those two will go away. But we're projecting to 10 years and nothing further. I hope that answered your question.

Yes, thanks.

Questions?

Christopher Rosano.

ONE OF THE OTHER WAIVERS THAT YOU WERE REQUESTING, I BELIEVE IT IS ON THE HORIZONTAL MODULATION AND SPECIFICALLY ON THE 400 BUILDING, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE ENC. THERE'S A MAXIMUM OF 150 FEET IN LENGTH, YOU HAVE IT AT 156, SAYING THAT YOU COULDN'T REDUCE IT ANY LESS. AND LOOKING AT THE WIDTH OF THOSE UNITS AT 21 FEET 6 INCHES, AND WITH THE MINIMUM THAT STAFF HAD AT 17 FEET 6 INCHES, IF IT WAS JUST 10 INCHES SMALLER, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO COMPLY. IS THERE ANOTHER RATIONALE AS TO WHY THE ADDITIONAL FOUR FEET?

Thank you for the question, Commissioner Gazzano. I'm going to bring up Gary Cunningham, who's vice president of WHA. I think he's better proposed to answer that question than I am.

Good evening, my name is Gary Cunningham, Vice President of Architecture of WHA. I believe a question was brought up about the size of the minimum is 17.6 by the width of the garage. If I'm not mistaken, does the overlay state that must be 20 by 20? The other project we have, Sailwind, it does fall under 17 by 17.6.

You can address the commission in the last.

So I think there might be, looking down on the overlay, double-checking. I believe this specific overlay requires 20 by 20.

So even if it's the point though, you've had 20 feet you're at 21 6 you need 10 inches less to comply Yes, and that's that's accumulation of construction.

That's the lumber the drywall and the clearances So when you start adding up all the materials, I do have a 2-inch airspace between each dwelling unit for sound attenuation So as you go out EVERYTHING IS DRIVEN IN MODULAR DIMENSION IS GARAGE CLEARANCES. THAT'S WHERE WE START OUR MODULAR DIMENSION.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BOYD. I HAD A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS. YOU MENTIONED YOU GUYS HAD BEEN TALKING AND KIND OF WORKING THROUGH. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT YOU HEARD FROM THE ENC SIDE AND HOW YOU'VE ADDRESSED IT? DID YOU SAY IT WAS LANDSCAPE, IS THAT CORRECT?

WELL, BO WILL TELL YOU EXACTLY, BUT I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITHOUT GETTING SCREAMED AT. But the primary concerns from ENC that we had heard for several months was visual intrusion and noise impacts. So from those two perspectives, from the visual equates to our landscaping program. And so we focused very hard over months to analyze the plan and profile and the exhibit you see now to determine where landscaping needed to be enhanced on our side of the fence so that in totality we're providing as much shielding as possible. We did the same approach on the southerly boundary facing the preschool. On the preschool side, ENC has got a substantial amount of landscaping. In fact, some recently new landscaping that over a short period of time that would be a non-issue. But I also want to refer on that southerly boundary facing the preschool. We've got the benefit of having approximately 40 feet building to building separation. At that location against the preschool and us, we have an eight foot wall. Against the eight foot wall, we have a substantial landscaping design that will basically absorb the majority of that visual intrusion, notwithstanding what E&C has done on their side. So that's a little different. And so the more challenge that we learned over this process, yes, that was a challenge on that side, but the bigger challenge is over their main campus. And in the main campus, they have trees that have matured over the last 25 years up to 50, 55 feet and some larger. And they taper down from that southwest property corner and as it goes down towards what I call the gathering area, their patio area, areas in which they use a lot for community gatherings and forums. And for educational purposes, we began to notice on this plan and profile where things became weak. And therefore, we emphasized that a landscaping plan had to succeed to the best degree possible given the space that we have to plant the largest species we possibly can. And so as our landscape architect will tell you, our immediate plan is to bring in a series of 48-inch box trees that will come out of the nursery at approximately 20 feet. The species identified will grow to a projected 30 feet over that 10-year timeframe. But to conclude with your answer, Commissioner Harris, is that is a big deal for ENC. And look, we totally understand that. We understand their educational objectives. We understand the significance of ENC in the community. And frankly speaking, we knew that was our number one target. We have to address this. And we have, in our opinion. Now, you may hear otherwise. And are there other solutions? Well, of course. Is there other types of things we can do with trees? Well, of course there is. But what we're trying to demonstrate to this commission this evening is with our planning profile and with our visual exhibits, you can see that we almost got it nicked. At planting, we lose the first floor. At planting, we lose the second floor. At planting, we start to lose a portion of the third floor. Over a period of 10 years, we lose most of the third floor, and to your Commissioner Reid's comment, we still see those dog houses, although they do become diminished and less intrusive. That is probably one of the biggest targets that we face on this site plan and at the same time trying to comply with all the rules and regulations. It's not as if we have 40 feet that we can dedicate. E&C preferred to have a 30 foot setback around the perimeter of the entire project. We won't have a project at 30 feet, and we complied with what we could and yet have a viable project to present to you this evening. I hope that answered your question.

Thank you very much. Okay, commissioners, last shot. Any questions at this time? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Great. Okay, we're going to move on to public comments tonight. I'd like to kind of handle this how we've handled other nights where we had a large crowd. First thing is we appreciate everyone coming out. I love seeing little kids, seeing this. We don't usually get this many people, and... It's fun to have people participate and understand how this works and hopefully learn. Can I get a just quick show of hands how many people want to speak tonight? Okay, so we've got quite a few. I've talked to Mr. Glover here when we met, and I know he was going to kind of corral at least people from the ANC that wished to speak, but he was going to kind of speak on their behalf. Is that correct? And they were willing to maybe give up some of their time so he could have a little more time. Is that correct, Mr. Glover?

I can't help the community's willingness to stand up and speak.

NO, NO, WHAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO HERE IS WE'RE GOING TO GIVE MR. GLOVER FIVE MINUTES. WE NORMALLY HAVE THREE, BUT WITH SO MANY PEOPLE, I SAID YOU SAID FIVE.

I NEED TEN. IF I COULD ASK FOR THAT. I'LL TACKLE AFTER 20 PEOPLE GET UP TO SPEAK. I'LL TACKLE THE REST.

I'd say let's do eight minutes. You can have eight. And then we're going to do two minutes for all the other speakers, or we won't leave tonight. And I ask that you, we have a couple ground rules of I see signs. We don't need signs. We've heard everyone's. We've received many letters. We've received many calls, many texts, many emails. We understand the arguments. Please don't hoot and holler. Please don't demean anyone, talk down on anyone. I hope I don't have to, you know, I feel a little silly even saying this, but it happens, and people get frustrated. We understand this is a very emotional night for everyone, and we just ask that you stay respectful. Also, you know, Let's keep this about, this is a code issue that we have to judge, and we understand it's very emotional. We need to keep the comments to focus on the project, issues that you want to talk about that are about it. And we ask that you don't repeat the same story or argument all over and over. We're not trying to not provide you access and to speak, but We understand. We totally understand where you're coming from, and we don't need to hear it 50 times over and over again. So I just appreciate your respect. Mr. Glover, would you like to proceed? Sure.

Yeah, just piggyback on one thing. Thank you so much. In terms of the ground rules, and Mr. Harris said it really well, we are a technical body. We are not a city council. We weren't elected. We're appointed, and we applied, and we're here because we understand. We like to think we understand the code for the city. The code are the laws. The code is what drives it. Our code has another code, which is overseen by the county, which is overseen by the state. And the city has to take all those codes and absorb them and put them into what we have here today. And our job is to delineate and understand the code. We appreciate, we all have children up here, we appreciate the sentiments and the emotions that are associated with schools. We understand privacy and all those things. But our job to analyze and to sway us in a different form or fashion is not about children, it's not about, because children aren't talked about in the code. The code is talked about in terms of in terms of technical supports and analysis around these meetings. So we implore you, again, not to reiterate, not to come back up and talk about revenue, livelihood, kids, safety. Everything that's in the code we can really opine, and you can change our views. Anything outside of that is going It's not really taken into our consideration unless you want to go in front of a city council member. That is with them, okay? So that is our body. Just to be clear, we know that you all are very educated, very prepared, so we really implore you to be thoughtful about your comments, not to reiterate, and to be code-focused. And with that, please, go ahead.

Thank you, Commissioner Allen.

Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for the extra time. I think it's very important and it's very appreciated. My name is Beau Glover, and I am the President and CEO of the Environmental Nature Center, or what our community knows us as the ENC. The ENC has spent the last 54 years serving our community, the Newport Beach community. It is in our mission to provide transformative experiences through connection with nature. Today we serve over 30,000 children on our educational programs and run a remarkable nature preschool. It is not hyperbole to say that the ENC is the premier nature center model, not for our county, not for our state, but for our nation. As you can imagine, when we first learned of this proposed development we had concerns. First and foremost, we are concerned about the safety and security of those 30,000 children that are entrusted in our care. where we provide them with nature, immersive nature experiences that they can get nowhere else, including our nature preschool students who explore our world-class campus each day in an outdoor environment that would be directly overlooked by a block of three-story residences. Our second concern, protecting the environmental integrity of our site. the important habitat, and the ability to deliver our educational mission to provide those transformative experiences through connection with nature. This project is literally taking away the blue sky. And our third biggest concern and one that I feel you as planning commissioners need to look at very closely is the compatibility of this project with our community. Over the past year, we have met with the developer multiple times. We learned that the project would place 13 residences 44 feet tall along the property line shared with the ENC. including towering units that would dominate over the nature preschool playscape. Despite our discussions, they have done little to alleviate these concerns. The E&C is not opposed to responsible development. that has compatibility with our community. We have had our own share of building projects, including two LEED platinum certified buildings that have become nationally recognized examples of how to build responsible construction. The center was able to coexist with a single story commercial operation on the proposed development site, and that worked out for us for decades. This residential project changes that entire interface and I'm at a loss as to how anyone could make a compatibility finding. There are ways that a responsible developer could propose a project that would satisfy the state housing element criteria and have a much less detrimental impact on the ENC and our community. They could reduce the square footage of the units, thus allowing for larger setbacks and reduced building height. But they're not gonna do that because it cuts into their profit, and I understand that. They could explore subterranean garage or basement, thus lowering the building height. Expensive, I know. But when you have to deal with the compatibility with your community, you need to think of these things. They could propose two-story buildings along the perimeter and push massing towards the northeast side of the property. They could eliminate the rooftop decks. They could look right down the street at the project that was approved at Cliff and Dover for a prime example of doing just that. If insistent on the rooftop decks, they could easily provide an open stairway to those decks from the third floor. Work out the drainage. It's probably a wash in money from these dog houses that are constructed on top. Thus, you're reducing that building height and having less impact on the nature center. The current setbacks adjacent to the ENC are 10 and a half feet from the property line. The developer just spoke about their landscape concerns in regards to in that ten and a half feet. Well, there's a four foot sidewalk in there as well. There's the footings of the fence or wall that they're going to put up between the properties. There's a plantable area on the other side of the sidewalk that would be close to the residences that you're not putting any substantial shrubbery into. I know I have a little bit of experience with trees. The plan provided by the developer and the projections, these are projections of how these trees are going to grow, of what it will look like in 10 years is just not realistic. And it does not adequately block the development from view. The developer could work with the city to determine what could be done possibly to increase some setbacks adjacent to the ENC, allowing for maybe reduced setbacks at other areas in the property and give room for true landscape to grow. Currently, developer plans to include a 10-foot wall on the ENC property line or fence and an eight-foot fence or wall on the preschool property line. A taller, aesthetically pleasing wall would be extremely beneficial in helping to mitigate the impact of this development. We're not talking 20 feet, but taller than 10 feet. The code in regards to the eight-foot wall on the preschool, they could be certainly asking for an exemption, but they have refused to do so. We understand why the applicant designed this site the way they did. They have an existing driveway on 16th Street, which creates a constraint. you have the longest linear stretch along the ENC and you're trying to fit as many houses as possible with the largest square footage to make as much money as possible while satisfying the state housing element. The property also has constraints related to weird jogs on the eastern property line. So the easiest solution for them was to run the great wall of housing down the ENC property line and fit the rest where they could to make the math work. That plan works great for the developer, satisfies the state, but destroys a community institution. This is not responsible development and the city should not support it as proposed. I'd like to look at a possible solution. One of the constraints is the driveway location. Besides factoring into how that affects where the buildings can be located, it is in too close proximity to the adjacent driveway of the corner parcel.

Mr. Glover, just finish your thought, please. Thank you.

Oh, I got so much more.

I'm sorry. We've got to keep moving. Please finish your thought, though. Thank you.

Besides factoring where the buildings can be located is too close to the proximity of the Jason driveway creating a safety issue for vehicle and pedestrian traffic especially children on bikes headed to Newport Harbor and ensign maybe the applicant could work with a neighboring property owner and the ENC since we have an easement for use of their driveway for vehicular traffic to the preschool and And we can move the ingress and egress of that residential development. That alleviates a huge safety concern that I'm sure the city has. And now we can reconfigure the entire site because we're not constrained by the driveway location. I provided a copy of this possible plan to all of the commissioners. We could put end units facing the ENC, two-story closest to our trails. You have increased setbacks that you could put a proper landscape plan into. You can build an appropriate size wall. And with this, you ensure the safety, security, and experience for our children.

Mr. Glover, I'm sorry. We have to keep moving. You're not the applicant tonight. I apologize.

We, as a community, can do better.

Thank you very much. Okay, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you very much, all right. If you'd like to speak tonight, please, there's two microphones, please form a line down the center aisle. Please state your name for the record, and then you have two minutes, thank you.

Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, we're not gonna have clapping, we're not gonna have signs, we're not gonna have this. We have a meeting to run. This is a meeting about technical efforts around this project. This is not a city council meeting. This is not a ball game. This is not a cheer contest, please. So please allow us to run our meeting. State your comments that are technical in nature. Don't repeat yourself. And please, we implore you to come up and say them, but be thoughtful about them. And please don't put us in a position to where we have to do this again. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Shana Bannert-Buxer. I'm the board chair of the Environmental Nature Center. I grew up in Newport Beach sailing, surfing, playing volleyball, attending junior guards, and also camp and scouting programs at the ENC. All the things you do in Newport as a kid, and now my children get to do so. And for generations, as you know, Environmental Nature Center has become integral to Newport Beach. But the oceans and bays have city protection, and the ENC has to stand on its own. As a board member, it is our duty and imperative to protect the integrity of the organization, which for many years, you heard from Beau, has become a nationally recognized organization. And to be clear, again, it is not our objective to prevent development. Over the past year, ENC, with myself present, has participated in good faith discussions and explored multiple compatibility scenarios with the applicant. They did not make substantial concessions, despite what they might verbalize. They did not make meaningful compromises. They provided changes within the code minimum. I realize that's why you're here. And we are here because we believe moving forward at this time is premature. We believe compatible development is possible. And I won't repeat too long, but two stories would be wonderful rather than three, a 30 foot setback or at least a little bit more than 10 and a half. No rooftop decks would be wonderful. These are not extraordinary asks. THERE ARE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A COMMUNITY INSTITUTION SERVING THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN CAN CONTINUE FUNCTIONING ALONGSIDE NEW NEIGHBORS. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION WAIT TO APPROVE UNTIL THE APPLICANT PRESENTS COMPATIBLE SOLUTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE NOT SEEN THEM YET. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, NEXT SPEAKER.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. My name is Katie Smith, I'm a Newport Beach resident, and I am obviously a supporter of the E&C. I'm gonna skip down, I started a non-profit about this issue last year because of the pressures E&C's faced to remain neutral. Now I'm just helping out. But my concern is whether this project complies with the standards and findings required by the city's general plan, municipal code, and housing opportunity overlay positions. I did consult an attorney on these points. The central issue before you tonight is a general plan consistency. The property's underlying general plan designation is COG, which Oscar pointed out, which identifies general commercial office uses and does not independently permit residential development. Staff's analysis relied on the housing opportunities overlay to authorize residential use and then cites that same overlay as evidence of general plan consistency that raises a fundamental question does the record independently demonstrate consistency with the general plan itself even if the overlay permits residential development on the site the city must still show that the specific project complies with applicable general plan policies governing compatibility design and transitions to adjacent uses. The overlay does not eliminate that requirement. Policies LU561 and LU562 require evaluation of compatibility with adjacent uses and avoidance of abrupt changes in scale. Yet, as you can see, the analysis provides no meaningful evaluation of compatibility with the Environmental Nature Center, a long-standing public facilities use. The project places four stories, 44-foot buildings roughly 10 feet from the ENC's outdoor classrooms, but the visual effects of that massing have not been fully analyzed. No story pullers were installed. No line of sight analysis has been completed. Thank you so much. The rest is in my email.

Thank you. Speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Sergio Tellez. I'm a Newport Beach resident, and so a lot of what I wanted to say was already said, so I don't want to repeat myself. So essentially, I'm an arborist, a qualified arborist, and I'm also an environmentalist. So based on, I'm just going to speak on behalf of the landscape. So landscape architects, they're not necessarily arborists, so they don't really know, they know about designs and all kinds of stuff, but they don't really know about plants and trees, and based on what I see and the space I see, there's very minimum options that they can do. They can do some sort of cypress tree or some sort of silver chin tree and that kind of stuff. But based on the space, if a tree or a plant, it doesn't get properly planted, it doesn't get properly maintained and all of that, it becomes a major hazard. SO IN TEN YEARS, IT WON'T BE ESSENTIALLY COVERING THE OVERVIEW SO THAT PEOPLE CANNOT REALLY LOOK DOWN ON IT, BUT IN TEN YEARS IT WOULD BECOME A REAL HAZARD FOR OUR KIDS, FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR WHOEVER IS WALKING BY. WE HAVE THE SANANA WINDS. knock branches up, knock trees down, and if they don't have the proper space to grow, not just like the tree itself, but the root system, it becomes a real, it's gonna become a real issue and a hazard. So, and then on that too, it's like we don't really, we wouldn't have control over who moves in or who moves out of those buildings, so there could be people out there looking down, playing loud music, smoking, all kinds of stuff. There's people who, they argue in a way that as if they want the whole community to know that they're arguing. And I personally wouldn't want our kids to be exposed to that. So we do know better. We know better. Newport Beach is known for the schools, how excellent they are and the opportunities they provide for our kids. So the ENC, it plays a key role on that educational development for our kids. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Lori Whalen. I'm the vice president of the Environmental Nature Center, and I have worked at the ENC for 23 years. Over those years, I've led countless groups of children through the ENC and have had the opportunity to observe something remarkable. When we leave the buildings and patio behind, round the corner near a big jojoba and walk toward the meadow, the children find themselves immersed in native habitat. Desert on one side, coastal sage scrub on the other, riparian woodland in the distance, there is not a building in sight. I've heard the same reactions over and over again. Whoa, this is amazing. This is the best field trip ever. What they're experiencing is immersion. For a moment, there's no longer focused on the built environment that surrounds them every day. Their attention shifts to nature. I've also witnessed the opposite. As we walk past the redwood forest where the property narrows, children can occasionally see homes on neighboring St. James Road through the fence. Their attention immediately changes. They stop asking questions about plants and wildlife and start asking about the buildings. After 23 years, I can tell you that the experience matters. Environmental educators don't work in classrooms. We work in landscapes. The views of habitat, open sky, and immersion in the natural world are not simply a backdrop for our work. They are the primary tools that make our work possible. That is why compatibility matters. The question before you is not whether housing should be built. The question is whether this particular project, as proposed, is compatible with one of Newport Beach's most important educational and environmental resources. You have the power to require changes that reduce the negative impacts and improve compatibility between this project and the ENC. FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, CHILDREN HAVE ROUNDED THAT CORNER AND DISCOVERED A WORLD THAT FEELS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE THEY LEFT BEHIND. A PLACE WHERE NATURE FOR A MOMENT BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. I HOPE THAT WHEN A CHILD ROUNDS THAT SAME CORNER 50 YEARS FROM NOW, THEIR FIRST REACTION WILL STILL BE WONDER. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TOM. I'VE BEEN A NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENT FOR 30 YEARS. MY KIDS ATTENDED CAMPS THERE AT THE ANC. I THINK IT'S A GREAT FACILITY. I look at this site, and I just think it's an excellent opportunity for housing. I think, you know, there's clearly one of the biggest concerns in the state today, in the city, everywhere you look, you read about the housing shortage. I've got young sons. I'm hoping someday they can get a house in Newport Beach. I think projects like this are the solution. This is a project where young families can buy homes. Their kids can go to preschool at E&C. They can walk to elementary school, walk to middle school, walk to high school, walk across the street to play Little League. It's a site that is made for housing. It's made for families. And I think the current use on it is obsolete. It's been shuttered for years. It's an eyesore. IF IT WOULD BE REPLACED WITH A MODERN, NEW, LARGE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING, I THINK THAT WOULD BE EVEN A WORSE USE FOR IT. I THINK THIS IS THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WE NEED TO SEE IN THE CITY, AND I THINK IT WILL DEFINITELY BE A BENEFIT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE.

I live on Balboa Island where I own two homes. I also am a real estate broker and an attorney by background, and I hope you won't hold that against me. Basically, first we're talking about density here. On Balboa Island, our homes are six feet apart and 28 feet high maximum, and we think that's very dense. But you're talking about homes that are attached and go 44 feet high plus a roof deck. That's really dense. Is that what we really want here? The ENC is a treasured oasis in the middle of Newport Beach, a place that many people don't know exists. My family fell in love with it when my son Ben was just a little boy. We brought him there so he could get in touch with nature, and this experience gave him an everlasting love of the environment. I brought along some pictures. Is it all right if I approach?

It's okay, but if you want to leave them with staff, that's fine. Okay. Thank you.

There are pictures of my son and I starting when he was about 18 months old until he was about 14, going constantly to the ENC, experiencing nature, touching the stream. As he got older, he went to summer camp, then he became a counselor there, then he worked in the shop. This instilled in him a lifelong love of nature. When the new preschool was built, he and I planted many of the seedlings in that garden. The point of all this is to tell you how important the ENC is to the Abrams family in this city. Having a bunch of townhouses backing up so close will destroy the solitude of this wonderful place. Please, please don't let this happen. I've got a good real estate idea for you. How about buying this? and just giving it to the ENC instead of selling it. This city can afford it. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're not going to do applauses. Thank you. Please. This is strike two. After this, we're going to start clamping down. We have a meeting to get through, please.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Sage, and I'm 10 years old. For half my life since I was five, the Environmental Nature Center has been my favorite place in Newport Beach. It is where I climb trees, make art, listen to poetry and music, eat sour grass, and make friends and memories. There is truly no other place like inner city. President Richard Nixon, who grew up right here in Orange County, once said that our environment shapes our physical nature, our mental health, our culture, and our very survival. He reminds us that we all depend on the healthy functioning of Earth's natural systems. As you plan the future and look at new housing developments, please remember how much we need open green spaces. The E&C gives us, all of us from children to adults, a place to unplug and reconnect. I know our city is growing, but placing the proposed multi-story building right next to the preschool and camps would harm the quiet sanctuary that makes the center so special to us. Please protect the ANC and its boundaries so it doesn't lose what makes it a treasure jewel of Newport Beach. I respectfully ask you to build your complex somewhere else. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Sage. Next speaker, please.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. My name is Dan Heinfeld. I live at 2322 clay street. I've been a resident of Newport beach for 38 years, but germane to the discussion tonight is, um, I was the architect for the ENC when I worked at LPA for both the preschool and the nature center. And I would like to talk about just how detrimental this development would be to the center. Every project in Newport Beach right now is an infill site. We've seen second, third, fourth, fifth generations of projects go through. And every infill site has neighbors and urban context, specific scale and a community that is important for them to relate to by essentially becoming a good neighbor by listening to that site. Their responsibility is to make everything around it better. Unfortunately, this development chose to ignore its site, its community and its context. How else could you explain putting a 320 foot long two building complex 10 feet off the property of the NC. There's been a lot of discussion tonight about how these trees would mitigate it. I can tell you from experience that 10 feet with a four foot sidewalk on it is not going to allow these trees to survive prosper and grow period. Those renderings are not realistic. The first one that shows how obtrusive it is and how it's looming over the ANC is correct. How else could you explain a retaining wall and property line that is on the entire boundary of the E&C that has no setback and no landscape to screen it? They're relying on the E&C's landscape to screen their wall. I don't believe there's any other place in Newport that happens. Added to the fact is most of the trees along there are deciduous.

Thank you so much.

That's crazy. Two minutes.

Good evening Chair Harris and Planning Commissioners. My name is Kristen Petros and I've lived in Newport Beach for over 60 years. I did submit a letter to you dated June 15th and didn't see it in the packet so I would like someone to check that it did get to you because I'm not going to repeat everything in that letter and I will skip a lot. I was the environmental planner for a nearby city for many years and have that background. many city council meetings, many planning commission meetings. I know how technical things can get, but I also know that planning commissions have the power to consider the compatibility of projects to the neighborhood. So it's not always black and white and fitting in boxes. I see that for this property, somehow you can go to 65 feet. However, your job is to look at the compatibility of things like that and the other parts of the project to the surrounding neighborhood. And I'm hoping that you will do that and see that there are ways to modify this project as Mr. Glover brought up and had some good drawings. So please consider the options here before going ahead with this project because I think there's a better project out there. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Speaker, please.

Good evening. My name is Thomas Rubio. I'm a future parent at the ENC. My first time at one of these hearings not in this chair. I'm here in support of this chair today. I want to say the applicant has clearly invested significant effort in this process, and I appreciate their presentation this evening. I think it was thoughtful, well prepared, and I'm grateful for that. At the same time, many of the concerns they raised this evening struck me as not fully resolved. I think the objective design standards establish an important framework, but they do not answer every question regarding compatibility between adjacent uses, and they still require judgment from staff and this commission. The ENC is an established educational and community-serving use, and compatibility with that existing use is a legitimate planning consideration. As you exercise your judgment tonight, I hope you consider there are opportunities through project design, conditions, or additional review to further strengthen the long-term coexistence between this project and the ENC. Thank you.

Thank you. Speaker, please. Carlin Waters, transportation planner and traffic engineer. longtime supporter of the E&C. Chair Harris, commissioners, thank you for giving me the chance to speak. I was going to talk about three things. Visual impact has been talked about. It matters to me as well. Traffic circulation. No sequel analysis is required. A site access analysis can be required by the city as part of this review process. And given the proximity to Newport Harbor High School, I think that the city should have exercised that right. I drove my daughter there for multiple years until she got her own car, and I was so happy. At a minimum, conditions at the intersection of 16th Street and Irvine Avenue should have been evaluated, taking into account the heavy pedestrian volumes. Parking. parking requirement for any multi-unit dwelling with four or more units is two spaces per unit, any multifamily development. Most of them, if you look at, say, the 880 across the street, that has studio through two-bedroom units. We're talking three bedrooms in every single unit in this project. EVERY SINGLE ONE. THE CITY CODE DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE BEDROOMS. I HEARD THE APPLICANT SAY THAT ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WORK TO PAY THE MORTGAGE, SO THAT'S 90 BEDROOMS WORTH OF PEOPLE ALL GOING TO WORK WITH 69 PARKING SPACES. I THINK YOU'VE GOT AN ISSUE THERE. And I'm sure you're aware they can either use on-street parking or find some other off-street parking that they can utilize. I'm sure you guys are aware of the 880 development and just how much parking is available anywhere in that area. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Annabel Jin, and I've had the privilege to be an animal care intern at the Environmental Nature Center for about a year and a half now. The ENC has taught me valuable skills and allowed me to care for animals I never would have imagined working with before, like frogs and snakes. However, the greatest thing I've learned from the ENC through its contained environment is why environmental conservation is so important today when climate change is actively destroying our planet. In the time that I've worked at the ENC, it has inspired me to start three different projects addressing climate change and imagine all the other children who would start projects like me from their special experiences at the ENC. Last summer, I served as a leader in training at the ENC summer program from children, and I witnessed firsthand how the ENC instills a passion for nature and youth, whether by seeing caterpillars on a milkweed plant, petting a rabbit's fur, or learning about various plant species along a beautiful trail. No matter the experience, I knew that the children had the invaluable opportunity to learn in a setting that felt peaceful, immersive, and connected to nature. The Environmental Nature Center is not just a collection of buildings and trails. It's a living classroom, and in a world that continues to develop, places like this become increasingly valuable. I hope that any development that occurs is compatible with the EMC's vital mission of fostering environmental education, promoting sustainability, and nurturing a lasting appreciation for the natural world so that future generations can continue to benefit from the same experiences that have had such a meaningful impact on my life. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. Terry Koken, Costa Mesa resident. Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite them, and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum. We have a meeting here that's probably one of the lesser fleas. It's going to come up before a city council pretty soon. And the whole thing is going to vitiate the Environmental Nature Center. a recipient of my very first heart attack, and it's been fairly recently, and I walked in the ENC as a matter of recuperation. It is beautiful. Don't vitiate it.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

My name is Debbie Koken. I'm also a resident of Costa Mesa, and I love ENC. I'm a member there. And I don't know as much as you do about the state codes or the city codes, but I'm pretty sure that it is your responsibility to ensure that an inappropriate, incompatible project like this DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD. IT COULD BE CHANGED IN MANY WAYS TO MAKE IT MORE COMPATIBLE WITH ITS NEIGHBORS, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL INSIST ON THAT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MAX LEVINE, THANK YOU, CHAIR HARRIS, AND COMMISSIONER REED FOR YOUR QUESTIONS IN PARTICULAR ABOUT THE DESIGN. THIS IS, AS THE DEVELOPER SAID, A HIGHLY URBANIZED AREA IN NEWPORT BEACH, AND SO I BELIEVE IT TAKES SPECIAL CONSIDERATION INTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. It also, the site sits on an ex-hospital area where there's likely to be a number of contaminants, and I'm not sure that I saw that specific completion of that phase one assessment tonight. I'm not sure it may exist, but if it doesn't exist, I'd ask for a continuation of this meeting until that is produced. The second thing that we should consider is that beyond the CEQA, CEQA's exemption, there are other acts that we need to consider given the fact that there are innumerable birds that would be subject to the Migratory Board Treaty Act, including the Cooper's Hawk and America Crestle, also hummingbirds like the Allens, Anna, and Black-chinned hummingbird, all of which would be subject to that legislation. If those are in fact at play here, which they have been documented in the ENC, we do need to have some consideration before the demolition of an adjacent property in terms of POTENTIAL HABITATS THAT COULD BE AFFECTED BY THOSE STATUTES. THOSE ARE THE TWO SPECIFIC COMPONENTS THAT I WOULD LIKE CONSIDERATION FOR TONIGHT. THERE ARE INNUMERABLE OTHERS THAT WILL GO IN FRONT OF THE TOWN COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Peggy Levin. I'm a Newport Beach resident, a volunteer, and a parent of two graduates and one current student of the ENC Nature Preschool. I'm here to shift the focus exactly where you directed, back to code and policy. Your authority tonight is strictly binary. You must either approve or deny this specific application based entirely on its compliance with local law. While DR Horton has done what they can, as they say, a developer's best effort cannot override municipal law. Under the Housing Accountability Act, developer protections apply only when a project strictly complies with local rules. This project fails our objective design standards by exceeding the strict 150 foot building length limit and is relying on uncompleted lighting and line of sight studies. Because it violates these objective stances, you retain full discretionary authority to vote no. We can do better than this. Rejecting a non-compliant project means holding developers to the high standards our city deserves. Newport Beach has built its identity around protecting its coastal character and open spaces. Please apply that same regulatory standard tonight. Use your power to deny this application and protect the ENC. Once this unique habitat is disrupted, it cannot be undone for future generations.

Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Ari Levine, and I have been going to the ANC almost since I came to the wonderful town of, the wonderful city, I mean, of Newport Beach, California. My brothers and me, I used to go to the ANC natural camp at... in Newport Beach, and I love the experience of just being out in nature. You can never forget that. Some people, if we build this architectural structure, it can never be undone, and the ENC will never be the same. I politely ask you to not agree to the architectural structure so future generations can enjoy the EMC just as we can. Good day.

Good job. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Paul Wagoner. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here on behalf of the Coastal Corridor Alliance, formerly the Banning Ranch Conservancy, who worked to save the Banning Ranch property on the west side of Newport Beach. Our mission is to protect biodiversity and advocate for appropriate human uses in today's late stage ecological destruction. I think the skyline impacts are enough here to call this an incompatible development next to the ENC, but I'd like to just speak on a couple of technical issues related to plants, pollinators, and wildlife. First of all, early morning sun will be blocked, which the native plant and habitats at ENC will need. The landscaping directly adjacent to address the line of sight issues is invariably going to be non-native invasive plants, which will attract non-native pollinators, like the invasive feral honeybee. And if those pollinators are attracted to the landscaping, they will also forage in the native plants next door, which directly harms the native plants and the hard work of the ENC to develop their habitats. Not to mention with buildings so high and windows facing that way, even with that barrier, there will be light pollution coming in to the ENC, which also impacts nocturnal animals and pollinators, which we now know that up to 70% of pollination actually happens at night. So that can directly harm the habitats there as well, the project at the ENC. So bird life, other nocturnal animals also will be impacted. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Hi, my name is JD Vickers. I'm born and raised here in Newport Beach. And with this kind of development, I'm a hard young working professional that strives to continue living here. I currently rent and reside in Newport Beach. And this development, along with others, will allow the opportunity for someone like me who wants to start a family and continue living here. So I would really appreciate this kind of project being approved along with others just so younger people like myself do not have the opportunity to stay here and don't get priced out of our city. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and commissioners. I'm a 50-year resident and business owner in the city of Newport Beach, and I think that the for-sale housing at this particular project is a much better thing to look at than the current dilapidated hospital that's there, unfortunately. So I think that we should kind of look at that and say, wow, we have some for-sale housing that people might be able to afford in our city. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good afternoon. My name is Jim Jacobs, residents of Newport Beach for about 55 years, also a business owner. I have graduated from Newport Harbor High School. I have three children that have graduated from Newport High School. I'm behind and in favor of the ENC. However, I'm also not in This is what I think is important because we need to bring in housing by law. This is going to allow my children a potential to buy or actually additional people to live in Newport Beach close to their homes or where their parents may live. So I think this is being followed by the rules, by the law, its private property rights, and I approve of the project.

Thank you.

Next speaker. Okay, my name is Gary Meredith. I'm a bird photographer, as you can see by looking at my shirt. I'm speaking on behalf of the birds. The birds are my life. Dr. Bowe, he'll tell you all about it. I walk around with a lens, a 200, 800 millimeter lens, and I go to the ENC on a regular basis. And I can tell you, there are endangered species there. And this is the thing I want to know from all you commissioners. Have you people walked that property and looked to see what you are trying to approve or disapprove for what could possibly happen? I mean, look at all the children that have spoken here tonight. I mean, if that right there doesn't get to your heart, you don't have a heart. Me? I became a birder because I was a stressed out post employee. OK? In 1987, I used to work for the Postal Service. Right next to where I worked, I had the Wintersburg Channel. And I became a birder by watching the birds. I didn't go postal. I watched the birds. The big guy up there says, I'm gonna have a Caspian tern call for you. I'm gonna have an elegant tern call for you. As you can get, I am a birder. The birds are my life. Now when I saw this disaster up on the screen tonight, And believe me, it is a disaster. I have fought a lot of developments. A lot of these people here I recognize because they fought and defeated the Foothill South toll road. You hear that? Foothill South was defeated because of environmental activism. And environmental activism right now is in my front door. And I can tell you what I'm gonna do tomorrow. I'm gonna call the Nature Conservancy. And I'm going to see if they'll step forward, talk to the developer, talk to Bo, and buy that property. Thank you. Thank you for letting me speak. Thank you, sir.

Hello, I'm Devin Yuvalier, former naturalist for the city of Aurora and current resident of Orange. The required open space discussed by the builders for the rooftop decks were one of the buildings to be decreased or removed. You could provide that open space that is required by the code. A point being brought up is affordable housing for young families. I am a mother of a two-year-old. We go very frequently to the ENC, and I could not afford the proposed projects. My husband does well for himself. I do well for myself, and yet. the idea that these 2,000 plus square foot town homes are affordable and in front of all of the line of sight issues, reducing the square footage and thus reducing the building height could solve for affordability for our Newport residents and those in Orange County in general. So those hoping for the affordability, it would be more affordable and it would be more compatible with the ENC. Lastly, my least favorite piece of the ENC was previously mentioned, where you see through those little things called bushes, plants, nature, into the residences that are surrounding the stadium seating next door. And to have the proposed project looming over this really special place would in fact be a travesty. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lindsay Fox and I live at 731 St. James Road and my mother lives at 734 St. James Place. So we are very familiar with how wonderful the ENC is. Been living there for 16 years and to see them build the preschool is, you've heard a lot about what an incredible place it is and how much it means to the community. It is, despite what has been said, it is a very quiet place. There's lots and lots of animals, nature, et cetera there. And this just isn't the project for this place. I think we all would have no problem seeing some more housing being built, but it could be done in a way that is far less intrusive. It is a very unique place. We have parks and churches and the ENC. And the ENC is really the gem of the neighborhood. It is why a lot of us live there and choose to live there, and we use it. And to build a project, that project is going to benefit from the E&C. It's going to benefit from the parks that are around it. So it is really imperative to have a project that actually doesn't ruin it, because that's what enhances the worth of that project.

That's all.

Thank you so much. Mr. Mosher. Chair Harris, my name is Jim Mosher, a Newport Beach resident. What I want to say is I have a feeling what I'm witnessing here tonight is a failure of process. We've heard that the Planning Commission considers its role purely technical to decide if an application conforms to the code, the zoning code or not. And we heard in the staff presentation that this is the culmination of 50 meetings at which the public previously had an opportunity to comment on what is the proposal before you tonight or the code that would allow that proposal. That presumably includes the council meeting in September 2022 where this was approved as a housing opportunity site. and it presumably more profoundly includes the council meeting in September 2024 when a housing overlay which would allow up to 75 units and 65 foot buildings on this site was approved and at which compatibility with the neighborhood was a concern as to whether this should be an opportunity site or an overlay site or not. I would submit that if there had been a sincere effort to solicit public comment and input on compatibility, you would have heard the comments you're hearing tonight at one of those 50 previous meetings and we would probably not be here tonight. To me, that is a failure of process that you not heard the comment when it could have made a big difference and this would not have been designated as a housing site at all. As to the housing being provided, we heard, and in the resolution it says this helps us with our state greener requirement, but as you will note, this is market rate housing. In fact, it's market rate housing at the very minimum density, so it will be the biggest, most expensive units that can be put legally on the property using the housing overlay. It is not helping with our requirement because we already have more than enough market rate units approved. Thank you. Mr. Mosher. Hi.

Good evening. My name is Kayla Whistler. I have children that attend the NC. I'd like to thank you all for your diligence and hearing everybody out. Nice to see. I totally agree that housing should be made, needs to be made. But my biggest issue is no one said anything about the privacy of the children that are there on the regular basis. The preschool, a lot of the times the kids are running around doing water play. They're just kids in their swimsuits. With the amount of visibility that would be there from these units, it really scares me just because there is – so much evil and unknown things that could happen. You have people who have unvetted access to these children. They can set up cameras. There's a lot of things that are happening with AI right now. I did write an email and I did send in UNICEF articles to show all the stats with that. There also is a lot of work with the Tim Tebow Foundation And they've actually passed a lot of legislation with that. But I just ask you to take pause on just the basic right of the California Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the right to privacy. As adults, we need to protect these children. These children need their privacy protected. And that's truly all I ask is that you think of the children and their privacy. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Brent Jacobson. I live in the Heights. I've lived in Newport for 59 years I had the privilege of retiring from the city from the fire department had the privilege of running the most popular Youth program in the city. I've been a business owner. My family's had multiple businesses and managed businesses on Balboa Island and And really, this is private property. And it's now protected by state law. When the housing element was passed, the ship sailed. And with the ACA, there's really a limited amount of things we can do at this point in time. I'm looking at the potential for 75 units, a medical center, versus a pretty darn good reasonable approach of half that meeting the state minimum of 30 units. It sounds like a good deal, because what happens if this doesn't pass and we have to go back and we get something that we don't want? This canoe is going downriver. We should paddle it and steer it. It's not going to get paddled back upriver. It's obviously in the middle of Davison Field, high school drivers, the jewel of Newport, 880. You've got the high school. And as a whole, though, we've got to look at West Newport. And West Newport is tired. We have two depleted medical facilities on Dover that have been barricaded by fences. Cronin-Lamar is beautiful. You get over that bridge and all of a sudden it's like every other street or every other building is vacant. There's a meadow of weeds growing behind Margaritaville popping through the cracks of the ground. We have old Newport Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, a couple sections on Dover, a couple sections on Irvine. WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO IGNORE PROJECTS LIKE THIS THAT BRING AFFORDABILITY AND CAN ALLOW THE NEXT GENERATION TO PURCHASE PROPERTIES WITHIN OUR CITY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DOUG HEADENKAMP. I AM AN ATTORNEY FOR THE ANC, BUT I'VE ALSO BEEN A NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENT SINCE 2005. I'D JUST LIKE TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF CEQA ISSUES. First, section two, subdivision one of the proposed resolution purports to invoke the AB 130 exemption based on a finding that the project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. That is not a grounds Under the statute for an AB 130 exemption, that's a categorical exemption that requires a finding of not even a slight trace of a chance of a environmental impact. I think just the picture shown by the developer today have shown that there's a potential impact. And so you can't use that categorical exemption. Excuse me. So that needs to be taken out. With regards to the actual AB 130 exemption, I'd like to point out that one of the mandatory conditions of approval under section 21080.66 is a phase one environmental report, and there's also a series of steps that you must take depending on the results of that report. I don't see that in the conditions of approval for this project, so that needs to be corrected. In addition, there are additional requirements for the conditions of approval for tribal consultation that I don't see in there, specifically a tribal cultural record search, a sacred lands inventory request to the Native American Heritage Commission. All of those are required in subdivision B4B, and they're only allowed to be, skipped if there's agreement with the tribes. There's nothing in the staff report or any of the public record that indicates that the tribes have agreed specifically to forego those studies. So with that, thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Okay, thank you. Thank everyone for keeping decorum and getting through things. At this time, we allow the applicant to respond. If you have any response that you'd like to touch on, if we can keep it short.

Short being the operative word here. So, first of all, I respect all the comments that you heard before this evening. Frankly speaking, I'm not going to be redundant. I think we are More than confident that we attempted to provide a landscape plan, modifications to the site plan, as well as modifications to the architect plan as well. We made modifications with the rooftops. We made modifications with the resale balconies. I could go on and on and on. But as we heard tonight, perhaps to the opinions of many, that may not be far enough. However, with respect to AB 130, that is a categorical exemption. Staff is responsible to determine whether or not that compliance has been adhered to, and I think we heard this evening and staff can reaffirm that that has been the case. With respect to compatibility, this is compatible. We're in the middle of one of the most dense areas of Newport Beach, surrounded by homes and residences, retail, commercial. What better opportunity is there to provide opportunity for new home ownership within an area they can walk to their schools, they can walk and visit E&C, they can walk to the beach, they can ride their bicycles to Babel Island. This is a pristine opportunity to recategorize a piece of property that has been a community eyesore for decades. That said, the traffic impact has been addressed. The traffic impact and your traffic engineer for the city has vehemently said that this project will not create an impact and therefore no traffic report has been required. What we have to do this evening is determine is this project worthy to move forward? Is this project addressing the city needs? Is this project addressing the policies and objectives of the city? And of course, is it compliant with the law? But I think this project is an excellent design project that over a period of time will become a talk of the town, if you will. And I think moreover, I keep hearing about things such as how can we redesign this project? I submit the redesign of any project has to comply with the underlying rules and regulations. So while we heard many ideas how to reform this project, all of those ideas have to conform to compliance. Thank you.

THANK YOU. STAFF, ANY COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD?

YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR HARRIS. LIZ WESTMORLAND, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DIVISION. I HAVE A FEW ITEMS I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, PARTICULARLY SOME TECHNICAL ITEMS. FIRST, AS IT PERTAINS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. THE GENERAL PLAN ESTABLISHED SEVERAL POLICIES RELATED TO THESE HOUSING ELEMENT SITES. And so in our land use element, it stated that the sites would be eventually permitted through zoning to accompany our general plan. And in this case, the minimum density that was provided for in the general plan and then echoed in the zoning was a 20 dwelling unit per acre minimum. The project in this case complies with that minimum. Additionally, it was stated during public comment that the project does not comply with certain objective design standards. That is correct. THE COMMISSION IS ABLE TO SUGGEST CHANGES TO HAVE THE PROJECT POTENTIALLY COMPLY WITH SOME OF THOSE ITEMS SO THAT THE DEVIATIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED. HOWEVER, SHOULD THOSE CHANGES MAKE THE PROJECT INFEASIBLE OR RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF UNITS, IT ESSENTIALLY CONSTITUTES A DENIAL AND STAFF DOES HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS FURTHER IF THAT WAS WHAT THE COMMISSION WERE TO PURSUE AND WE ALSO HAVE OUR ATTORNEY HERE TO OPINE ON THAT AS WELL. OTHER THAN THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING CODE. BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS PROTECTED BY THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, WHICH IS A STATE LAW, THE CITY CAN ONLY APPLY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND IT CANNOT APPLY SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS. However, we have included some of our general plan policies that are more subjective for informational purposes There were some comments about noise and I want to note that the project would be required to comply with the city's noise ordinance and for residential there are higher standards for noise and A FEW COMMENTS WERE PROVIDED ABOUT SITE DESIGN, AND I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT OUR CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER AS WELL AS OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION HAS REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN, THE DRIVEWAY, AND THEY HAVE LOOKED AT THE LINE OF SITE TO ENSURE IT COMPLIES WITH CITY STANDARDS. WE ALSO HAVE OUR PRINCIPAL ENGINEER HERE TONIGHT, JOSHUA MCDONALD, IF THERE ARE MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS FOR HIM REGARDING THAT TOPIC. There was comments provided regarding parking as well, and our housing overlay specifically has parking requirements that are based on bedroom count. So in this case, each project, each unit, I should say, provides the two-car garage that is required, as well as the minimum guest parking that is required for our overlay. There were additional comments pertaining to fences and walls that surround the site, and I did want to note that the commission does have the ability to suggest certain changes to those. If they were to suggest changes related to the block wall that surrounds the site, that would be an additional objective design standard waiver that would be required of the applicant. LASTLY, I DID WANT TO SPEAK TO CEQA AND SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC CEQA EXEMPTION. SO LAST YEAR THE STATE APPROVED 8130 AS PART OF THE LARGER BUDGET TRAILER BILL AND AS PART OF THAT IT PROVIDED A VERY NARROW PATHWAY FOR PROJECTS LIKE THIS ONE ON SITES THAT WERE RELATIVELY SMALL AND MET A VERY SPECIFIC LIST OF CRITERIA. Those criteria primarily pertain to the site itself. So looking at is the site itself developed? Is it listed on a hazardous materials? List from the state etc. So it's very specific It also comes with certain tribal consultation requirements. The city has documented documented that we have complied with those requirements by communicating with the applicable tribes and we have included conditions of approval related to tribal monitoring that the tribes have agreed to and Therefore, we have complied with that. Additionally, there were comments pertaining to birds, and I'd like to note that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is applicable and that the applicant is required to comply with all state and federal laws, including that one. With that, I have no further comments, but we are available should you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Martin. Okay. I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion and action. Any commissioners, initial thoughts? Speak?

Commissioner Gazzana? THANK YOU. FOR STAFF, GREAT JOB. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MATERIALS PRESENTED FROM BOTH THE APPLICANT, COMMUNITY AND STAFF. I FEEL LIKE I HAVE A GOOD HANDLE AND GRAPHS ON THIS PROJECT. THANKS TO EVERYONE. FIRST ON THE USE, HOUSING USE, THE HOUSING USE ON SITE FOR REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN STATED SEVERAL TIMES AND THE GOALS FOR THE CITY AND THE STATE ON THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR REPUTATION THEMSELVES I THINK IS ALSO QUITE STRONG. THEY'RE A NATIONAL DEVELOPER, WELL CAPITALIZED AND BUILT A NUMBER OF SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS. Also on the aesthetics, materiality, colors, all seem quite, it fits in with the community, I think did a nice job. But where I'm really, really struggling with this is on the findings, and that's what I kind of just want to share with you all and kind of have discussion and kind of be open-minded to everyone's takes on this, and I think the first thing that stuck with me the most was visiting the site on both the ENC and the preschool site, and most specifically the preschool, primarily because I think this does become a code issue, the presence of children, which any kind of school use is a defined term in the code as a sensitive use, and I would say that a preschool use specifically is an ultra-sensitive use, and that is not a defined term, but the point being that the younger the children is much more concerning. And when I was standing in the playground of the preschool and looking up at the property, I think it's also important not just to note that the buildings would be 45 feet, but the grade of where the preschool and the playground is where these kids are out playing, and playing in water and running around and having a great time is actually at least 10 to 15 feet below the grade of where these buildings are. So it really becomes like a 55 to 60 foot kind of grade differential from the tops of these buildings to where these kids are. And as a father, I think I just, I could not, Fathom having you know, my child run around and play all day and having a 55 to 60 foot Tall building looking down on them that that thought has just really stuck with me in reviewing this project and I think it's primarily because of the the sensitive use that is next door and early on you know talking with staff and That you know specific attention when creating the housing opportunity overlay site specific attention not being paid to every single site within The overlay I think is also an important detail right some a lot of those standards were upset for kind of at-large and not paying specific attention to this particular site that has a very sensitive use next to it and SO STRUGGLING WITH THE FINDINGS ON THE WAIVERS, THREE OF THE FIVE, I'M ALSO REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THOSE. THE RESIDENTAL FRONTAGE, WHICH IS PRIMARILY THE GLAZING ON THE 500 BUILDING, THAT YOU COULDN'T HAVE MORE WINDOWS BECAUSE I THINK THE FACT OF THE FINDING WAS STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, AND I CAN'T MAKE THAT AT ALL. I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, HIGH RISES, THAT ARE ENTIRELY MADE OF GLAZING AND YOU CAN ADD ANOTHER HEADER FOR STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND YOU CAN MAKE A LARGER WINDOW OR ADD MORE WINDOWS. I CAN'T MAKE THAT FINDING. ON THE HORIZONTAL MODULATION, PRIMARILY ON THE 400 BUILDING, THE EXTRA SIX FEET OF THAT BUILDING, AGAIN, JUST REDUCING EACH UNIT BY TEN INCHES, AND THAT STILL EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. I CAN'T MAKE THE FINDING FOR THAT ONE. AND SAME ON THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT THAT COMMISSIONER LANGFORD HAD BROUGHT UP, THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE ABLE TO MEET THAT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT IS IF YOU GET THE WAIVER AND BEING NOT ABLE TO USE THE OPEN SPACE ADJACENT TO A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. I CAN'T MAKE THAT ONE EITHER. AND I THINK ON THE MORE NON OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS The compatibility I think I kind of touched on earlier in reading through the findings in the staff report that it would not, the compatibility would not have an impact on bulk and scale of the adjacent developments. And I can't make that one given the preschool and the nature center next door. And I think probably most importantly is on the health and safety finding. that I think the language is that the project would have a specific and adverse impact upon the public health or safety. And I think for those reasons I was talking about earlier, the safety of those children next door at the preschool, that one is probably the most evident to me in terms of what a specific and adverse impact on the safety of those children. AND THE NEXT QUOTE ELSEWHERE IN THE STAFF REPORT IS THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT EXPECTED TO RESULT IN ANY PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY CONCERN TO RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA OR THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AND AGAIN, THAT ONE I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH. SO I THINK THERE'S ABOUT FIVE DIFFERENT FINDINGS THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH HERE BUT WOULD LOVE TO GET EVERYONE ELSE'S KIND OF THOUGHTS ON THIS AND I'M OPEN TO KIND OF HEARING EVERYONE ELSE'S IDEAS. THANKS.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KAZANOW. COMMISSIONER REED.

I ACTUALLY STILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY. SO LET ME JUST GET MY THOUGHTS ORGANIZED HERE. I THINK THEY'RE AROUND THREE TOPICS AND I'LL TRY TO GET THEM OUT AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE HERE. SO ROOFTOPS, STARTING WITH THAT, IF WE WERE TO REMOVE THE ROOFTOPS, CONDITION THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT WITH THE ROOFTOPS REMOVED, WHAT WOULD THAT CHANGE? WHAT WAIVERS OR EXEMPTIONS OR VARIANCES WOULD THAT CREATE AS THE PROJECT SITS TODAY?

Thank you, Commissioner Reed. The potential for removing those rooftop decks would affect the project's compliance with the minimum private recreational space for each individual unit. Those rooftop decks, as currently designed, provide the full extent and exceed at some points. So removing them would affect the project's compliance with that. IN TURN, THE APPLICANT COULD POTENTIALLY INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE BALCONIES TO MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS. GOT IT.

SO IF YOU KEPT THE ROOFTOPS AND REMOVED THE DOG PATCH OR I THINK THEY CALLED IT THE DOG PATCH, DOG HOUSE, EXCUSE ME, WHAT IMPACT WOULD THAT HAVE? IF ANY?

Because the dog house is not included in the private open space requirement, it would have no impact and would not require a variance.

Got it. Moving on to my second area of concern, the hedging. So on the side facing the ENC, from what I heard from multiple speakers, there's 10 feet. And four of that feet is a sidewalk, and there's some footings for a wall. So it leaves about five feet, call it, for planting. And that might not be enough to put in day one vegetation, either hedging or trees that could be 30, 35 feet tall that could block the majority of the structure. What happens if we remove that sidewalk?

There's no requirement from a planning standpoint to have the sidewalk. That would be more of a design consideration for the applicant to consider.

So it wouldn't create any additional exceptions or waivers or variances?

No, but I would defer to the applicant to ensure that there's no accessible requirement related to that or exiting issues, et cetera.

Okay, got it. And then the third topic that I heard was kind of fencing and privacy. So right now we have 10 feet on the ENC side, 8 feet on the ENC preschool side. WHAT WOULD HAVE TO OCCUR ON THE ENC PRESCHOOL SIDE IF WE WENT TO 10 OR 15 FEET? I THINK I HEARD BO AND A COUPLE OF OTHER FOLKS SPEAK ABOUT INCREASING THAT.

YEAH, SO THE REAR PROPERTY HAS THAT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT WHICH LIMITS FENCING AND WALLS TO 8 FEET. SO INCREASING THAT HEIGHT ANY MORE THAN 8 FEET WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE CODE.

CLICK MY THOUGHTS ON THAT.

DID YOU WISH TO ASK, CLARIFY A QUESTION OR DO YOU WANT TO HOLD OFF FOR NOW?

I'LL HOLD OFF FOR NOW.

THANK YOU. SECRETARY LANGFORD.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO REMIND OURSELVES AND WE HAVE AN AUDIENCE HERE TO LISTEN IN ON US CONVERSING ABOUT IT. We're only here today because the super majority in Sacramento and the governor decided in their wisdom that they needed to supersede our local control and authority over these kinds of decisions, something that we've been doing for over a century very nicely in Newport Beach. So now under STATE HOUSING LAW, WE HAVE TO APPLY THESE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND MAKE FINDINGS. IT'S PROBABLY NOT LEGISLATION THAT ANY OF US UP HERE SUPPORTED AT THE TIME, NOR DID ANYONE ON NEWPORT REACH CITY COUNCIL. PERHAPS SOME PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE SUPPORTED THIS LEGISLATION. But that's where we are. And it's caused some pain. And we've had to approve projects over in the port streets where I live and grew up. And people were not happy about it. But that developer was able to put a plan together that met our objective standards of the city. And we're going forward with that. That being said, I do have concerns about this project, specifically the objective standard about common open space. We have to make the finding that the deviation is necessary for this project. It's hard for me to make that. Having that common open space wrap around by the commercial area Think that unnecessarily slides the whole project closer to the NC So I think that's part of the problem. We want it to be less impactful on the NC having a deviation of this common open space and makes that more challenging, makes that harder. So that's the deviation that I'm wondering about. Commissioner Gazzano, even more hardcore than me, because there were some fractional inches of glazing, but that's fine too. But this is the one that stood out to me as my most challenging deviation to wrestle with. Like Commissioner Gazzano, I wanted to hear from the rest of the commission and see if there's something we can do to figure out this project and all that.

Commissioner Elmer.

I've got to say I am truly, truly overwhelmed with joy to see everybody's participation, involvement, and concern for the site and the city and get involved in a process. This is a process. We have to run a process. And everybody has a voice. For everybody to come out here and articulate and be involved in this is great. It's really powerful. I appreciate it. And gosh darn, those two kids spoke so well. So kudos to the ENC for developing some great young future leaders and participants in our community. I think Commissioner Langford hit a very, very powerful chord and Governor Newsom, whether you voted for him or not, but if you did, you supported Governor Newsom in his housing mandate. That housing mandate has applied code throughout the state, a blanket code, not a specific code, a blanket code based upon his formulas that was supported by his constituents. That code has put every city in the state of California in a very, very precarious situation in which we have to capitulate, and we have to change our local code to conform with that code. We also have to change our local code because we're in the LCP, which is the coastal zone. We have to conform to that code, and we have the county jurisdiction that supersedes, and we have to conform to that code, none of which are our city's underlying code. But we have to make modifications in here, otherwise we get sued. If you look at the city to the north of us, Huntington Beach, they choose not to. If you look at some of the other cities, you'll hear of things called builder's remedy. Builder's remedy means you do not comply with the local code. You do not zone for the amount of housing units that are required from the state. You push back on what they're telling you to do, and the state sues you. And if the state sues you, now you're in litigation, but you open up what is called builder's remedy. Builder's remedy means any apartment developer, A, B, C, or D, can come in over the counter, and he can build whatever he wants there. He can build a seven-story-wrapped apartment building, low income, no income, doesn't matter, and doesn't have to take anything into consideration. And so... We are very fortunate to be in a city that has conformed to the code, that doesn't put us in a situation to where we're gonna be in a situation with builder's remedies, and where we have to see these extenuating circumstances. So now we are put in a really tough spot, and yes, we are a technical body, and we do, and I actually don't agree with Mr. Moser on that, because that is, for seven and a half years of doing this, I can tell you it's very technical. And I would tell you that what is challenging for us, and I understand Commissioner Gazzano's, you know, some concerns with some of the specific findings, but I can tell you if it's not this project we force ramifications, that will be other findings. The property itself, they have rights. The way I see the application as it sits, has fit into the envelope of the code. Doesn't mean anybody has to like it, appreciate it, and understand safety. I have four young children at home under the age of six. I care more about them than anybody, so I'm with everybody on this and I get it. But if I take that hat off and I look at it from a black and white specific envelope, We have to comply with what that is, and what that is, based upon my interpretations of these findings, I feel as if I can make those findings. Not all developers need to go and move the balconies. Not all developers have to go and move the orientation of the decks. Those are concessions, whether you think they're good or bad or worthless or whatnot. Other developers could come out. per code and not do that and say, sorry, this is what the mandate is. I'm within the guidelines. I don't want to listen, hear, or talk to you. So as punitive as you feel, maybe people feel about the back and forth of all this, I would tell you we have seen, I have seen in seven years, application after application, I think the poor streets is a really good case study for this, that there have been some concessions, some thought put into it. Whether you think it's terrible or not, It is a concession, it is a thoughtful, it is thoughtful to whatever degree it is and doesn't necessarily need to be done. I am leaning on the side and to the fact that I can really make the findings. Do I like the dog houses? Absolutely not. I think they're hideous looking. To be honest with you, I think they're terribly looking. And we can talk a little bit more about the dog houses. Do I think the power poles need to come down? Absolutely, I think those power poles need to come down. Do I think that we could figure out some maybe alternative landscaping ideas or fencing? I'd love to have that conversation and see if we can figure it out, but I just don't think we can find enough findings based upon what we have to look at from a black and white perspective to I can't find anything enough to say that I cannot support this item given the position that we're in based upon the legislation, based upon Gavin Newsom's law that he has put in front of us. And that's where, frankly, it's been tough. As a planning commissioner for the last seven years, you have to change the way you think and look and interpret these Because that's just the way it's mandated. And that's how it comes to us. We're not city council. And I appreciate you guys hanging with me and holding back on the clapping. Because we do have to get through a process so we can get to this point. And you can hear our thoughts and opinions. So thank you. I'm not the big bad wolf. I do have a heart. But for me, it is tough to not make the findings to pass this. But I do think there's some modifications that need to be made.

THANK YOU. ANYTHING?

I MOSTLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ELMORE. I THINK THAT IN A LOT OF WAYS OUR HANDS ARE TIED. I THINK THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT, VISUAL IMPACT ON THE ENC. I DON'T KNOW THOUGH THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY BECAUSE OF THIS PROJECT. I THINK THAT THIS PROJECT CERTAINLY COULD HAVE BEEN WHOLE LOT MORE IMPACTFUL. AND WE WOULD BE HAVING A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER CONVERSATIONS. I THINK IN SOME WAYS THE APPLICANTS SHOWN SOME NICE RESTRAINT ON WHAT THEY PROPOSED. THEY'RE AT THE MINIMUM DENSITY THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO. I DON'T LIKE THE DOG HOUSES EITHER. IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT AND REDUCE SOME OF THE HEIGHT IMPACTS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. YOU KNOW, THE PROXIMITY TO THE PRESCHOOL. From what I see, there's three units that are directly adjacent to the preschool. I don't know how else that could be minimized other than moving the whole thing substantially back. So if we're going to have a residential community here, it's going to have an impact. I AGREE. I THINK THERE'S SOME NICE COMMENTS BROUGHT UP, BUT IN MY OPINION, I DON'T KNOW THAT ENOUGH OF THEM IMPACT OR WARRANT, YOU KNOW, ANY KIND OF DRAMATIC MODIFICATION OR DENIAL IN MY OPINION OF THE PROJECT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LOVE TO EXPLORE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE COULD MAKE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT LESS IMPACTFUL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SEELING. I WOULD SAY TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF WHAT COMMISSIONER LANKFORD AND COMMISSIONER ELLENMORE SAID, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE'S CIVIC INVOLVEMENT TONIGHT. I THINK IT'S GREAT. I LIVE IN THE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY. I LOVE THE ENC. I'VE GONE THERE AT LEAST 100 TIMES. THIS IS GREAT BACK AND FORTH. IT'S PART OF OUR CIVIC DUTY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT WAS FANTASTIC TO SEE THE KIDS PARTICIPATE, ESPECIALLY THE TWO SPEAKERS AND EVEN THE ONES THAT DIDN'T SPEAK. just listening and teaching them about that civic responsibility is wonderful um my at the lack of redundancy here i think that i support this project but i think we do need a few modifications uh in my opinion and i think before i throw out what those modifications are i'd love to hear uh chair harris's thoughts and then we can discuss that as a commission sure

You know, this is one of those meetings you almost dread. It's really rough, you know. It's very important. We know, we understand the emotion, feel it all. I've grown up here my whole life. I live in the Heights, too, so pretty affected. I think I fall with Commissioner Elmore and Vice Chair Saleen, wherein... The ramifications of being out of compliance with our HCD are really brutal and actually open us up to just crazy projects all over. It's been a rough few years. I've been on this four years. I'm just going to start my next term next month. And honestly, a lot of the projects, it's tough. You're almost plugging your nose and voting for it, and you don't love. This one, I actually don't hate it. I think they did a reasonable job. I think the design is pretty good. I think that they did take a lot of things into consideration and tried their hardest. I tried pretty hard, I would argue. I do think there are some conditions that I would consider or like to discuss. I'll just start with the wall between the E&C building on the west or north edge I would love to see that align with The wall the ENC has by Harbor High, which is like a staggered pressure-treated wood I'd love to see the same elements either used or or something very similar that blended in with the the forest feel and I WOULD BE OPEN TO A CONDITION OF THAT. THE POWER LINES ARE A BIG THING FOR ME. THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO GET THOSE OUT OF HERE. AND IF IT TERMINATES BEFORE THE SECOND ONE AT THE NORTHWEST, I WOULD SAY WE WOULD CONDITION THAT THAT BE REMOVED. AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ENC, SO THE POWER LINES THAT ARE RIGHT NOW IN THE BACK ARE IN THE NORTHWEST. off the playground of the NC preschool would be gone forever. I think, you know, it sounds like there's a push and for more vegetation and a buffering that they've gone from really mature box trees, I think 48 gallons or something, which actually I think are I think it's above our code. I think we were talking about it's 32 or 34. So I appreciate that. I mean, if there was any way, and I'd love it if we get any feedback on how to get that faster. I mean, 10 years is a pretty long time to blend stuff. And then back to the dog houses, I absolutely agree. I hate them. I don't like them. I think they're hideous as well. And specifically the ones that face E&C, I feel like they're pretty abstruse from that vantage. And they don't really blend out even on the 10-year look. So I would be, you know, it's hard now. We can't see it in front of us. I could look back through the packet. But which ones actually affect? I know we lose some public open space or private open space, excuse me. But perhaps... the applicant would be willing to enlarge some of the decks up on private driveway that look out on the ocean, which I imagine, I think to compensate and maybe remove some of the roof decks that border the ENC. I think that would help a lot. and help the buffer. Further, I actually think the applicant did a good job. I understand Commissioner Gozano's point, specifically looking in. But I don't think any of those windows that face the preschool are really accessible. They seem really high. Maybe staff can confirm that on that edge, that south facing. you know, I don't want the processes to go back through a variance to raise that fence, but I wouldn't be against that. I think I would, you know, if we could make the findings, I think I would support it to provide a little more barrier. And then the only one I could think of is the roof deck on the end unit, the end cap. I think it's 30 on my page here now. I would probably support some sort of, you know, just keep the siding going down to close off that end so it's not all glass facing the school. perhaps that could help with the barrier. Let me think here. I think those are, you know, I don't know how those work as conditions. I think perhaps two of them could be, or three, but those are some things I would consider discussing and seeing if we can get the applicant to agree.

And I, for the record, I'm supportive of those conditions. Commissioner Reed, if you want to bring up anything additional to that, but with those conditions, I feel that it does the most of what we think we can do up here in that box. And I think it's very, very reasonable.

Yeah, I would just say, you know, to me, one of the big issues is privacy. I think Commissioner Gazzano hit on it, too. It's privacy from both the preschool privacy to the ENC. I think where my head's at, I'd like to make the condition for hedging or trees really almost foot-based. So on the ENC side, on the structure that's facing the ENC side that only has 10 feet, really start off, I think the illustration said they were starting off at 15 feet, 10 feet. Maybe in 10 years they go to 20 feet. Really start off at 30 feet. and go from there and then on the backside to ENC where you have 20 feet of clearance from the building start at 35 feet. I think part of it is asking if the applicant would agree to that. I could get behind that and then removing the dog patches.

One clarification, I believe, and perhaps staff can confirm, but I think I heard the applicant say they're 20 foot as installed and they go to 30 to- Over 10 years. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. And I do think there are, because I talked to staff about it, just to clarify, I think there are some limitations on box size and what's healthy to plant at that time and the weight of it and everything.

So it's not as much as possible. The issue, it sounds like, is on the side that only has 10 feet. So if you get rid of the sidewalk there that the city confirmed you don't need, doesn't create any waivers or exemptions, I think you could probably find hedging that could hit that level of 30 feet.

THERE'S ONE CONCERN IS I THINK THE FRONT DOORS ARE AROUND THERE. OH, ARE THEY? YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

IS THAT CORRECT ON THAT? YES. OKAY. GOT IT.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR EMOTION?

WANT TO TALK TO THE APPLICANT?

ANY DIRECT QUESTIONS FROM THE APPLICANT? CAN I REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING REAL QUICK AND PUBLIC MEETING And we'll see if the applicant gets some feedback on some of these conditions we're considering for a motion.

Yes, you can do that.

Thank you. I'll reopen public hearing.

If I can indulge the chairman to allow us a two-minute recess, literally a two-minute recess to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission, I can come back and address your comments.

Yes, we'll allow that. And please just stay in your seats. Give us a couple minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much.

when I show up again.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we appreciate your indulgence. I had to consult with our team so we can be better prepared to respond.

OK. And actually, we talked to staff. Well, by the way, we're opening back up the meeting. We're not able to actually totally do what I proposed. But I think there are other alternatives that we could consider. So please go ahead.

OK. would you like to start, let's start with the wall height, if you will, along the preschool? Sure. So the original standard, of course, we know is six feet. With staff support, we're up to eight feet. If we can get staff support to go to 10 feet, we're in agreement.

OK. And what about the material?

What we can commit to is that we will research a suitable product that either gives the resemblance of wood and the grain or it will become an actual wood fence itself. But we understand E&C's direction. They want a type of fence that blends in well with the theme of the Environmental Nature Center. So what our willingness to do is commit to a condition of approval that will A explore various alternatives including the use of wood fences.

Yeah. I think we would want to add, perhaps, in shape, color, et cetera, something to that effect, at least, to get some teeth into it.

And if you can authorize staff to make that determination, we would agree that there needs to be some further evaluation on that condition, yes.

OK. Yeah, perhaps. Yeah, at director's discretion. Okay. At director's discretion, would you agree to that? Understood. Okay. Next one.

With respect to the window glazing, we discussed with the architects we can remove that request for the waiver. We will simply modify that so it meets the 20% minimum. With respect to the decks, the decks, as you heard staff say, is an integral part of our private open space requirement and also is an extremely vital part to our livability and functionality for our future homeowners, given that there's no yard space, if you will, available because of the 20DU requirement. So we're reluctant to simply wipe out the decks. With respect to the dog houses, I will agree to a condition, again, going back to staff's discretion, that we will reevaluate the dog house design so that we can come back with a more compatible design. which may eliminate the dog houses by using a different system. However, I am reluctant to give up that dog house until we can determine an alternative that meets staff's discretion, that obviously mitigates the concerns of the commission, but we have to remember that square footage that's inside those stairwells is part of our square footage of the houses. So we have to be a little careful here. But I will agree to the following, that the applicant will work with staff to determine an alternative to the present dog house design and gives us the opportunity. It's dog houses, by the way. So that's OK. In other words, to come back with a alternative design that is more compatible with respect to the concerns we're hearing this evening.

I thank you there was some discussion internally here about our thoughts on if on the ones that the most exposed over ENC perhaps switching those to a second story patio instead I don't know if that would be considered I would just I'm just bringing up for discussion but would you guys be considerate of that on the ones just the dog houses that the roof decks we would kill the roof decks and dog houses and do the second store oh I know well I don't know exactly which ones It's the 400 building, and I think the 300 building, maybe one or two in between. Do you know which one? I don't know which one's exactly. No, it's hard to see because it's only for the sight line. I just, the thought is that the vegetation at 20 feet and is going to cover and hide the second story a lot faster than it is a doghouse forever that's sticking up there. So that's the thought. I obviously would open a discussion up here.

Well, we have a different approach, if I may. So we heard some concerns about the criteria that we had set forth with our landscape design along the E&C campus. After consultation with our team, what we can commit to is, again, giving the staff the authority to review the condition of approval, that we can move with additional size trees, i.e. get to a 25 foot length by employing a larger diameter box. So we'd be going from a 48 inch box and dropping in a 60 inch box. In consultation with our landscape park detect, our licensed architect, who obviously has the authority, the experience to determine the feasibility, he said, yes, it is feasible that we could consider in some locations along that perimeter the use of 60 inch boxes so that we can come back with staff and show them the revised landscape plan along that border. And I think that would mitigate the, the viewshed issues that you're basically alluding to, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. Okay. Thank you for the power lines. Se allows I'm not asking you in underground anything per se that you don't already have already agreed to in our point off 16 And well, it's se has an easement, but if it terminates at the pole if that's the last power source if it's not the one on your property I understand if it's yours and you can't do it, but if it terminates at the other one You would be responsible for that. You know se would probably do the work but to have that terminated.

I would agree to that condition with the proviso that subject to verification and approval from SCE, which is their facilities, that if it's determined that the power source is providing power to properties off of our property, then things stay as they are. If it's determined otherwise that no, it's not, then we would agree to take the poll down but obviously no undergrounding because the lines are just going to come off.

They're dead lines at that point. They're dead lines.

Yeah, yeah. And the reason why I need that protection, that condition, because we need to verify with Southern California Fort Edison the other end users, which could potentially be folks along St. James. So we just have to make that determination. So I would need flexibility in that condition, and I would propose it be written as follows. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff per Edison that the subject lines may be removed, providing it's determined that no additional services are being provided off that line. Otherwise, the poll would stay in place.

ONE CLARIFICATION I WOULD SAY FROM THAT POINT.

FROM THAT POINT.

THANK YOU.

YEAH.

OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY THOUGHTS? ANY FEEDBACK? PLEASE. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. BOYD. APPRECIATE IT. ALSO, REAL QUICK, I THINK STAFF WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING ON THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDINGS.

Thank you, Chair Harris, I did want to provide one point of clarification earlier when I stated that the garage was a minimum of 17 feet, six inches wide, that is the interior clear dimensions of the garage. So that does not include the exterior walls, there would be additional walls, of course, related to the building. And furthermore, the garage currently as designed does also accommodate the trash recycling organics as well as some mechanical equipment. So that also does require a larger garage for that purpose. If I may, Chair Harris, could I comment on a couple of the proposed conditions as well that have been discussed?

Please. Please clarify.

So one point that I did want to clarify related to the applicant's comment pertaining to the 10-foot wall, along the E&C side, THE COMMISSION HAS THE ABILITY TO RAISE THE HEIGHT OF THAT WALL IF THE APPLICANT AGREES TO IT. HOWEVER, ON THE SIDE FACING THE PRESCHOOL, THAT IS WITHIN A SETBACK AND THAT DOES HAVE THE EIGHT FOOT LIMITATION. SO BECAUSE STAFF DID NOT NOTICE THIS HEARING WITH A VARIANCE, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE FINDINGS TONIGHT. IT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN AT A FUTURE HEARING. HOWEVER, POTENTIALLY LANDSCAPING OR OTHER THINGS THAT PROVIDE A SIMILAR MEANS AND METHOD COULD BE EFFECTIVE. and then additionally we are prepared with draft conditions of approval pertaining to the the wall material or the fence with the wood and then we also have draft condition pertaining to the telephone pole if that is helpful thank you

DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? QUESTION FOR STAFF AND COMMENT FOR THE APPLICANT. IN WORKING IN COLLABORATION WITH NEIGHBORS AND US HERE TONIGHT, I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS NOT EASY ON THE FLY TO MODIFY PROJECT CONDITIONS. IT IS NOT AN EASY TASK. and trying to come to a solution. Just wanted to make sure that was at least acknowledged. question for staff. On the findings, we have to make all findings is my understanding. It's not, you know, you can't really pick and choose, right? It's the entire list of findings from everything from the objective development standards as well as the health and safety and compatibility. You can't, you know, kind of pick and choose. It's a unanimous all findings. Is that correct?

That is correct, that all findings have to be made for approval. However, one point of clarification is that the health and safety findings are only necessary should the commission choose to deny the project or make the project infeasible.

Okay. Okay. Go ahead.

Okay, sorry, we'll close public hearing again, bring it back up to commission. I think I'm at a point where I would propose PROPOSED TO APPROVE IT WITH THE CONDITIONS. I THINK THEY AT LEAST ADDRESS SOME OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS AND THE IMPACTS ON THE ENC, SURROUNDING CENTER. I THINK THE BUILDER COULD PUSH BACK. THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS. I'M GLAD WE'RE TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER TO FIND A BETTER RESOLUTION. SO I WOULD SUPPORT. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT WITH THE CONDITIONS AND I AGREE WITH THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED.

CAN I ASK FOR SOME DISCUSSION? I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. I HAVE FIVE CONDITIONS.

LET'S HAVE THEM REITERATE AND SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

OK, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I MISSED ANY HERE OR MISUNDERSTOOD. THERE WAS A CONDITION PERTAINING TO THE DOG HOUSES, AND THIS WAS THAT APPLICANT WILL WORK WITH STAFF TO DETERMINE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PRESENT DOG HOUSE DESIGN THAT IS MORE COMPATIBLE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THEM PERTAINING TO THE DOG HOUSE.

OR REMOVAL, I THINK WAS CONSIDERED.

OK, ALTERNATIVE INCLUDING REMOVAL. Additionally there were there was a condition pertaining to the materials of the wall and so that is an item that could be Fulfilled with review by the director again Additionally there were conditions pertaining to this size at time of planting So the applicant as I understand has agreed to change.

Sorry Liz real quick back to the wall. Do we also talk about the height? I

AND THEN THE MATERIALS WOULD MATCH SUBJECT TO DIRECTOR, I THINK WE SAID IT WOULD, AND MIRRORING THE COLOR AND LOOK OF EXISTING OTHER FENCE LINES.

Correct. We can include that. I think the point of clarification would be if it pertains to both of the property lines, the one against the ENC and the one along the preschool. As I mentioned, the one along the ENC, the commission does have the authority to potentially adjust the height of that wall.

Eight foot on that wall and ten foot on the other is what I understand it to be.

Thank you for clarifying. In terms of the plantings that we've discussed in the trees, we do have a draft condition prepared for you. Prior to building permit issuance, the landscape plan for the area abutting the ENC shall be revised to include plant materials that are sized in space to achieve immediate effect of adequate landscape buffering to the satisfaction of the community development director.

Do we want to include specifically that, you know, 60-inch box trees will be utilized? Where possible, yeah. Yeah, where possible, yeah, just for specificity.

We can include that additional note that they should provide 60-inch boxes where feasible.

And appropriate, I mean, you know, based on sight lines and, you know, where sensitive areas into the ENC and such.

Yes, we can include that. Thank you. Those were the conditions that I had noted, but please indicate if there are additional.

Powerline.

POWER POLE AS WELL, WE ALSO HAVE A DRAFT CONDITION FOR YOU THAT I'D LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF IT SATISFIES THE NEED. IF THE POWER POLE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS DEEMED TO BE UNNECESSARY TO SERVE OTHER PROPERTIES, THE APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE THE POWER POLE OR IMPLEMENT AN EQUIVALENT MEASURE UNLESS THE APPLICANT PROVIDES DOCUMENTATION FROM SO-CAL EDISON TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR Demonstrating that removal or equivalent measure is not feasible without construction on adjacent properties or would not be permitted by SCE. So this is intended to protect the applicant should SCE tell them that they're not able to do this or if doing so would require them to go onto adjacent properties that they do not have control over to do construction work.

I mean, as long as there's a distinction between SCE, because if they were going to remove the lines to the other pole, they'd have to access the ENC's preschool property to get there. But ENC, or SCE, obviously has easements for that. That's my only caveat there. I don't know how to clean that up.

And I think the last one was on glazing, that the applicant would not request a waiver on glazing.

Thank you for that one. We can also include a condition that they will comply with the glazing requirement of the ODS.

I don't think that's a condition. I think they are just removing that as a waiver.

The condition would be intended to require the applicant to revise the current design that has been presented today to ensure that it happens.

And then other clarification on the landscaping on the 60-inch box, I did not hear a where feasible from the applicant. It felt like that was added. And I think we've all been applicants before, very easable to make something infeasible. So that doesn't feel like it has any teeth to it. I would remove... THE WHERE FEASIBLE COMPONENT AND MAKE IT FEASIBLE.

UNDERSTOOD. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING THE WHERE APPROPRIATE TERM INCLUDED?

SORRY. REPEAT THAT.

WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE RETAINING THE WORDING OF WHERE APPROPRIATE IN LIEU OF THE IF FEASIBLE?

WHERE APPROPRIATE TO THE LOCATION, YEAH. I THINK THAT WORKS. YOU DON'T WANT IT IN FRONT OF A FRONT DOOR KIND OF THING TO BLOCK WINDOWS SPECIFICALLY.

I'll open it back up and bring up the applicant to ask if they agree with the conditions as stated.

Are we having fun yet?

Okay, let's start from the top.

I agree with the draft condition for relative to the dog houses. We'll go back to the director for the ultimate determination to whether or not an alternative design and or removal to appease Commissioner Reid. Number two, the material of the wall including the use of wood would be permitted that we can obviously explore alternative MATERIAL TYPES, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE AND WE'RE CLEAR THAT THE GOAL IS TO MEET E AND C SATISFACTION WHICH THEY HAVE SHOWN US THAT THEY PREFER A WOOD FENCE THAT WOULD RESEMBLE THEIR THEME THROUGHOUT THEIR CAMPUS. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN INCLUDE WOOD.

I THINK WHAT DEVIATIONS BASED UPON WHAT MS. WESTMORELAND JUST REITERATED, WHAT DEVIATIONS IF ANY DO YOU HAVE TO WHAT SHE JUST SAID?

I'm just trying to clarify what you're asking me to approve in terms of the modified conditions.

Yeah, she just read them off.

Okay. And that's fine. So as she read them, then we are in agreement with those revised conditions.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

No problem. Okay. Okay, commissioners.

Well, you made a motion. Staff, do we have a motion on file or do we not? We don't have a second, but Chair Harris made a motion. There's been some iteration. Is the motion on file? Is that correct? OK. Then I'm happy to make a second to that motion as stated. Call for a vote.

Uh-oh.

I'm in your shoes a lot.

Yeah. Hit your mouse.

It went to sleep. I don't blame it. There we go.

We're good to call for a vote.

The motion carries 4-2, with Commissioners Langford and Gazzano voting no.

OK. Congratulations. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on.

All right. Do we want to give a minute to file out? Let's just keep going.

OK. Item number three, motions for reconsideration. Are there any motions? Okay. Number four, report by the community development director or request for matters which planning commission member would like placed on a future agenda. Is there a report?

Good evening. I'll make it quick. I'd like to just note that there are two items for the upcoming July 9th meeting. There is Oscar will be back with another housing project in the airport area. And then there is a variance in Corona Del Mar. I don't have anything further to note at this time other than an item that the planning commission denied at a prior meeting is coming forth to the city council on july 14th this is the 2350 bristol street driveway access also known as the zenith gate so they will be hearing that appeal that night thank you thank you does anyone for the audience want to comment on these items mr mosier

I would just point out the very last thing on the last page pending before the Coastal Commission housing implementation program amendments. I believe we heard at the last meeting that the Coastal Commission had approved those with modifications and the council has actually approved what the Coastal Commission allowed. And so unless this is a different housing implementation program amendments, I don't think that's pending before the Coastal Commission anymore. So it's either something new or it should be removed. So thank you. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? NO. OKAY. MOVING ON. ITEM NUMBER 5, REQUEST FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES, COMMISSIONERS.

JULY 23. I THINK THAT ONE WAS MAYBE THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF A MEETING. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS CERTAIN OR NOT. BUT I WON'T BE HERE.

WE ARE STILL WAITING ON CONFIRMATION ON THAT MEETING. THERE IS A CHANCE WE WILL HOLD THAT MEETING.

I'LL BE GONE THE 23RD AS WELL.

I decide that, okay. Thank you, adjourn.

Thank you.