Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

which is called the cumulative project list. It's prepared and maintained for the purpose of preparing environmental impact reports and other CEQA documents, and I think most cities have something like that. And it is actually posted on the city website, but I understand there's some question about whether it should be posted or not posted or updated. And I think it's a document that is useful for, certainly it's useful for the staff. I think it's useful with the planning commissioners. It's not just the airport area. It's a citywide document of what has been approved and what is pending in the future, our cumulative project list. AND IT'S USEFUL TO THE PUBLIC ALSO TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHAT MIGHT BE COMING UP. SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ENCOURAGE THE STAFF TO CONTINUE POSTING THAT AND TO UPDATE THE CURRENT VERSION WHICH IS MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF OLD CURRENTLY AND ACTUALLY POST THE CURRENT VERSION SO THAT THE PUBLIC AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN SEE THAT. SO I WOULD HOPE YOU ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO THAT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? Thank you for your comments. Moving on to the next item, request for continuances. Staff, are there any requests for continuances?

Mr. Chair, there are none. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to consent items. Item number two, minutes of June 18, 2026 minutes. Would anyone from the audience like to comment on the minutes from the June 18th Planning Commission hearing? Seeing none, call for a motion and second to approve the minutes. Anybody?

I'll make a motion to approve.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, is that with Mr. Moser that it's?

With the edits. Thank you.

Thank you.

Second.

Okay.

Call for a vote.

THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 3, 1301 DOVE STREET RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, PA 2026-0046. STAFF, PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, CHAIR SELENE. OSCAR OROZCO HERE WITH THE PLANNING DIVISION PRESENTING THE 1301 DOVE STREET RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. The project site is located at 1301 Dove Street, as depicted in this aerial image here. The project site is also located within the mixed-use horizontal general plan land use designation, as well as the Newport Place planned community zoning district, which is otherwise known as PC11. The project site is adjacent to the Newport Place Drive and Dove Street intersection. and is currently developed with a 10-story professional office building, which is approximately 218,000 square feet in size, and also includes a two-story parking structure towards the rear, as well as a surface parking lot and landscape areas throughout. The project is also centrally located to the airport area and is surrounded by existing professional offices throughout. The project itself is for a request to demolish the existing parking structure and the office building in two separate phases, and the construction of 139 unit of for sale residential townhomes. This would be comprised of 50 detached three story buildings ranging from 33 and a half feet to 39 feet. They would be two, three, and four bedroom units with two car garages, and all waste storage would be located within garages or appropriately screened throughout the site. Here you'll see a depiction of the proposed site plan. The project entryway is located along Dove Street. It is generally located where the current entryway is. The project includes a series of one-unit buildings outlined here in green, several two-unit buildings outlined here in red, and towards the back half a four-, six-, and eight-unit building towards the rear of the property. This is depicted in blue. The project site also includes surface parking for guests, as well as open space areas and recreational amenities, which I'll dive into a little further later. Project implementation requires the following approvals, a major site development review for more than five units with a track map, as well as the requested deviation of three multi-unit objective design standards, a vesting tentative track map for the individual sale of those units, and for the subdivision of the site into four separate parcels for the phased approach. In addition, in relation to CEQA, would be an AB 130 statutory exemption. The project is also located within the Housing Opportunity Overlay, otherwise known as HO1 for the airport area and Virens area. Depicted here in this map as Site 335 is also within several other properties that are depicted as Housing Opportunity Overlay sites. With respect to the major site development review, there's a review over consistency with zoning standards, scale and compatibility, design, landscape and amenities, as well as hazards. In this table, you'll see that the project proposed is fully compliant with all zoning standards of the Housing Opportunity Overlay. I'll highlight a few. The project provides additional setbacks other than the minimum required, quite a bit more common open space and private open space, and also meets the minimum required parking for the residential units as well as visitor guest spaces. It also provides an additional 10 uncovered parking spaces throughout the site in the form of uncovered driveway spaces. Those would be surplus spaces. Here you'll see several project renderings for the project itself. The applicants described this design as a contemporary coastal architectural design, and the applicant will speak a little bit more on design in their presentation. However, with respect to compatibility and scale, the project is, as mentioned before, at a maximum 39 feet in height, which is well below the height limit. It's also designed well under a lot of the existing office buildings throughout the site. but also keeps in mind the recently approved projects by the Planning Commission with respect to the project at 1500 Quail as well as 1300 Dove across the street. These are very similar in kind as far as overall building scale and mass and are generally compatible with the existing and the proposed uses in the area. The project includes five separate amenity areas. It is only required to provide three through the objective design standard requirements. Here you'll see a compilation of those. Just to highlight a few, there's an activity commons area, A, as well as outdoor dining area, and some garden retreat walking path areas. Notably, there's a shade trellis, some barbecues, an activity lawn for the residents, as well as lounge seating area and dog relief areas for the residents. The project also proposes more than the minimum required publicly accessible open space. This is depicted along the frontage of the site, so on the right-hand side of the map along Duff Street in the light green color. This is an enhanced publicly accessible open space area, which is intended to provide for enhanced landscaping and lighting, seating areas, which will be shaded, as well as some dog relief areas, not only for this development, but also will be maintained as publicly accessible for other residential developments in the area. In addition, the project is also being required through condition of approval to include a public walkway easement. And this is depicted in that red line there. This is to provide for access for pedestrians through the site commencing at Dove Street and connecting to the previously referenced project at 1500 Quail, which had a very similar condition of approval. More or less, this is to bridge the gap from a pedestrian scale from Dove Street to Quail Street. The project, as mentioned, complies with 49 out of the 52 objective design standards. Three are being requested to be waived, which are outlined here. The first of the three would be a functional or decorative horizontal feature at floor level. So these are things like belt courses, trims, projections. The project does not propose to include those. However, it does through the contemporary design use material changes, color variation, horizontal elements to break up the building massing. The second item would be a maximum of two recesses or projections per facade, which is the limit by the objective design standards. The project provides more than the two, which may be allowed if they enhance or for the purposes of enhancing the architectural design and help to reduce the building's perceived scale, therefore meeting the intention of that requirement. And lastly, the ODS requirement for a minimum of 10% of the facade being to include horizontal modulation with respect to the design. There are smaller building footprints and shorter facade lengths, which help create variety through massing offsets, material transitions, and architectural projections, which once again hit the intention of that objective design standard. The project is also located within the John Wayne Airport Notification Area and is subject to the ALOOP. More specifically, the project is within Safety Zone 6, which has been identified as a compatible residential land use for the site, which is okay. And the project applicants have also provided an FAA determination of no hazard to air navigation that would be required for the conditions of approval to comply with all federal laws. The project site is also located within the 60 decibel noise concerts, which are allowed through the specific residential land use. And there are conditions of approval with relation to noise as well as notification to future residents of the area. The second component is the vesting tentative track map for the condominium purposes and the individual sale. In addition, as mentioned before, the subdivision of the site into four separate parcels for the phased approach. The project also includes a final design condition of approval with respect to the extents of the new storm drain and upsizing the existing sewer main, which will be determined by public works as conditioned. And then lastly, the project is required to pay a in-lieu park fee as well as a development impact fee as it relates to the specific vesting center track map and it complies with a preliminary housing application under SB 330 that the project applied for. As mentioned before, the project includes a phased approach. It doesn't necessarily mean that the applicants will end up doing a phased approach, but they've provided it as part of their application materials for staff's review and preparation. Here you'll see a map of the two phases. On the rear half of the property, which is the left, phase one is depicted in green, would be the demolition of the existing parking structure and the construction of the 76 dwelling units, along with common areas A and outdoor garden area A. WITH RESPECT TO PHASE ONE, THIS STANDS ALONE. IT COMPLIES WITH ALL THE ZONING STANDARDS OF THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY AND WILL STAND IN COMPLIANCE REGARDLESS OF PHASE TWO. PHASE TWO WOULD BE THE DEMOLITION OF THE 10 STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND THEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 63 DWELLING UNITS AS WELL AS THE REMAINING THREE AMENITY AREAS AS WELL AS LANDSCAPE AREAS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE. GIVEN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS BE PART OF THE REVIEW, STAFF HAS, THROUGH SEVERAL REVIEWS WITH PUBLIC WORKS, FIRE, AND BUILDING, ENSURED THAT THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN EXHIBIT FOR THE PHASED APPROACH. SO HERE YOU'LL SEE, AND THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT PLANS FOR THE REPORT, A required ingress, egress, utility, and fire lane easement for the site. So if phase one gets developed, the phase two side will continue to provide access not only for the residents, but also for the purposes of emergency for fire and police. This also addresses all utilities and will also ensure that there is pedestrian access from the front to the rear half of the property through that phase one approach. And again, this is included as a condition of approval to ensure that it occurs. Here you'll see a list of revised conditions of approval. These conditions of approval, I won't read them all, but were provided to the Planning Commission through a memo earlier today outlining the differences or the revisions. More or less, they are tweaks to some of the language within the draft resolution. With respect to environmental review, as mentioned before, the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA under AB 130. The project meets the eligibility criteria to qualify for AB 130, and therefore there is no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The project also, or the project applicant has also provided and conducted a phase one environmental study assessment, which was provided and included as a condition of approval for compliance with AB 130. And lastly, city staff has conducted tribal consultations as required by AB 130, and the resulting factor of those consultations is included as a condition of approval or several conditions of approval for monitoring efforts by the tribes during the development of the project. Staff has received several public correspondence on the project, about seven support letters and five letters expressing concern. Just to outline some of the concerns, one of them is related to traffic. The project, as proposed, generates 836 average daily trips, which is 844 less than the existing office building. And through the application of credit, once the project is fully developed, it is well under the 300 threshold for a traffic phasing ordinance requirement for a traffic study. There were also comments over lack of support uses in the area. And city staff is well aware of this. City staff is actually working on the preparation of a airport area specific plan now to address this specific concern with understanding that the housing element is creating a new village for the city in the airport area. There were comments over workforce and affordable housing and more or less a request to include them. With respect to the housing opportunity overlay zone, there is no requirement to provide affordable housing. There are incentives, but that's not a requirement. And in this particular case, the applicant has not proposed to include it. All the housing would be market rate housing. And then lastly, there were some inconsistent or concerns over inconsistent project description. So just to be very clear, the project is for the 130 unit development. And the ODS waivers that were previously referenced are included in the draft resolution as findings D and E, should there have been any concern over that. With that being said, staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, find the project exempt from CEQA, and adopt the resolution recommending the approval of the project with the amended resolution. This concludes my presentation. The applicants are also here and ready to make a brief presentation. Thank you.

Mr. Roscoe, thank you so much for that excellent presentation. Commissioners, any questions of staff?

THANK YOU, CHAIR. MR. ROSCOE, DO YOU MIND PUTTING UP THE CONDITIONS SLIDE THAT YOU HAD UP? I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK WITH MY NOTES. THANKS.

IN THE MEANTIME, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS?

Thank you, Oscar, for your presentation. I heard you say it, but I'm going to ask a question again. This project, as a phased project, stands alone. Each phase stands alone from Subdivision Map Act, from just basically our city staff has looked at this and said it stands alone. I want to hear that.

THAT'S CORRECT, COMMISSIONER. THERE WERE SEVERAL MEETINGS CONDUCTED WITH THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT CONFORMS TO ALL THE STANDARDS. DOES THAT INCLUDE FIRE? THIS INCLUDES FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS, BUILDING, AND PLANNING. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VICE CHAIR LANGFORD?

THEY'RE GOOD? OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE?

NO? OKAY. COMMISSIONER, ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION? COMMISSIONER REED. SECTOR REED. I spoke with the applicant's consultant.

I met with the applicant and the applicant's consultant.

I met with the applicant and the applicant's consultant.

I met with the applicant and their consultant on site.

I spoke with their applicant.

I met with the applicant and their consultant on site as well.

I met with the applicant and their consultant on site. Okay.

I will now open the public hearing. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Chair Saleen, commissioners, thanks for the time this evening. I'd like to thank city staff, Mr. Orozco and Deputy Director Westmoreland. You guys hear me? Overall, everybody did a tremendous job. We really appreciate how diligent the city staff was looking after city's interests and also trying to work with us constructively to find solutions. We're very pleased with the process, and it's been a good, enjoyable one. So thank you. We're not going to take too much of your time in this presentation. We don't want to be too duplicative, but we would like to, since Oscar gave such a great overview and presentation, but we would like to go over a couple things, a little bit about the vision, a little bit about ourselves.

Before you start, I'm sorry, would you state your name for the record?

Oh, I'm sorry. Ryan Parkin with the applicant. With that, a little bit about myself. I am Ryan Parkin, and I founded Crest Capital in 2012. Look, I'm a local in this community, lived here about 15 years, raising my family here. This is an important project for us, important project for our family. We want to be proud of it, not just now. We want this to be financially successful, yes. But we also want this to be something that stands the test of time. And that two or three decades from now, we're really looking back with a lot of pride. So just today, I want to share something briefly. I enjoyed a proud local dad's moment when my daughter did the pier jump today in Junior Guard. So really proud. And I just want to say thank you for that. Again, we want this to be a project that the city appreciates, that we appreciate, and that we can solve some of the mandates we're all facing from Sacramento as a result. With that, I'd like to introduce Brian Rupp, who will share a little bit more about our vision and some of the architectural design. Thank you, Ryan.

Good evening, honorable chair, members of the commission. My name is Brian Rupp with Qtative Development Solutions here on behalf of the applicant. Again, I want to extend our thanks to city staff who did a fantastic job on this project. It's been a pleasure working with them. It's been a pleasure working with them in the past, and they are true professionals and helped get us here tonight. So thank you. A little bit about the vision for this project. Our vision really sums back to the city's vision. We're just here to implement the city's vision for the airport area, introduce quality housing into the airport area, and we feel this project does just that. It goes beyond just putting housing into a new area for the city. It relies on the existing infrastructure, the roadways, the sewer lines, the water lines that are already there. That infrastructure is there, that'll serve this project. I think that's important to help efficiently transform and repurpose a site like this office building. The vision for the project itself was to create a project where we have a variety of product types, both in size, price points, and styles, and create a livable, breathable community. We wanted it to be pedestrian friendly, we wanted to have open spaces, and we wanted to have units that have good light coming into them. Our architect and their team from KTGY who are here tonight, they did a fantastic job. They delivered that. Our landscape designers programmed that landscape and open space areas to create an inviting area for the residents and their guests. So the The architecture for this is coastal contemporary, very fitting of Newport Beach. We're using clean lines, large windows, neutral colors, warm earth tones, natural materials. Combined with the open space, I think it's very fitting of the location of Newport Beach. It is an infill, more urbanized location, but it is Newport Beach and we don't want to forget that. So we're really focusing on pedestrian uses in creating that walkable neighborhood not only internally but externally. So this site we Everything leads down through Central Paseo into the activity commons, which you see here before you. That's going to be the main central gathering hub for the neighborhood and their guests. We've got barbecues, we've got bocce ball areas, fire pit lounges. In all, we have nearly an acre of private and public open space. For a six and a half acre site, I think that's very meaningful for an infill site like that to dedicate that much open space. That's nearly three times the amount of private open space required under the housing overlay, so it's very meaningful. And the The PAOS, I wanted to add to that, the PAOS, the Publicly Accessible Open Space along Dove Street, brings the public and guests into the project and links directly with that private open space. So it's a seamless transition. We don't have a gated community where there's public and private. OPEN SPACES WILL BLEND NICELY AND PEOPLE WILL COME AND GO ORGANICALLY. ONE OTHER ITEM OF BUSINESS THAT WE WANT TO CLEAN UP HERE, WE'VE, YOU KNOW, PART OF DEVELOPING INFIL SITE IS BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND WE'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATIONS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS AND ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS HAS A COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ACTUALLY TWO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS OVER THE DEMOLITION OF OUR, THE BUILDINGS ON OUR PROPERTY. We've come to an agreement on a condition of approval that both our neighbor and us would like to respectfully request to be incorporated if the commission would so desire. We've provided a copy of this language to staff. And I'll read it for the record and for your consideration. Again, this is something we're willing to accommodate to be a good neighbor. The proposed condition would read as follows. Prior to commencement of demolition activities of the property, the applicant shall hire an independent third-party consultant to conduct a property survey of the buildings and improvements on the property at 1375 and 1401 Dove Street to identify and document the existing conditions of the buildings and the improvements. And that's simply to document the conditions. We work with professional demolition contractors. None of us want to see issues happen, but this provides protection for our neighboring property owner, and we're happy to accommodate them if you so would allow us to incorporate that proposed condition. With that, I want to thank you for your time. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you again.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Before you guys leave, though, just a quick question. Do you agree with all the conditions of approval as amended? And we'll talk to staff about this new one.

Yes, we do.

OK, excellent. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, would anyone from the audience like to speak on this item?

Chair Saleen, members of the Commission, my name is Jim Mosier. As with all the projects that come before you, one of your considerations is whether the PROJECT CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IT IS TO BE DEVELOPED. AND THE GENERAL PLAN HAS CHANGED DURING THE PENDING OF THIS APPLICATION SO THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM. BUT AS THE STAFF INDICATED, THE STAFF IS CURRENTLY WORKING AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN WHICH WAS APPROVED LAST MONTH. after your recommendation, to develop a specific plan for the airport area. And just to the public, it seems a little bit out of sequence that we are approving lots of housing development in the airport area before we have developed the specific plan for how we want the community in the airport area to be laid out. It seems backwards. Another consideration is whether the project is advancing the goals of our housing element. Going back in time again, an earlier housing element contemplated the need to put housing in the airport area, and specifically in the zoning that followed that in 2010, this area of the Newport Place planned community was designated as the Most logical location to put affordable housing. And so this area has on it a residential overlay, different from the new housing overlays. And it's the one that you've heard about that had a 30% affordable requirement. AT YOUR RECOMMENDATION, YOUR PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT REQUIREMENT WAS REDUCED TO 15%. AND CURRENTLY PENDING FOR FORESALE HOUSING IS REDUCING FURTHER DOWN TO 6%, WHICH IS GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY. A TINY NOTE IN THIS SAYS THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS BECAUSE IT'S USING THE NEW HOUSING OVERLAYS. SO WE'VE GONE TO ALL THE TROUBLE OF THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING THING. And now the one area of the city that has requirement, the requirement doesn't apply to housing applications because they're using the new housing overlay. But does this even help us with our housing overlays? The overlays, as I've tried to explain before, And this project has no affordable housing in it. Staff keep saying that's not a problem. We report to HCD, and we have plenty of housing designated where it could go. And in fact, we have designated places that could accommodate like 22,000 residential units. However, we have a cap on them, and we don't tell HCD or remind them that we have a cap of about 8,000 units that were supposed to produce 3,000 affordable units. And we've already designated the use for about half of that 8,000 with very little affordable housing in it. And as a result of that, even with the 8,000 that would require 40% affordable housing, we're now down to about half of that and the remaining applications would have to be like 60% or 70% and each new application makes the burden on the future ones even higher. So we're really never going to be able to accomplish our 3,000 with the 8,000 units. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker? None? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond? No? Okay. Does staff have any comments for the record?

Thank you, Chair. Just to confirm Mr. Mosher's comments over the general plan analysis, the project was reviewed under the previous general plan. It received a deemed complete application under SB 330 in November of last year, which locks it into the zoning standards and the general plan analysis components at the time. So the most recently adopted general plan update would not apply to this project, and hence why the draft resolution reviews it per the previous one. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll close the public hearing and bring this to the Commission for discussion and action.

Commissioners, any comments, thoughts?

Anybody? Commissioner Rosin. I just have a real quick question of staff and then a comment. We've been, we just heard to ask to add a condition of approval about an agreement with a neighbor. Are we comfortable with that?

Thank you, Commissioner Rosine. I would be comfortable with that. I think that, you know, there is some nexus there. The applicant is accommodating a request of a joining property owner. So, provided they've consented to this, I'm comfortable incorporating it.

Thank you. I appreciate that. So, since I have the floor. I want to thank the applicant for bringing a for sale housing project in Newport Beach. It's what we need in this area. It's what we asked for and they've done a really nice job of bringing a great community to our city. So thank you for that. Thank you for staff for getting some of my concerns dealt with and I appreciate that very much. What I guess I want to say is that IF THIS COMMISSION SO MOVES, THAT I WILL DEFINITELY BE SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT. AND I DID HAVE ONE LITTLE COMMENT BECAUSE I HAVE TO HAVE ONE, AND THAT WOULD BE THAT ALONG THE 1500 QUALE AND THIS PROJECT'S BOUNDARY IS AN OPPORTUNITY. AND I KNOW IT'S A REAL LONG SHOT, BUT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE THAT EASEMENT AREA IS GOING TO BE THAT INSTEAD OF WALL BEING PLACED THERE WHERE THERE'S HOMES FACING A WALL INSTEAD THOSE HALLS HOMES FOR BOTH COMMUNITIES COULD BE FACING LANDSCAPE SPACES IF THAT WALL WASN'T THERE AND SO IT'S JUST AN IDEA I KNOW THAT IT'S A LONG SHOT BECAUSE IT'S REALLY A DEVELOPMENT TIMING ISSUE BUT I THOUGHT I WOULD GO ON THE RECORD FOR SAYING THAT SO THANK YOU THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER COMMENTS THOUGHTS ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION

I actually really like this project. I like the design. I think they really push forward with the design compared to some that we've seen. They were pretty vanilla, to be honest. I do have some somewhat concerns with the phasing and how that works out with the building. But I was happy with the conditions for my staff. I thought they did a good job with those. And I still have a concern, and we kind of say it all the time up here, about how you dictate CC&Rs and how you, with the state limiting fines and not using your garage. So I just have concerns overall. That's not their problem. I don't think they're going to solve it here. WE ALWAYS BEAT A DEAD HORSE ON IT. I'M HAPPY WITH IT. I THINK IT'S A REALLY NICE PROJECT. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. THANK YOU.

I'LL SAY, AGAIN, I ALSO THINK THIS IS A REALLY NEAT PROJECT. I THINK THE ARCHITECTURE IS GREAT. I THINK THE LAND PLAN IS GREAT. I LOVE HOW THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY AND MORE OF A SPREAD OUT APPROACH IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT. I THINK THAT'S VERY THOUGHTFUL. I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE COMMISSIONER ROSIN'S COMMENT ABOUT TRYING TO SOFTEN THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN ALL THE PROJECTS, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE FOR YOU GUYS TO GET TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT AND DO THAT, IT WOULD BE NICE. I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HAVING SOME ACCESSIBILITY BETWEEN SOME OF THE PROJECTS, WHICH I THINK IS SUPER IMPORTANT. AND I HAD ANOTHER THOUGHT AND I FORGOT IT. BUT I WOULD SECOND. Oh, but add to that motion the addition of that additional condition of approval that the neighbor and the applicant have agreed to.

As well as the revised conditions, correct?

As well as the revised conditions, yes.

The maker of the motion agree with that?

I will. What's that? Say yes.

I agree. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments before we call for a vote?

Okay. We can call for a vote.

The motion carries unanimously.

Congratulations. And moving on. Item number four, CDM Investors Residence, PA 2022-0148, site location 2516 and 2518 Bayside Drive. Staff, please proceed with your presentation.

Good evening, Chair Saleen, Commissioners, Daniel Kopchever, Assistant Planner. This project is for the Variance and Coastal Development Permit at 2516 and 2518 Bayside Drive. This vicinity map shows that the project is in Corona Del Mar. at the edge of the street end of Dahlia Avenue and adjacent to Bayside Park, surrounded by R2 properties. It's also zoned R2, primarily all developed with two-unit residences. The project includes demolishing the existing duplex and constructing a new single unit dwelling with a junior accessory dwelling unit and includes setback encroachments, an over-height retaining wall, and landscape improvements to Bayside Park. This table summarizes its consistency with the development standards with the exception of encroachments at the ground floor adjacent to the rear alley setback and encroachments on the second floor two and a half feet into the rear alley setback for a balcony. So this elevation view shows the five foot setback line where the third floor complies and then the second floor balcony would encroach two and a half feet into the five foot setback. And at the ground floor encroachments including planters, retaining walls and I would note that the retaining wall shown adjacent to the rear property line does wrap around towards the northern side property line which is at the base of the steep slope at the property. So these are the required findings for the variance and Coastal Development Permit. In this case, Coastal Development Permit is required due to the waiver of development standards where normally it would be exempt as part of the local coastal programs exclusion area. These are some of the key variance justification items. I'll follow up on these with the following slides in more detail with visual aid, starting with the unique condition of the property. There is limited vehicle access via this 15-foot front setback. the developed portion of the alley ends about 90 feet from the property so the only vehicle access would be from this front setback the rear alley is undeveloped and bayside park would block the project from providing access from the side there are nearby properties that have their only vehicle access through the front yard setback but these properties are able to have a rear yard that does not abut an alley THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE WHERE THERE'S A STEEP ELEVATION FROM BAYSIDE PARK INTO THE ALLEY WHICH MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP SO IT'S VERY UNLIKELY TO BECOME DEVELOPED AND SHOWS THAT RETAINING WALLS AND SHORING WOULD BE REQUIRED ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE DUE TO THE STEEP ELEVATION CHANGE. THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE PROJECT LOCATION WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE LEFT AND NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS ABOVE AND THERE'S THE STREET AND ABOVE PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS. THIS IS JUST A ZOOMED IN VIEW SHOWING THE BALCONY ENCROACHMENT AND ENCROACHES 30 INCHES INTO THE OR TWO AND A HALF FEET INTO THE FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S ALREADY ALLOWED FOR EAVES AND OVERHANGS. THEY CAN ALREADY ENCROACH 30 INCHES WITH NO ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENT REQUIRED. This while not constituting setting a precedent, there are nearby entitlements, the immediately adjacent properties benefit from modification permits or variances or older use permits. For coastal views, coastal views would not be negatively affected by the project. The nearest coastal viewpoint is Begonia Park, and views from Begonia Park are oriented towards the harbor and away from the project site. For coastal access, the site is about 700 feet from the harbor where no coastal access occurs at that location. And the project also includes removing this existing hedge in Bayside Park, shown on the right, where on the left you can see that this is public property and the private residence is currently using it as parking. THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWS REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING HEDGE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY BEING REPLACED WITH LOW GROUND COVER LANDSCAPING WHICH WOULD GO UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND AGAIN REMOVING THAT PRIVATE PARKING SPACE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. Some notable conditions are that the owner would be required to remove any encroachments if the alley is ever developed. This would be at the owner's expense. The hedge in the alley that will be existing to remain shall be maintained at a height no greater than 20 feet. And then an encroachment agreement is required for the improvements in the public right-of-way. We did receive public comments on this item. Some of the concerns were that the alley encroachments are a public safety issue, that there's no unique circumstances at the property, and that it obstructs harbor views. I believe condition of approval number four addresses the concern of a public safety issue as they would be required to remove any encroachments as the city sees necessary. and that the unique circumstances of the property are due to the lack of vehicle access from anywhere other than the front yard setback, so they're not able to have a front yard, and the encroachments in the rear at the ground floor and above allow for outdoor living space on the ground floor functioning as a front yard that they're not able to have otherwise. We recommend conducting a public hearing, finding the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to class three, and adopting a resolution. I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT TEAM HERE AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

JUST CLARIFICATION FROM MY END. IS THE HEDGE ON THE PARK PROPERTY RIGHT NOW OR IS THAT PART OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OR THE ENCROACHMENT?

YES, THE HEDGE IS ON BAYSIDE PARK. IS THE HEDGE BEING REMOVED?

THE HEDGE IN BAYSIDE PARK WILL BE REMOVED AND THE HEDGE IN THE ALLEY WILL REMAIN. Okay. And the hedge in the alley will remain and that will be no greater than 20 feet? Correct. It will be maintained at that height. Got it. Thank you.

Chair Selene, that was kind of my questions too about the hedge on the public. Is it in the public right of way, but the property owner is going to be maintaining it on behalf of the city, or is it on their parcel? I wasn't quite sure. Didn't look like it was part of the property itself.

Commissioner so Josh McDonnell principal engineer here, so they would be maintaining as a part of the encroachment agreement Okay, they're the removal of the hedge and the landscaping improvements in the public right-of-way on Bayside Park Okay, and is it something that the city would benefit from for?

Keeping it at 20 feet instead of it being at a lower level than 20 feet Is there what's the what's the rationale for the 20 foot there? I?

So you're speaking of the portion of the hedge in the alleyway? Yes. But that's where we're limiting the 20 feet. Okay.

But it's currently much higher than 20 feet? Right. Okay. But 20, we would like it to be lower because it helps the surrounding community with visibility or what was the rationale for lowering it?

Specifically with the adjacent neighbors.

Okay.

Very good.

I HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL. AGAIN, IT'S RELATED TO THE HEDGE THAT'S GOING AWAY ON BAYSIDE DRIVE. IF THAT'S GONE, THEN THIS HOUSE WILL HAVE FULL EXPOSURE TO BAYSIDE DRIVE OR IS THERE SOME PLANTING OR SOMETHING GOING ON?

THAT'S CORRECT. THE HOUSE WILL BE VISIBLE FROM BAYSIDE DRIVE.

OK. OK. LET'S SEE. Can I just ask one follow-up question to you?

Mr. Almore, go real quick.

Just while we're on that topic, so to be clear, the hedge that's going to be removed on Bayside, opening up the house, the full face of the house to Bayside, that vegetation that's going to be planted there will be maintained by the city or by the homeowner?

That will be maintained by the homeowner as part of their encroachment agreement.

Okay. Got it. Thanks.

Interesting.

That will segue into my question. Is that okay? Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. I'm done. So if this is a spec home, let's say it's sold, how is that documented in terms of ownership and rights to take care of?

Thank you, Commissioner. That agreement rides with the property. If it sells, it still is recorded on the property itself.

So it goes on title? Yes. As a deed restriction?

THANK YOU, CHAIR. YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF L6 ENCROACHMENTS THAT COME BEFORE THIS BODY. WHEN THOSE DO COME FORWARD, WE END UP ENTERING INTO AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT. IT'S AN ACTUAL CONTRACT, IF YOU WILL, AND IT IS RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY. TRUTH BE TOLD, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S RECORDED ON THE TITLE, BUT IT IS A RESTRICTION.

IT STAYS ON TITLE TO SOME EXACT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? Okay. Commissioners, any ex parte communication? Commissioner or Secretary Reid? None.

I spoke with a neighbor when I visited the property. None. None. I haven't had none.

None.

None. Okay. I will open the public hearing. Does the applicant want to make a presentation? Okay. Okay. Thank you for being here. Before we move into any questions or public comment, do you agree with the conditions of approval?

Yes, thank you.

If you could come up to the microphone and just confirm that for us, please.

AND STATE YOUR NAME. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF. I'M HORST, THE PROJECT ARCHITECT FOR GUSTALE WHO IS HERE THIS EVENING. WE DO AGREE WITH THE CONDITIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY. DOES ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? Good evening commissioners.

My name is Scott Russo. I'm an attorney. I represent Abraham and Sherry Harb. They're the owners of 405 Dahlia unit a as referenced by a staff. That's the neighboring residents above. You'll note on the staff report pages five, six and 12 the proximity of my client's home at 405 Dahlia to the applicant's property. My client's property has a first story level with bedrooms. You can see right behind the existing home there. The new home is going to go to 29 feet and three stories. When I sent in my letter on comments, I said that this was going to make the home somewhat of a dungeon down below. And we also were objecting to the decks and we've had some clarity on that. I spoke with a, mister in franca from the architects and he clarified where the the decks don't impact us and that's fine but what is the problem here and nobody's focused on this is that the retaining wall between the applicants property and my clients property which is can be about ten feet tall although it's going to be tapered at the sides it's going to be excavated into the hill between the two properties to within one of the property line. So you've got this new retaining wall being excavated to push the applicant's property towards my client's property to within one feet of the property line and the new structure, as I discussed with Mr. and Frank this afternoon, is one foot six inches off the retaining wall. So the structure, new 29 feet, three stories, is two feet, six inches off the property line, all within the setback, within the five foot setback. It's not focused on in the variance application, but the retaining walls within the setback is mentioned, but nobody is focused on the fact that this new structure is now gonna be seven feet, six inches from my client's bedrooms and 29 feet tall. Imagine seven feet, and now this is what they're looking up at from their downstairs bedrooms. There's no reason why this home has to be so close to the property line. It could be three feet less deep. It does not need to be two foot six inches off the property line, and now my clients have this big wall in front of them. There's no reason why this variance should be granted with respect to the location of that retaining wall and the proximity of the home to the property line. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

YEAH, HI.

MY NAME IS FRANK BASOFF AND I'M THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. I LIVE AT 2514 ON ONE SIDE OF THE ALLEYWAY IN QUESTION AND THE HOUSE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALLEYWAY. I really had two questions for clarification. One has to do with the variance regarding the extension of the balcony. I don't know what all you guys know, but it seems to me that this variance for the balcony is simply to give them a larger area of enjoyment. I don't see how that has anything to do with public safety, how it benefits anyone else other than them. In terms of having no front yard because of the driveway, it's real simple. Make the house a little smaller. You'll have a front yard. The second thing has to do with the hedge, the hedge between the two alleyways. I don't know how high it is now. Does anyone know? I heard a comment that it's significantly higher than 20 feet. How much higher? I DON'T KNOW HOW HIGH THE HEDGE IS. IF IT'S CUT DOWN TO 20 FEET, IT MIGHT BE TOO LOW TO PROVIDE THE, YOU KNOW, THE, I DON'T KNOW, TO PROVIDE A HEDGE BETWEEN THE HOUSES AS IT DOES NOW. THE SECOND THING IS THAT RIGHT NOW THE HEDGE IS NOT BEING MAINTAINED AT ALL. Two years ago or three years ago when this project was on the table, I was told the hedge was going to be removed. And therefore, the city and the owners did not have to maintain it. As a result, it hasn't been maintained at all. My question is, if the hedge remains, who's going to maintain it? And how often will it be maintained?

Again, not a time for questions and answers.

OK. Then the comment is, I'd like to see in the approval who maintains a hedge and how often it's maintained.

Thank you. Thanks. Next speaker, please.

I'm Danielle Miller, I'm the resident at 4, 5, the Dahlia I'm following up to what Mister Russo said from the 4, 5, a a couple things are important to me one is that hedge that's on Bayside that's a public property I think that be considered under public Parker just a public property. The view of that and what we're able to see from our properties is extraordinary entry move that for the public in general. And also walking down Bayside, if you're a resident of Corona Del Mar, there's a beauty to Bayside and not having all the homes stacked up on the road does change the way our landscape looks. In regards to the approval from the variances, there's a couple things that stuck out to me in the report that I saw this morning. One was it was being considered based on the odd shape of the lot not having an alley or a front yard. will tell you I do not have an alley I do not have a front yard and I do not have a backyard it's the characteristics of these properties that are on the side of the hill there we're all in the same situation so that again both those hedges provide this what we look out on begonia Park and down on Bayside as well as when they look up will significantly impact the view both from the public and that we have from the home and then the value of the home. I don't know if anybody's come into those homes. If somebody wanted to come into mine and take a look or any of the adjacent properties, I don't think anyone actually came out and really looked at how that changes the landscape. So thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. Anybody else wish to speak on this item?

Hi, I'm Christine Shams, owner at 2600 Bayside. Our lot is the one that shares the driveway with the project in question. I'm excited to see the beautification process and I look forward to having less neighbors. The R2 has been somewhat problematic as its current use of three. But anyway, I digress. There is a long driveway that we have, and when they get congested, I have been cut off from access to my property that I own. I have been trapped within the property that I own. It is problematic. I need either something built where I have access to my own property. I too do not have access to an alley behind me. And I do have hard reviews. So that means consequently my whole house is facing their beautiful project. They are my front yard. Horsh, I've met you, and I'm for a Laguna project, and we're developing there as well. Basically, because the park is my front yard as well, I would have loved to have worked with you to come up with a solution that we all agree upon.

If you can address us, please.

Pardon?

Address us. Oh, sorry. That'd be great.

Anyway, can I add more time? There's too much. I really want to keep the bush because all of my privacy is gone. Right now, I have the lot, like the space, and it terminates where their house is. But once eliminated, it's going to expand about five times that area. There's also only two points of access to the beach. One is Fernleaf where it terminates where my driveway is. And so consequently it's very busy with bike, foot, car traffic. That bush protects us from that. And also from them seeing us. Like you'll be able to see in our house, our two kitchens, our two living rooms, the like Entirety of our living privacy quarters from from lengths away We do have views of the park begonia incarnation up tops that are Gonna be interrupted a little by height. I'm not as I'm mostly wanting to be able to park. There's also some topography to it, so it's also kind of unsafe. Everybody who comes, whether it's a person helping me clean or a babysitter, they all complain about having to back up. I do see a turnaround a couple blocks away on Bayside that is public. I think that's an excellent model for a solution here because I should be able to use that. It has been monopolized by his tenants for the previous use. And it is city-owned, so that would still be city-owned. The public could use it. But the bushes are beautiful. I think it even feeds the butterflies that are ample in that area. I do love the bushes. I don't love that it separates the public from private use, but I do want the privacy.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M CHRISTINE'S HUSBAND IN 2600 BAYSIDE. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT CHRISTINE WAS SAYING. THIS IS A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE TURNING INTO A THREE-STORY STRUCTURE. IT OBSTRUCTS PARTIALLY OUR VIEW OF THE BEGONIA PARK AND THE HARBOR. So that's one concern. Another concern is the privacy into our living space. I'm not sure how much these concerns are within the scope of this, but my main objection to a lot of this is the parking situation, that shared driveway. We've had multiple incidents throughout the years where there are cars that are blocking our entry into our property and our exit out of the property. I mean, just two months ago, I was a juror and I had to go to court, and there was a car blocking my exit out. I had to quickly go and get to the tenants to get them to move the car. My concern with this plan is it seems like it's moving the garage to the side that is now facing our property, and for their cars to be going up and turning into that space, using that parking garage or parking outside of it, It's going to create a situation where it's going to create a little bit more of a difficult or tighter space for us to move in and out of our property. This is problematic for us. It doesn't seem like we've expressed it to the city. It doesn't seem like there's been any sort of movement or resolution to figure out a solution to something like this. But this project seems like it would cause further problems for us. It could be a safety issue for us. It could be a convenience issue for us. Um, there's, there's a variety of problems there. Um, aside from that, I would just second a lot of the comments that some of the other neighbors have made about the, um, the environment that's created with the hedge on the begonia park walkway, uh, by eliminating that and having a direct view into the, their home. Just seems to take away from the character of that space that we've gotten used to that we've enjoyed walking down that sidewalk I think probably a good portion of the community would find that is a Negative rather than a positive So those are those are the summary of my comments. I hope you take those into consideration. Thank you. Thank you Any other speakers

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Jason Tong, and I am a resident of 402 Dahlia. First of all, the plans look absolutely amazing. This is the first time I actually ever saw it, and I'm going, wow, it's beautiful. If you could address us, please. Sure. So my only concern on this is the fact that, um, I know I quickly looked at some of the findings is stated that it wasn't really blocking any of the natural views or anything like that. But, um, I also noticed that the, the, uh, members stated that didn't go out and actually see the, the property. I would, I would suggest that if you go visit the end of Dahlia, there was actually a natural view of the harbor, which is absolutely stunning and gorgeous. This new structure may block that view at the end of the street, which is one of the characteristics of the end of the street. And I think that is probably also a reason why a lot of the neighbors invested in that area. So I think that view and that obstruction of that is my concern. So I would highly recommend Encouraged but also appreciate if the members actually go and take a look that how that may be impacted. Thank you.

Thank you Next speaker, please

Good evening, Planning Commissioners. My name is Kwan Sang, and I live at 402 Dahlia. I'd like to echo my neighbor Jason's comment about the end of Dahlia, the road, having this really nice, like, overlook area. of the bay. And yeah, I think that it would be really good of you guys if you had the time to stop by the street and take a look. I feel like that is a defining characteristic of our street. And it really does make, it really does beautify the street. And it's, I do see a lot of THE NEIGHBORS ENJOYING THAT AREA WHERE THEY LOOK AT THE HARBOR. AND IT WOULD BE A SHAME IF THE VIEW WAS BLOCKED OFF IN ANY WAY. SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH MY COMMENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? Okay. Does the applicant wish to respond to any of the comments?

Yes, thank you. You know, first of all, we appreciate the comments that the neighbors have made. If we lived next to this property, we'd probably have some of the same concerns and also apologize, you know, for what seems to be a lack of communication. We, this project has had a long shelf life, you know, well before we got involved. Our firm got involved recently and I made the assumption that a lot of these things had been sort of worked out with the neighbors prior. So having said that, some of what I heard this evening is probably sort of indicative of that lack of communication. The first gentleman who spoke whose client lives above the property, THE RETAINING WALLS ON THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY ARE ONLY GOING TO BE 10 FEET ON THE, AS SEEN FROM THE SUBJECT SITE BECAUSE THE TOPOGRAPHY BEGINS TO SLOW UP TOWARD THAT NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. ON THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE, IT WON'T BE A 10-FOOT RETAINING WALL. WE JUST LOOKED AT THE PLANS. IT'S GOING TO BE GUARD RAIL HEIGHT, WHICH IS 3'6", WHICH IS A CODE REQUIREMENT. So I just wanted to clarify that. You know, three stories, you know, we've been working on a lot of houses in Cronendale more recently. And, you know, we feel that the pattern of development is reflective of, you know, two and three story houses. I don't anticipate, and we haven't staked, it hasn't been a requirement, but the neighbors who spoke most recently, I don't anticipate that there's gonna be any significant impact to their view. We're not changing the height of the structure that much in that location. With regards to the parking situation, I mean currently, there's a part of the driveway for the existing structure falls within the park area. So we're going to rectify that problem by reconfiguring the driveway. But there's not much choice. I mean, it's a 30-foot wide lot. So at the end of the street, we're going to be driving into our garage like everybody else. You know, as the gentleman who helped us in planning mentioned, it's unusual. I mean, the pattern of development in the neighborhood reflects structures that have their garages in the back, typically off alleys or off streets. And so the front yard becomes usable outdoor space. this property is very different. The ask is that we have to have our driveway in the front, so we're asking to pick up a little bit of additional usable outdoor space on the rear. As the gentleman mentioned, the two-foot, six-inch cantilever into the required setback is what is allowed for roofs and architectural features. We feel that the legal justification for the variances can be made, as was very well made. I'm sorry that I forgot your first name. We feel that the legal justifications are made. We are sensitive to the neighbors. Maybe some of these things can be worked out during the course of construction. I'm sure Gus is going to be a good neighbor, and I believe he has positive aspirations for the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

Staff have any comments for the record? Yes, I'd like to clarify that the areas of the variance with the retaining wall are to create the outdoor living space and then the 10-foot retaining wall in the middle of the property on the northern side property line, while that is 10 feet, is structurally required for the property. So it's integral to the structure and it would be allowed by code. It's not part of the variance.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS TO COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION. COMMISSIONERS, ANY COMMENTS, THOUGHTS?

ANYBODY?

SECRETARY REID? NO? NO?

YEAH, I'LL START.

COMMISSIONER ELMORE?

So we drive these properties. I own a property right up the street, ladies and gentlemen. So you got to understand that when we have an agenda item, we do our homework. That's part of our job. The height is not a variance that's being requested. The height is by code. It's within the code. We're talking about a retaining wall. We're talking about a variance based upon topography. Topography is what typically defines a variance. You'll typically see them up on Kings Road. You'll see them on Ocean Boulevard, hills with areas with topography. Or you'll see them down at Bible Island with smaller lots, and then you have precedent. This is along a hillside, so a lot of times When you're on hillside properties, the topography calls for variances. That's the nature of typically how we would approve a variance. For the majority of these, I can find the findings. You know, I can't help solve the parking issue. I believe there's an easement there. You're going to have to work that out with the neighbors if there's not. Is there an easement there between the two staff?

Thank you for the question. It's just a public street. It's a public street. Yeah, it's a public street.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So from that perspective, it's kind of out of our purview. So, you know, look, I understand there's hardships on both sides. It is a tough lot. But we are bound by making decisions surrounding the code and our interpretation and staff's interpretation. And for the most part, I don't see reasons why I can't make these findings.

Thank you. Any other comments?

QUESTION FOR STAFF.

ON THE LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT, DOES IT ALSO INCLUDE THAT AREA ON THE WEST EDGE, ACTUALLY WHERE THE VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED, WHAT IS THAT, I GUESS THE SOUTHWEST? THE BACK EDGE WHERE THE OPPOSITE END OF THE GARAGE. DOES THE AGREEMENT EXTEND AROUND THERE? THERE WAS ONE QUESTION ABOUT THAT NOT BEING TAKEN CARE OF, BUT IT'S IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. WOULD THAT BE MAINTAINED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, OR CAN WE PUT SOME ATTENTION ON IT?

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HARRIS. ALL THE PROPOSED PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENT, YES. That does include on the alley side, the walls along the Bayside Drive, the park side, as well as walls along the street side.

Okay.

So just for clarification, if I may, so the 20-foot hedge in the back, is that what we're talking about? On the west side, I guess it would be? Correct. Okay. And then the new planting in Bayside Park and what was the third thing?

the little accessory landscaping walls along the frontage.

My other question is on the landscape plan, is that designed by staff or is that by the applicant driven?

Thank you. That's applicant design.

Applicant design. Okay. I'm not a landscape architect. I don't know what these are going to grow out. Maybe somebody can say, is there any, you know, I'm sure there was thought that it'll grow out, it'll thicken up, it'll kind of match what's going, as you go down the street. Clearly it's not going to be the massive hedges there now. Is that correct?

You can't.

Hold on. Sorry. Never mind. That's okay. Okay. Questions I had right now.

Any other comments or would anybody like to make a motion? Go ahead, Commissioner Elmore.

No comments. I'll make a motion to approve as drafted.

Second. Commissioner Rosin, do you want to make a second or comment?

Sorry, I thought you were seconding.

Nope.

Yeah. I'll go ahead and second the motion.

Thank you. Call for a vote, please.

The motion carries unanimously.

Congratulations. Moving on. Item number five, motion for reconsideration. Are there any motions for reconsideration? Seeing none, move on to item number six, report by the community development director or request for matters which planning commission member would like placed on a future agenda.

Thank you, Chair Saleen. First of all, congratulations on your election to chair.

Thank you.

And Mr. Langford, your election to vice chair, and Mr. Reid, your election to secretary. Ben Zadiba, deputy city manager here, supporting the community development department, while Director Murillo and Deputy Director Westmoreland have separate vacation, but very well deserve separate vacations. So I'm happy to report that Earlier today, the city's local coastal program amendment to make the housing opportunity overlay coastal zoning districts effective was certified at the Coastal Commission meeting as part of the deputy director's report for the South Coast District. This is exciting because the effort completes the city's longstanding work to complete the rezoning efforts identified by the housing element. I also want to note that next week on July 14th, the city council will be hearing two matters that had come before the Planning Commission. one on appeal, and that's that Bristol Zenith access gate appealed by the applicant. That was denied by Planning Commission. And then the Newport Place planned community amendment related to inclusionary housing percentage. That's also going to council for consideration and potentially overriding the Airport Land Use Commission on their determination of inconsistency I also want to note that at the second meeting in July, July 28th, it's anticipated that the 1300 Dove Street residential application that you all recommended for approval will be potentially going forward for consideration. However, there's an Airport Land Use Commission meeting on July 16th, which will determine whether we have to issue a notice of intent to override or whether that can go straight to hearing. Looking at future meetings, I do want to note that your July 23rd meeting will be canceled due to lack of business. So your next meetings will fall on August 6th and August 20th. and in August, and it was referenced earlier by Mr. Mosier, but we will look to bring information related to the two items that you requested during your June meeting, that is information on tandem garage parking, as well as a status update on the airport area specific plan, and housing development overall in the airport area. That concludes my report, thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone from the audience want to comment on these items? Seeing none, are there any requests for excused absences? And then we are adjourned.