Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Check one, two, you hear me back there?

Thank you.

all right good evening everyone um that will call the order the september 17th 2026 planning commission uh we are still waiting for one more commissioner but we'll go ahead and get started um if everyone will please stand and will commissioner reed please lead us in the pledge of allegiance the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for Thank you. Staff, roll call, please.

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

Gazzano is walking in as we speak. Okay, I have number four, public comments. This is the time we take public comments on items that are not on the agenda, that are generally within the purview of the Planning Commission. If you wish to speak, please keep your comments to three minutes or less. Are there any public comments on non-agenda items? Seeing none, whoop, I'm sorry. That's okay, sorry about that.

Hi, commissioners. My name's Wade Womack, a Newport Beach resident. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. And I just wanted to comment on a few things real quick. One, I just wanted to commend this commission. So many controversial issues come up and everything generally goes professionally and I think it's part of how the commission handles it and in part to our citizenry here in Newport Beach. um so i wanted to commend you on that i did want to make one little suggestion uh occasionally when groups are getting people are getting ready to make comments a commissioner will say you know please don't repeat what other people have said or different things to that effect like uh i think it's super important that we encourage public engagement. And I think that concept actually discourages it. And I'm hopeful that occasionally when three or four people say what they may think is the same thing, but you're hearing it three or four different ways, then it may YOU KNOW, HIT YOU IN YOUR DECISION MAKING, IN YOUR JUDGMENT. SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT SMALL SUGGESTION. OTHERWISE, WHAT A PROFESSIONAL COMMISSION AND REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR VOLUNTEERISM IN EVERYTHING YOU DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? OKAY. MOVING ON. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES. STAFF, ARE THERE ANY REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES?

CHAIR SELENE, THERE ARE NO REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES.

Moving on to consent items. Item number one, minutes of August 6th, 2026. Anyone from the audience like to comment on the minutes from the August 6th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting? Okay. Let's call for a motion and a second to approve the minutes with an amendment to address the written public comment received from Mr. Love.

I'll make that motion.

Second? Anyone? Anyone? I'll second. Thank you. Call for a vote. Oh, do we have to sign in? Never seen this before. I got it. I figured it out.

The motion carries 5-0 with Commissioner Saleen abstaining.

Thank you. Moving on to the next item. Item number, what is that, seven? Public hearing, fairway three, PA 2025-0019, one clubhouse drive. Staff, please proceed with your presentation.

But before we do, Chair Saleen, I will be recusing myself from this item given my employer has an ownership interest in the project's proposed site. Thank you.

Staff, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Saleen and commissioners. My name is Jenny Hanson. I'm the planner for this project, which is the Fairway 3 development agreement. So for this development agreement, the applicant is seeking a voluntary development agreement for a term of five years to vest the development rights for the future development of up to 78 residential units. This is the location of the project. This is one clubhouse drive here. It's one single parcel. And it's a unique situation where this shows areas in the city that have been identified as housing opportunity sites. As you can see, one clubhouse drive, which is the Newport Beach Country Club and golf course, It's one single parcel and the entire site itself is not a housing opportunity site, but rather there's two separate sites, one up in the northeastern area and one in the southern area of the property. These have been identified as site ID number 353 and 354. so these polygons have been created are not intended to delineate concrete property lines they were rather show made to show these areas on the site that have the opportunity for housing but these are not separate parcels the gulf course property is still one single parcel and these are two areas that approximately show the areas on the property that have the opportunity for future housing projects For fairway 3 the intended area of the project would be in the northeastern opportunity site site ID number 353 Before the future project no plans have been submitted at this time the future development will require additional entitlements that include a site development review a subdivision map traffic review and coastal development permit and Sequel will be evaluated again at the time of that submittal So for the density, there were some comments and public comments and questions about the density for the residential housing project. So the housing opportunity overlay requires a density range of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre to achieve 78 units. That's about 1.5 acres for the site. Site ID number 353, again, is not his own parcel. And it will need to comply with that acreage. So the future project will include a subdivision map to establish the project boundaries. And those project boundaries must comply with the required dwelling units per acreage for the housing opportunity overlay. SINCE THIS IS A VOLUNTARY DA, THIS PROJECT COULD BE SUBMITTED AS A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MAP NOW WITHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT, BUT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THIS VEST THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP FOR FIVE YEARS AND IT GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO NEGOTIATE PUBLIC BENEFIT FEES. IN THIS CASE, AS WRITTEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THAT COMES OUT TO $128,205 PER UNIT, WHICH COMES OUT TO THAT $9.9 MILLION AMOUNT YOU SEE THERE ON THE SCREEN. SO THIS PUBLIC BENEFIT FEE TOTAL IS BROKEN DOWN IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. FIRST IN GOLD IS THE PARK FEE. THIS IS CALCULATED PER UNIT AND IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT $4.6 MILLION. THE SECOND IN THE DARK PURPLE IS THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE. THIS IS BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS AND AS WE DON'T KNOW THOSE EXACT NUMBERS NOW, THIS ESTIMATE IS BASED ON PAST HOUSING PROJECT AND IT'S ANTICIPATED TO BE ESTIMATED AT AROUND $2 MILLION. These two fees are required for the project regardless of the development agreement, and the applicant will be required to pay this even if they didn't have the development agreement approved. However, this gives the city an opportunity to negotiate the benefits, and this creates this remaining public benefit fee of $3.3 million. THIS ALLOWS THE CITY TO USE THIS MONEY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFITS AT THE DISCRETION OF CITY COUNCIL. ALL THESE NUMBERS ARE ESTIMATED BASED ON THE BUILDOUT OF ALL 78 UNITS BEFORE ANY CPI INCREASE. So this property is also in the coastal zone. It's the first project that the city is seeing that is using the housing overlay in the coastal zone. So this kind of breaks down the timeline of the required local coastal program amendment for any projects using the housing overlay in the coastal zone. So in July of 2024, that's when city council first authorizes submittal of the local coastal program amendment to the Coastal Commission, which includes the coastal land use plan and implementation plan. Almost two years later, that's in April 2026, that's when that amendment was finally approved by the Coastal Commission with the suggested modifications. and following in May and June of 2026 is when City Council adopted the amendments to the CLUP and the implementation plan that brings us to July of this year where the LCPA was finally certified and the housing overlay became effective in the coastal zone and that includes the two housing sites on this property For the Seeker Review, there was a program EIR that was certified by City Council in July of 2024. This evaluated impacts from new housing overlays on the environment. And the applicants consulted prepared a 15183 consistency analysis that analyzed that the project is consistent with the program EIR. They found that the project would create no new impacts. And this was peer reviewed by the city's consultant who prepared that initial EIR, which is Kimley Horne. The resolution that was published included Exhibit D for the conditions of approval. However, for the approval of the development agreement at City Council, it would be an adoption of an ordinance, and ordinances do not require conditions of approval. For that reason, staff is recommending to strike the conditions of approval from the final resolution, as they're irrelevant to the project. For recommendations and next steps is to conduct a public hearing, find the project consistent with CEQA section 15183 and recommend approval to the city council where the next two hearings anticipated would be the first public hearing on October 13th and the second reading on October 27th. Thank you, commissioners. I'm available for any questions and the applicant is also available for any questions.

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

On my end, would the 3.3 million of possible public benefits be available without negotiated development agreement?

No. So the negotiation of the development agreement allows us to have that remaining public benefit fee. Otherwise, they would only be subject to the park fees and the development impact fees.

ON THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, WHEN THEY COME BACK WITH AN APPLICATION FOR THE REST OF THE ENTITLEMENTS FOR AN ACTUAL PROJECT, IS THAT WHEN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WOULD BE REQUIRED?

CORRECT. WHEN THEY SUBMIT FOR THE FUTURE PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS, THOSE WILL INCLUDE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

The applicant might actually address this, but my question is, where did the unit count of 78 come from? And does that include both of the opportunity sites or just one of them?

So for the housing element, it originally identified two sites generally located on the single parcel, which is the golf course parcel. So in order to meet the state requirements for our housing element, we had to provide an estimated unit yield. And so that's what we provided there. However, a future project is not limited by that potential unit yield that's within the housing element. It's limited by the development cap for Newport Center as a whole. 78 UNITS IS WITHIN THAT CAP AND THERE IS REMAINING UNITS AVAILABLE FOR OTHER PROJECTS. SO IN THIS CASE IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO PROVIDE A PROJECT IN THE FUTURE THAT DID NOT MEET THE DENSITY THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO REVISE IT TO MEET OUR DENSITY RANGE OF 20 TO 50 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE. SO REASONABLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE TWO SITES AND YOU DO THE MATH UP TO 78 UNITS COULD BE DEVELOPED SO WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD STARTING POINT AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO DEVELOP BASED ON OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM.

Okay, so I guess the development agreement, when you read it, seems to indicate it's for only one of the development sites, but we're talking about two. So I guess that was the clarification that I was looking for.

The site itself is the golf course site. So it's one single parcel and the lots haven't been created yet. So we're still looking at the golf course parcel as a whole.

NOT NECESSARILY EACH INDIVIDUAL OPPORTUNITY SITE, BUT JUST THE WHOLE PROPERTY, THE 78 UNITS.

THAT'S CORRECT, BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE D.A., THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO CONSTRUCTING THOSE UNITS IN THAT NORTHEASTERN AREA OF THE SITE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

Well, I guess that breaks the question then. Should we also then include the other opportunity site in the development agreement just to include everything that's within the golf course parcel? I mean, just to then at least eliminate it or what have you? Just a question.

Yeah, I think if the project moves forward, there's some refinements to the language within the DAA describing the project location. But as Liz mentioned, The 70 units was requested by the applicant. That can be accommodated within this site consistent with the housing overlay. And then the final project area will be determined when they move forward with that future project and come forward with that subdivision. That'll create the specific parcel boundaries for that housing development project. THAT RESULTING PARCEL WILL HAVE TO COMPLY, THE RESULTING HOUSING PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL STANDARDS IN THE OVERLAY, INCLUDING THE DENSITY RANGE OF BETWEEN 20 AND 50 DEWS PER ACRE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, TO MEET 78 UNIT PROJECT, THE FUTURE PROJECT SITE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY LIKE ONE AND A HALF ACRES. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO?

THAT'S OKAY. KEEP GOING.

COMMISSIONER RAZIN. When the EIR was completed, was things like state density bonuses and all that incorporated into the EIR in terms of what could be established on these properties?

the overall site inventory and the potential locations of housing development projects throughout the city. So it did look at utilities and aesthetics, all the different topics in the environmental review documents. But ultimately, we looked at the development limit caps for each of the focus areas. And so that was the main driver for the environmental analysis. The IR did address density bonus, but there's like infinite possibilities of density bonus projects. So it's more of a narrative in that discussion.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

And I'm sorry, not to beat a dead horse, but I'm just curious about something. So because the development agreement simply references site 353, I think it is, if they come back in with a project later that just is in that area, can they then still come back later on site 354 or whatever the other one is?

Yes, they could come in in the future for additional units if additional units are still available within the cap for Newport Center in this housing overlay area.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. Commissioners, any ex parte communications? Commissioner Reed. I spoke with the applicant.

Traded to text with the applicant's consultant.

None for me.

I spoke with the applicant.

I spoke with the applicant.

Okay. Okay, at this time we'll open the public hearing. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation or comment?

Good evening, Chair Saleen, members of the Planning Commission. I am Shawna Schaffner, Chief Executive Officer of CAA Planning, and I'm representing EGLE IV in the Development Agreement Application for Fairway 3. I'd like to thank Ms. Hanson and city staff for getting us here this evening. I thought Ms. Hanson's staff report was very thorough, so I don't have a formal presentation for you. We are in full support of the staff recommendation, and I'm available for any questions if you have them, but I think staff has done a great job of answering questions tonight.

Commissioner, is there any questions of the applicant?

No?

Okay. Yeah? No? Okay, sorry. Does anyone from the audience want to comment on this item? Mr. Mosher.

Chair Slane and members of the commission, my name is Jim Mosher. The Planning Commission frequently deals with what you call variances, which are situations where you think a particular application before you doesn't quite fit our zoning code. This seems to me very much like a variance-like situation. I don't think our overlay program envisioned having a parcel where only a piece of the parcel is an opportunity site, let alone a huge parcel which two isolated pieces within it are opportunity sites. And from the discussion and the questions, I really do not know what in this unusual situation the development agreement is guaranteeing. I think we have heard that for the 78 units that this is guaranteeing, it's kind of going in the area of site number 353, but not necessarily. So rather than developing 95 dwelling units per acre, they could have a bigger acreage than the map shows. How big an acreage could they have? I have no idea. Can they use a big part of the golf course and lower the density to 20 and then do the same to the other site? I really don't know what we're guaranteeing. Second comment is the reason that we have overlays at all is not that we need more market rate housing, but we needed to tell the state we had a plan for affordable housing. And although there was inadvertently a condition of approval now eliminated to refer to an affordable housing plan, I don't see any guarantee in here that this is going to advance our need to meet our arena requirement for affordable units. I think we've already done that for our market rate units. And then finally, I didn't hear any response from the staff to the written comment that in the legal description of what the Newport Beach Country Club parcel is, it includes what it calls a parcel B, which is the parking lot in front of the club next to Pacific Coast Highway. That is neither part of the parcel that's illustrated or my understanding of what the development agreement is guaranteeing. So we seem to have, at least as far as I know, an incorrect legal description. Doesn't that need to be cleaned up? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other speakers? Okay. Does the applicant wish to respond? No? Okay. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing. Does staff have any comments for the record?

Thank You chair Selene Liz Westmoreland deputy director of the Planning Division here Just one quick note there have been some questions regarding what that future project would look like and what the site would look like But I do want to note that the future project would require review by the Planning Commission So the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review that project when the details are provided Thank you Okay, bring this to the Commission for discussion and action

Commissioners, thoughts, ideas, comments?

Commissioner Rosin? I think what we have here is the applicant is reserving 78 units in HO4, and that's the bottom line is what this is gonna do. And so the technical analysis, I feel very confident that staff can clean up all of those issues before it goes to council. So from my perspective, I think this works and I'll be supporting this. So I'll be happy to make a motion. Okay, then we'll make a motion to recommend approval.

Any other comments or a second?

I'll second.

OK. Call for a vote.

The motion carries unanimously.

Congratulations. Moving on to the next item, item number three, amendment to setback map number S-11C. This is PA 2026-0016, site location 1641, 1647, and 1653, Reef View Circle. Staff, please proceed with your presentation.

Good evening Chair Cillean, Planning Commissioners, Jerry Arregui, System Planner. This item is for an amendment to setback map S11C. The subject properties are located within the Spyglass Ridge single-family neighborhood. The neighborhood was originally subdivided back in 1971 to include 41 residential properties. Many of these properties do include vegetated slopes along the rear yards. However, the subject properties do not include a vegetated slope. However, there is a slope within the abutting properties to the west that are within the Harborview Hills south neighborhood. The front setbacks that are applicable to these properties are along this rear property line, along the rear yard. The owner of 1641 Reaview Circle initially approached staff seeking a request for variance to encroach into that 34-foot front setback. that's applicable to this property. Prior to filing an application, staff did initially review this request and did find that there was a potential discrepancy within the applicable setbacks or a potential error within these setback maps. During staff's initial review, we did review the tentative track map setbacks that were included in the original documentation when this neighborhood was approved. It did show that the front property line once was at the bottom of the slope, and so the slope was included within this property. And there were varying setbacks, including 34 and 39 foot setbacks that were applicable to these three properties, which would result in a 10 foot top of slope setback, which is the blue line there. And this was a typical configuration for many of the properties in this neighborhood. And so the city did adopt a districting map which codified the setbacks within with the same property lines that were originally in that track map for these properties with the intent of regulating accessory structures within these areas. And so 34 and 39 foot front setbacks were applicable to these properties. However, during construction of this community, there was a resubdivision or a lot line adjustment. In blue there is the original property line from the original track map. However, during the resubdivision, that lot line was essentially moved up to the top of the slope and effectively transferred that vegetated sloping area down to the neighboring properties down below and effectively Reduced the size of these properties and resulted results in the existing property line configuration of today However, these setbacks they were not adjusted after this resub division and so while initially intended to be measured from the bottom of the slope they were then measured from the top of the slope and WHICH WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THAT TRACK MAP AND RENDERED THESE PROPERTIES AS NONCONFORMING AS THEY WERE LOCATED WITHIN THOSE FRONT SETBACK AREAS. AND SO THE STAFF DID RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT TO ENGAGE WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO ADDRESS THE SETBACK DISCREPANCY THROUGH A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE SETBACK MAP. And so the applicant is now requesting for an amendment to the setback map to reduce these front setbacks to these properties down to 10 feet. And so this again would correct essentially an error that has existed in the setback map since the construction of this community in the 1970s. would increase the building pad, which was originally intended for structures to be as close as 10 feet away from that top of slope, would not result in any additional floor area that was originally intended. The applicant did provide a letter of support from the HOA, which was provided in the staff report, indicating that they were supportive of this request. So with that, staff is recommending the commission to adopt the resolution, recommending the city council to approve the amendment to the setback map. WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT WHO IS REPRESENTING ALL THREE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO IS PRESENT. THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION AND THE EXPLANATION. APPRECIATE THAT. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

JUST CURIOUS, HOW DID THIS, I MEAN, 50 YEARS LATER, HOW DID THIS COME ABOUT?

so the owner of um 1940 us 1941 reef view circle they were initially requesting a variance and so during staff's initial analysis we looked into the setbacks were applicable in the original documentation for the community and so we did realize that there was a change in the property lines but the setbacks were never updated and so that that's how staff became aware of this uh this issue yep commissioner

Can you just remind me why we call them front and rear setbacks? Only because it seems reversed to me, and I know we've talked about this prior probably a lot. So can you just clarify that just for the record?

the front setback map that's established to determine really the height of accessory structures so it doesn't mean much more than that right so your backyard can sometimes be established as your front yard setback and that's really intended to reduce the height of accessory structures like fences hedges walls things of that nature So it's not intended to necessarily say that this is your front yard or your backyard, but it's purely for that purpose of regulating accessory structures. So in this case, it may have been the intent of the time to have the views going through the backyard, for example, and so maybe they wanted to have the structures limited to a lower height in that area.

that's the best explanation i've heard so far so thank you very much really it's still confusing to me but okay commissioner langford uh thanks for chair celine um mr erigway i just want to make sure that we have adequate setbacks for to protect the slope from the bottom of the hill on catamaran side dewey was it kind of like double protected and now we're cleaning it up uh i just want to make sure that no one's going to be able to build on that slope

So the original setbacks did result in a 10-foot top of slope setback. And so this is not changing the setback at all. It's merely just mirroring what was originally intended. So any principal structure could be 10 feet away from the slope. But of course, for any new construction, that would go through a thorough plant check process with their building division, ensuring that there's no issues with that slope.

Additionally, does that answer your question?

I think so. We had the deeper setbacks on the top because that was supposed to protect the slope. And so we weren't thinking about the property on the bottom. But because the lot lines got adjusted, now we weren't thinking about the bottom protecting that slope, having that setback being the one that was going to regulate the slope. So does that setback on the bottom of the hill now have a deep enough setback to protect the slope? That slope because now the slope is on the bottom of property line right on the catamaran side.

Yeah, that's correct. So the property owner who's at the toe of the slope, at the bottom of the slope, they are not restricted from development occurring within that slope area from a city standpoint. The HOA, their HOA, which is a separate one, may have restrictions regarding that slope, but our understanding based on our view of the history and talking to folks in the neighborhood is that the reason why the slope was transferred to the lower property owner is because they would have a better ability to maintain it. since they have access to it whereas the other locations throughout the community some of them have a street at the bottom of the slope so that upper upland kind of property owner would still be able to do that kind of maintenance and work on it so it was never intended necessarily to be preserved necessarily maybe from the hoa standpoint but the city doesn't have regulations that preserve these particular slope areas okay thank you mr kazana

As a follow-up to my first question, the impetus you said was a variance. That variance is not before us tonight, right? We're just doing the amendment to the setback map. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Commissioner, is there any ex parte communication? Commissioner Reed? None.

None.

None. None. None. All right. All right. We'll open the public hearing. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation or comment? Thank you. Okay. Before we move on to questions from the commission, would you confirm and agree to all the conditions of approval? Are there any? There's no conditions. Okay. Well, that makes it easy. Commissioners, does anyone have a question of the applicant?

No?

Go ahead.

No. Okay. Does anyone from the audience want to comment on this item? Seeing none. Oh, we got one? Mr. Moser?

thinking that there was going to be a City Council meeting here at this hour. I submitted a written comment late this afternoon and that was pretty much in line with what Commissioner Langford was asking about. I don't think, as the staff has pointed out on the map, what was supposed to be a wide Zone of no development has been just shifted, and now the staff is recommending shifting it back, which is correct, but the part on the west is getting lost. It appeared that there was originally an intention to protect the slope on the west side, and the staff recommendation is not restoring exactly what was the original intent. And actually looking at the maps on the city's website, it appeared to me that the property line actually has been shifted so far that it's on to the flat part of the properties at the top. So technically, if that's just a small rear setback for the catamaran properties, They could, if they wanted to spite their neighbor, build something there without the restrictions that would usually apply to a front setback, namely that any wall they would put there would have to be only 42 inches tall. They could, in theory, put a six foot tall wall there. So if you want to restore what I think was the original intent, I would think you would want some front setback, lower height restrictions on both sides of the property line, not just on one. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Okay. Seeing none, does the applicant wish to respond to the comments? Up to you. Thank you.

The comments that were made were absolutely correct. The property was ceded to the neighbor below at no cost because the developer realized that they couldn't maintain the slope once three properties were built. The slope is very steep. There's no way for anyone to build on it. And I've met with the neighbor behind. They have no intention to build on it. It's completely a moot point.

Thank you. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Staff, any comments for the record?

Thank you, Chair. I would just note that nothing is changing in terms of regulation of the slope. So all the provisions will remain the same since the slope is on the downward property owner's side and the amendment pertains to the upland property side.

Thank you. OK. Bring this to Commission for discussion and action. Commissioners, any thoughts? Would anybody like to make a motion?

Sure. I have no issue with supporting this, and I'd like to make a motion to approve it.

I'll second.

Thank you. Call for a vote.

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you, congratulations. Moving on to the next item. Item number four, surrender of limited term permit and coastal development permit for the Five Crowns Temporary Patio. This is PA 2023-0202, site location 3801 East Coast Highway. I understand the staff does have a presentation for this item, does not have a presentation for this item, but I want to turn it over to the deputy city attorney.

Thank you, Chair Selene. I just would like to reiterate that the purpose of this action is to confirm that the rights afforded by the prior approval limited term permit PA-2023-0202 are void and have not been in force and effect since it was voluntarily surrendered by the applicant and the city accepted that surrender on December 2nd, 2025. This permit cannot be invoked in connection with any further discretionary approvals or entitlement. There is no application or entitlement before you. We are simply confirming something that has already happened.

Thank you. Okay, so this is not a public hearing item, but the commission will take public comment at this time. Does anyone from the audience wish to comment?

Yes, thank you, Chair and members of the Commission. Ken Catanzari, appearing for myself and my wife. We're the owners of the properties at 352 and 354 Hazel, within 50 feet, the first property within 50 feet of the patio area that was at issue in the temporary permit. I note for the record that the record does include the letter that I sent on my objections, limited objections on yesterday on the 16th and a subsequent letter and proposed addenda that I submitted this morning that is at 4A and B in the record as submitted. And so I won't comment any further than to incorporate those comments into my presentation right now. I will draw attention to what I feel are necessary. It's section four of my letter of September 16th at page four and five. I submitted proposed changes and addenda to the subject resolution that is before you. And I believe those are appropriate to make crystal clear that what the intention, the avowed intention, which is, I point out, is inconsistent with what resolution, PC 2000-26-27-027, Actually says and in while I was sitting I noticed that there's a further Correction that must be made and that is at item 2 to the resolution itself Which is has a handwritten 7 written at the bottom of it in your packet which reads quote the applicant requested a limited term permit and coastal development permit to allow an existing temporary outdoor patio to remain for a limited term at five grounds restaurant and That statement is inaccurate because the limited term permit did not contain or adopt an existing application because UP 1822 limited the Five Crowns application and use of that patio to 348 square feet. four tables and 26 patrons. What happened was the temporary permit attempted to bootstrap an undisclosed, unarticulated, purported historical use to allow the use in the entire patio, which was four to five times larger than the original UP 1822 permitted. So in addition to those remarks that I had at section four, suggesting and recommending modifications to the resolution before you, I add, as I just stated, my comments at two. If there are any questions, I'm happy to address them. I believe that my proposed additions are necessary to fulfill the intent. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Mr. Mosher.

Chair Saleen and members of the Commission, my name again is Jim Moser. This item has a long history having gone to the zoning administrator who adopted a resolution, then to the Planning Commission who adopted a resolution, and then to the City Council who adopted a resolution. And in reading the resolution that you are being asked to approve tonight, it gets confusing whose resolution it's talking about. I believe each of them is a little different. If I'm not mistaken, you approved a resolution denying an appeal and supporting the zoning administrator. This has to do with the noise issue with the Five Crowns Restaurant. And if my memory serves me, I didn't research this. I think when it went to the city council they removed the requirement for a sound wall so it had a different conditions of approval than yours when i look at the action section two of this now therefore be it resolved it's referring to a resolution number 2025-18 and asking you to make a statement about it no longer presenting a live controversy, but that is the city council resolution. So when I read this, I'm just wondering, does the planning commission have the authority to make pronouncements about council resolutions or only about your own resolution? So which should it be referring to here? Not lawyer, I don't know which way, but to me, I thought it should be referring to your resolution rather than the council one. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Lisa Sutton. I'm a resident, live not too far from the five towns. In all these comments that are taken with the next upcoming subject with respect to that outdoor space, whatever is being discussed has a high probability of being changed or adjusted based on the outcomes. of the zoning overlay that's being presented for the commercial corridor project. So we can all talk about this, but residents need to be aware of what could happen with respect to this particular item. So.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. Staff, any additional comments, clarifications? No additional comments. Okay. So, yeah, since it's not a, what are we being asked to do? Do we are approving the, allowing the surrender?

It would not be allowing, it would be simply confirming, Chair. Confirming, okay. And still be adopting the resolution confirming that.

Adopting the resolution confirming, yes, we're gonna vote on it. We're adopting a resolution to confirm the surrender. Okay, so I'll bring this back to the Commission for discussion and action. Commissioners, any comments, thoughts?

No, but I'm happy to make a motion to that extent to approve and support staff's opinion.

Okay. Commissioners, any other discussion or second? I'LL SECOND. IF YOU DON'T HAVE COMMENTS. OK. I'LL SECOND. OK. CALL FOR A VOTE.

THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

Okay, moving on to the next item. Item number five. This is the Corona Del Mar Commercial Corridor Study. This is PA 2024-0002. Staff, I know you have a lengthy presentation. Please proceed.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JOSELYN PEREZ. I'M WITH THE PLANNING DIVISION AND I'LL BE PROVIDING YOU AN OVERVIEW TONIGHT OF THE CORONA DEL MAR LAND USE AND MOBILITY STUDY ALONG WITH SHARING RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENTS AND SEEKING YOUR FEEDBACK ON THOSE AMENDMENTS. So a little bit of background about the study. Over the years, the City Council has received feedback from the community regarding the CDM commercial corridor, specifically that the zoning is outdated, that there are barriers that prohibit private reinvestment, and that there are parking concerns. In response to these concerns, the City Council directed staff to study the commercial corridor. THE OBJECTIVES OF THAT STUDY ARE TO CRAFT ZONING REGULATIONS UNIQUE TO CDM, TO REDUCE BARRIERS TO REINVESTMENT, TO IMPLEMENT PARKING SOLUTIONS THAT BALANCE ALL USERS, ENHANCE WALKABILITY, AND DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF OTHER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. THE STUDY KICKED OFF IN ERNEST IN SUMMER OF 2024. Staff started with researching the existing conditions of the CDM commercial corridor and found that nearly 3 million visitors come to the corridor annually and stay more than a half an hour. Many of the visitors are local. Visitation occurs year-round, primarily during daytime hours. Visitors come on both the weekends and during the weekdays. REGARDING THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORRIDOR, THE LOTS ARE SMALL AND BUILDINGS TYPICALLY DO NOT REACH THEIR DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL. FACADES RANGE, THEIR ACTIVATION RANGES MOSTLY DULL AND OR INACTIVE. THERE IS OUTDOOR DINING WITHIN THE CORRIDOR BUT IT'S NOT WIDESPREAD AND LIMITED SIDEWALK SPACE PROHIBITS MORE OUTDOOR DINING. EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE CORRIDOR, STAFF STUDIED OTHER COASTAL COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS, SANTA MONICA, LAGUNA BEACH, LONG BEACH, TO LEARN WHAT IS SUCCESSFUL IN THESE CITIES AND WHAT DOESN'T WORK. SOME KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THOSE CASE STUDIES ARE THAT CDM ACTUALLY HAS A MUCH LOWER PERCENTAGE OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE USES COMPARED TO THESE OTHER CORRIDORS. FOOD AND BEVERAGE ENCOURAGES VISITORS TO STAY LONGER AND SPEND MORE TIME AND MONEY WITHIN THE CORRIDOR. THE STREET SCAPE CAN BE USED TO FOSTER A FRIENDLY PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE. THAT ZONING AND PARKING STRATEGIES SHOULD BE SPECIFIC TO THE AREAS THAT THEY'RE SERVING. AND THAT CDM ACTUALLY HAS MUCH HIGHER PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAN OTHER MAIN STREETS. A SUITE OF PARKING AND MOBILITY STRATEGIES IS CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. WITH THE BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND CASE STUDIES, STAFF BEGAN FORMING AN IDEA OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND STARTED OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT. STAFF STARTED WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND CONDUCTED MULTIPLE ROUND TABLES TO HEAR THEIR CONCERNS, WHAT THEY LIKED, WHAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE. AND UPDATED APPROACHES TO ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACHIEVE THE STUDY OBJECTIVES. STAFF PRESENTED TO THE CDM RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION AND THEN STARTED MEETING WITH THE BROADER COMMUNITY. THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT THERE SHOWS THE COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE THAT WAS HOSTED IN SUMMER OF LAST YEAR. OVER 70 RESIDENTS ATTENDED AND PROVIDED FEEDBACK. STAFF RECEIVED QUITE A BIT OF FEEDBACK ON THE PROPOSED ACTIONS AND UPDATED THE ACTIONS CONSIDERABLY AND IN RESULT OF THOSE UPDATES DECIDED TO MEET AGAIN WITH THE COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF HAD HEARD THE COMMUNITY AND THEN MOVED FORWARD WITH PRESENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL. SINCE THAT STUDY SESSION WITH COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER OF 2025, Staff has moved forward with drafting the code amendments and met with CDMRA to update them on staff's progress. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE OUTREACH AND WHAT STAFF HEARD FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND THE LARGER COMMUNITY. PARKING IS CHALLENGING. THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS A DESIRE TO STREAMLINE PERMITTING FOR RESTAURANTS. THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY LOVES THE CDM COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, VALUES PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND HAS CONCERNS WITH PROHIBITING ANY USES. THE BROADER COMMUNITY SHARED SOME SIMILAR FEEDBACK, HOWEVER, THERE WAS INTEREST IN OUTDOOR DINING IF FOUND TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USES. THE BROADER COMMUNITY WAS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF MIXED USE, SO HOUSING ON UPPER FLOORS, AND THEY WERE SIMILARLY CONCERNED WITH LOSING LOCAL SERVING USES SUCH AS THE TIRE SHOP AND OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES, AND THE LARGER COMMUNITY IS ALSO CONCERNED WITH ADDRESSING PARKING. OVERALL, THE COMMUNITY WAS SUPPORTIVE OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND PRIVATE LOT LEASES FOR PARKING PURPOSES. BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK, STAFF PRESENTED 14 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CHARACTERIZED IN THREE BUCKETS, CODE AMENDMENTS, PROGRAMS, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. WE'RE FOCUSING THIS EVENING ON THE CODE AMENDMENT PORTION. HOWEVER, I WILL GIVE A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE PROGRAMS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. NOT INCLUDED IN OUR STUDY SESSION THIS EVENING AS THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT ARE SPECIFIC TO TITLE 20 AND TITLE 21 AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LIVES IN A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND HAS A DIFFERENT PROCESS THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE THIS EVENING. COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO PROCEED WITH IMPLEMENTING ALL 14 OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. Okay, a little bit about the programs and public improvements to date. We've installed dynamic signage at the beach parking lot. That's to show the availability of parking to help discourage circling or traffic from entering the ramp and not being able to find parking. WE ARE SCHEDULED TO INSTALL DYNAMIC SIGNAGE WITHIN THE COAST HIGHWAY MEDIAN LATER THIS YEAR. THAT'S GOING TO BE USED SIMILARLY TO CONVEY MESSAGES ABOUT PARKING SAFETY EVENTS. WE HAVE AN ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING THAT SHOULD BEGIN CONSTRUCTION LATER THIS YEAR AT ORCHID AND COAST HIGHWAY. COMING NEXT YEAR, THE TROLLEY WILL BE EXTENDED TO CDM. THAT SHOULD START SPRINGTIME OF 2027. And then in design, we're still working on the bike infrastructure, crosswalk bull belts, sidewalk, and pedestrian wayfinding signage to make it easier for people to get out of their cars and get to the corridor that way. DIVING INTO THE LAND USE AND ZONING. THE CDM COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR IS PICTURED THERE ON THE LEFT. THE CORRIDOR IS SHADED IN A LIGHT PINK COLOR THAT IS CHALLENGING TO READ ON THIS SLIDE, UNFORTUNATELY. THE CDM COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR IS COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, CC, THERE'S A LIMITED NUMBER OF PRIVATE INSTITUTION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES AND NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO THOSE PROPERTIES. THE NORTH SIDE OF COAST HIGHWAY IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE COASTAL ZONE AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF COAST HIGHWAY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE. THE MAXIMUM FAR FOR THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR IS .75. CURRENTLY RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT PERMITTED AND I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ZONING DISTRICT THAT OCCURS ON THE BALBOA PENINSULA ON NEWPORT BOULEVARD. SO DIVING INTO THE RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION IS TO REVISE EXISTING LAND USE AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. THE FIRST STEP OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS TO CREATE A CDM SPECIFIC OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND THIS IS FOR INCENTIVES. THIS IS TO STREAMLINE IN RESPONSE TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THIS IS TO STREAMLINE THE REVIEW OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE IN RESPONSE TO THE BROADER COMMUNITY'S INTEREST IN WE HAVE STREAMLINED REVIEW OF VETERINARY SERVICES. THE STUDY ALSO RECOMMENDED INTRODUCING A NEW LAND USE OF A WINE BAR THAT WOULD BE UNDER A MINOR USE PERMIT. AS PART OF THE STREAMLINING EFFORTS, STAFF IS PROPOSING TO CREATE A DIFFERENT REVIEW PROCESS, WHEREAS WE CURRENTLY HAVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, MINOR USE PERMITS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD A DIRECTOR LEVEL MINOR USE PERMIT OR DIRECTOR LEVEL MUP. THIS WOULD HAVE THE SAME FINDINGS AS AN MUP. IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE POLICE DEPARTMENT REVIEW IF THERE WERE ALCOHOL SALES. THERE WOULD STILL BE PUBLIC NOTICE. IT WOULD STILL BE APPEALABLE, BUT IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING, MEANING THAT A RESTAURANT COULD GET TO AN APPROVAL FASTER THAN THE TRADITIONAL MUP. So in order to qualify for that streamlined director level MUP, a restaurant would have to meet certain objective standards. These standards were inspired by community feedback concerning compatibility with surrounding residential uses. So for example, we've proposed that in order to qualify for streamlined review, You could not have late hours. If you had an outdoor patio, it would need to close by an earlier hour, like 9 PM. And if you had live entertainment, it would have to be within the interior of the restaurant. Continuing with the land use and permitting requirement changes, the study did determine that there are certain uses that are not compatible with a walkable commercial corridor. Those are primarily auto-centric uses, so vehicle washing, drive-throughs. THESE AUTO CENTRIC USES HAVE A LOT OF DRIVEWAYS WHICH CREATE CONFLICTS WITH PEDESTRIANS. THEY ALSO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO GENERATE A LOT OF NOISE. THAT'S A SIMILAR CONCERN WITH THE ANIMAL BOARDING AND KENNELS. SO STAFF HAS PROPOSED MAKING THESE USES PROHIBITED. WE HEARD COMMUNITY FEEDBACK, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMUNITY DID NOT WANT TO LOSE THE EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT CURRENTLY SERVE THE VILLAGE. SO RATHER THAN FORCING THESE BUSINESSES TO CLOSE, STAFF IS PROPOSING TO TREAT THEM AS NON-CONFORMING USES SO THEY WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE. THEY EVEN WOULD BE ALLOWED TO RELOCATE WITHIN THE CORRIDOR OR INTENSIFY IF THEY GET A USE PERMIT. SO THAT ALLOWS STAFF TO HAVE A COUPLE EXTRA OPERATIONAL CONTROLS TO HELP ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY EXPERIENCE. SO WE'RE PROPOSING THESE CHANGES TO THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT, THAT COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ZONING DISTRICT, SO THAT WOULD AFFECT THE PROPERTIES ON THE PENINSULA. HOWEVER, THAT IS ANOTHER COASTAL AREA THAT'S INTENDED TO BE WALKABLE, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT AREA WOULD SIMILARLY BENEFIT FROM THESE CHANGES. Recommendation two is to allow for limited mixed use development within the corridor. So that is residential units above commercial uses. Staff is proposing a maximum of 30 dwelling units. RESIDENTIAL IS PROHIBITED ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THESE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS, THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THE HEIGHT LIMITS OR THE SETBACKS. AND RESIDENTIAL PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED. THERE'S A FULL TABLE OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AVAILABLE IN THE STAFF REPORT ON PAGE 15. AND I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT ON THE RIGHT THERE, THERE IS EXISTING MIXED USE WITHIN THE CORRIDOR TODAY. SO THIS IS NOT AN ENTIRELY NEW CONCEPT. THEY'RE A LITTLE UNDER THE RADAR. I wasn't aware of them until this study. So recommendation 3, incentives for lot consolidation. As I mentioned earlier, the corridor has quite a few small lots. Some of them are very irregularly shaped which creates hardship to redevelopment. SO IN ORDER TO HELP ENCOURAGE THAT REINVESTMENT, WE'RE PROPOSING TO ALLOW AN INCREASED FAR IF AN OWNER CONSOLIDATES TWO OR MORE PARCELS. SO THAT WOULD INCREASE THEIR FAR FROM THAT .75 UP TO ONE. THERE ARE SOME PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CORRIDOR THAT CURRENTLY EXCEED FAR, AND WE WANT TO PRESERVE THEIR EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE, SO ANY PROPERTY THAT HAD NONCONFORMING FAR AND CONSOLIDATED, THEY WOULD GET TO KEEP THAT. ON THE BOTTOM LEFT THERE, I HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT LOCK CONSOLIDATION WOULD LOOK LIKE. WE HAVE PROPERTY A AND PROPERTY B. IF THEY WERE TO CONSOLIDATE SOME OF THE BENEFITS WOULD INCLUDE AN FAR INCREASE BY ALMOST 3,000 SQUARE FEET. VEHICLE ACCESS COULD BE PROVIDED FROM THE ALLEY AND THAT WOULD ALLOW THE CURRENT DRIVEWAY FROM COAST HIGHWAY TO BE ELIMINATED. SO THAT'S ONE LESS POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH PEDESTRIANS AND POTENTIALLY AN ADDITIONAL STREET PARKING SPACE. so the development limits for these scenarios that we've been that we've talked about in order to implement them requires a general plan amendment we've proposed three development scenarios starting with residential only that maintains that 30 dwelling units that we've suggested under green light there could be more dwelling units proposed however we believe that 30 dwelling units maintains that commercial feel within the commercial corridor FOR THE SECOND SCENARIO, WE HAVE LOCK CONSOLIDATION ONLY AND WE'RE SHOWING THE MAXIMUM FAR UNDER GREEN LIGHT THAT IS ALLOWED AS 25,000 SQUARE FEET. THEN THE THIRD SCENARIO THAT IS A COMBINATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE NON-RESIDENTIAL. THESE THREE SCENARIOS ALLOW FOR IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ONE OF THE INCENTIVES, THERE IS STILL A PATH TO MOVE THE OTHER INCENTIVES FORWARD. Recommendation four is to implement design guidelines. So these would apply to new development, significant remodels and large additions. It would apply to both mixed use and commercial development. Staff studied a prescriptive approach versus a more broad or flexible approach and landed on a more flexible approach that establishes minimums that still enhance the pedestrian experience but aren't overly burdensome. SO SOME EXAMPLES OF DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT STAFF IS PROPOSING ARE TRANSPARENT GROUND FLOORS AS PICTURED ON THE RIGHT, ENTRIES FACING COAST HIGHWAY, PROHIBITING INACTIVE OR DULL FACADES, ENCOURAGING THE USE OF AWNINGS LIKE PICTURED ON THE RIGHT AND PEDESTRIAN SCALE OUTDOOR LIGHTING ALL WITH THAT GOAL OF ENHANCING THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE AND PROVIDING HIGH QUALITY DESIGN. RECOMMENDATION FIVE IS TO REDUCE PARKING RATES FOR PREFERRED USES STAFF IS PROPOSING CREATING A NEW LAND USE FOR SMALL SCALE RESTAURANTS. THIS IS INSPIRED BY THE EXISTING TAKEOUT SERVICE FAST CASUAL LAND USE. THAT LAND USE IS PARKED AT A RETAIL RATE AND A FAST CASUAL RESTAURANT CAN MOVE INTO ANY EXISTING TENANT SPACE WITHOUT PROVIDING A PARKING STUDY, A CUP, OR ADDITIONAL PARKING. SO THIS NEW SMALL SCALE RESTAURANT WOULD ADOPT THE SAME STANDARDS BUT IT WOULD ALLOW FOR ALCOHOL SALES. ON THE RIGHT I HAVE A PHOTO OF KONPA NIKE WHICH IS KIND OF THE EXAMPLE OF HOW WE IMAGINE THIS LAND USE TO FUNCTION. THAT RESTAURANT CAME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION EARLIER THIS YEAR. IT WAS AN ALREADY OPERATING SUSHI RESTAURANT WITH ONLY SIX SEATS. THEY WANTED TO ADD BEER AND WINE, AND THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH GETTING A FULL PARKING STUDY JUST TO OFFER THAT ADDITIONAL MENU OPTION. SO THESE ARE SMALL RESTAURANTS THAT SERVE THE COMMUNITY AND AREN'T DRAWING PEOPLE FROM FAR AWAY, AND IT'S JUST A MORE STREAMLINED PATH FOR THEM TO MOVE IN. FOR LARGER RESTAURANTS THAT ARE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO DRIVE TO THE CORRIDOR AND COME FROM FAR AWAY, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGE TO THEIR PARKING RATE. A LARGE RESTAURANT WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO MOVE IN WITH A DIRECTOR LEVEL PARKING WAIVER OR A FULL CUP PARKING WAIVER DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF SPACES. HOWEVER, WE ARE PROPOSING AN ADDITIONAL OPTION FOR RESTAURANTS, LARGER RESTAURANTS. PROGRAM THAT WOULD BE USED TO FUND OTHER PARKING PROGRAMS. IT WOULD BE OPTIONAL. WE STILL NEED TO STUDY THE FEE. IT WOULD BE PAID MONTHLY AND HELP FUND THOSE PRIVATE PARKING LOT LEASES, THE TROLLEY AND OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CDM STUDY. This also provides flexibility for those larger restaurants with bigger parking lots. If they wanted to put in some additional outdoor dining, they could pay that in lieu fee. And staff is proposing to offer incentives that might create additional street parking. So a larger parking lot that had multiple driveways, if they were to eliminate one of those driveways and create a street parking spot, they could receive a reduction toward their parking requirement. I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THESE PARKING CHANGES FOR PREFERRED USES ARE NOT THE ONLY EFFORTS TO MANAGE PARKING. THE CDM, THE TROLLEY IS EXTENDING TO CDM. WE'RE STILL WORKING ON IMPROVED WAYFINDING SIGNAGE, IMPROVED BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE. ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE CDM STUDIES WAS TO HELP UNLOCK SOME OF THE PRIVATE PARKING WITHIN THE CORRIDOR THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY UTILIZED AND TO ALSO GET PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS. SO WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THOSE STRATEGIES IN TANDEM WITH THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS. SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TIMING. NO CHANGES WILL HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. ALL CODE AMENDMENTS WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. UPON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL. IF CITY COUNCIL WERE TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENTS, THERE WOULD BE A SECOND READING, AND THOSE CHANGES WOULDN'T TAKE EFFECT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS AFTER THAT. SO THAT'S FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF COAST HIGHWAY. WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT MULTIPLE MONTHS. FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF COAST HIGHWAY, THAT'S WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, ANY CHANGE IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. SO LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENTS TAKE A YEAR PLUS COASTAL COMMISSION PROCESS, MEANING WHILE WE ARE GOING THROUGH THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, OUR PUBLIC WORK STAFF IS GOING TO CONTINUE WORKING ON IMPLEMENTING THOSE PROGRAMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT I DETAILED EARLIER IN MY PRESENTATION.

staff has given the commission a lot to think about tonight and covered a lot of ground. And so what we would recommend as staff at this point in time, we have provided this list of questions here that are also included within the staff report. These questions are intended to guide discussion, The commission may respond to all of them, some of them, none of them. If the commission does not provide direction on these particular topics, staff has provided their recommended approach. And so if we don't hear from you, we will proceed with that recommended approach. So what we would suggest is that if the commission does have any clarifying questions, big picture questions, things of that nature, that would be a great place to start also providing the community with the opportunity for public comment and then we do have additional slides that we can pull up for those specific topics so i would recommend going through the topics perhaps one by one and then moving on to the next thank you okay thank you for that uh commissioners any questions of staff yes

Thank you. Two questions. One for my edification. What are crosswalk bulb outs?

That is a common question. So at a crosswalk, a bull bout would be constructed into the right of way. It shortens the distance that a pedestrian needs to cross the street. And those bull bouts can be installed in locations where it's already prohibited to park because of daylighting laws. So it's a physical improvement that shortens the distance a pedestrian needs to cross the street.

And they're on both sides? Correct. Or they could be? They could be. Okay. Got it. And the 30 dwelling units that you referenced that could be allowed on PCH, is that per parcel? I didn't see a measure of, how are you, 30 units total in the whole corridor? Okay. Correct. Got it. Thanks. That's all I had. Thank you.

Chair Slaney, just a point of clarification. We've got questions for staff. Do we need to go to public comments?

And then would you want... Yeah, we're going to go to public comments, listen to the feedback, and then we'll close it. And then we can ask staff and we can provide comments and feedback and all that kind of stuff.

Is your intention to go through each item one by one? We're going to take it by category. Oh, category. Okay. Because I have comments, but I want to address them at the...

absolutely yeah yeah yeah we'll take we'll take there's four categories of of of things that they're asking us or we'll take them by category thank you chair okay Okay, so we're going to open for public comment, but keep in mind again that this is just a study session. There's not a public hearing. There's no formal actions being taken tonight. This is just, we're being presented this for the first time for review, for comments, thoughts, and ideas. So we will take public comments though. Would anyone from the audience like to come up and? One at a time. And please state your name and keep in mind we're going to limit all comments to three minutes.

And I think I have some slides. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Tricia Sanchez. I'm a long-time Corona Del Mar resident. I support a safe and vibrant village corridor. I do not support turning it into a mixed-use housing over retail, rooftop entertainment, later hours, or more intensive alcohol uses. residents should have a real seat at the table not just review of implementation plans we did not jointly create city outreach already recorded residents didn't support the housing in the corridor at the november 25 2025 council study session drop in the residential piece was mentioned the project website states mixed use would only be studied should stakeholder feedback support mixed you use housing mixed use allow allowances are back in front of you public input should not be collected and then set aside YOU HAVE THE FIRST SLIDE. PARKING AND CONGESTION ON THIS STRETCH ARE AT THE LIMIT. COAST HIGHWAY ALREADY CARRIES HEAVY THOROUGH TRAFFIC. THESE CHANGES MEAN MORE CARS LOOKING FOR THE SAME SPACES, MORE SPILL OVER ONTO RESIDENTIAL STREETS, MORE LATE NIGHT NOISE AND CRIME NEXT TO HOMES. THAT MAKES IT WORSE, NOT BETTER. Police statistics already show the area of RD44 is a high crime in ABC, alcohol, beverage, and control, oversaturation area. In April of 2025, the crime count was 299 versus a city average of 112. This is citywide. It's 167% above average. More licenses and later hours would add intensity where the data shows oversaturation. This is not an abstract main street, it's our neighborhood commercial corridor, and we were told its charm and character would be protected. Next slide. CDM Village is not a housing corridor. It should not be compared to the overlay of the peninsula. Although we respect the peninsula, we don't want to become the peninsula. This should not advance until the people who live here help design its governance. Please recommend staff not advance the mixed use upper floor housing rooftop amenities with extended hours and additional license amendments. A resident advisory committee should be established. That committee could review the codes, rezoning, parking, traffic, noise, hours, and design with staff. The commission receives a written report from that committee before any public hearing on those codes or zoning changes. The third slide. Infrastructure safety and parking management, what already exists, can proceed separately. However, density should not. Residents are the corridor's largest daily users. We should help right its future, not just comment after the framework is drawn. Last slide. I thank the city staff for their diligent efforts on this complex project. Let's work together to make it something special that we can all support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

I'm Cynthia Halloran, resident of Irvine Terrace. We are adjacent, we are, we back up to Pacific Coast Highway. We are directly impacted by all the traffic. I came tonight not prepared to talk, but to listen. But there's a lot of questions that this staff preparation has engendered. First and foremost, our homeowners association has no knowledge that this is even in the works. Secondly is my understanding and our community's understanding that PCH is a state highway. I have no, the city manages the portion, but it belongs to the state of California as a state designated highway. I don't hear any reference at all to whether the state has been contacted about their thoughts about using our highly impacted state highway with this kind of construction and increased traffic. there's no indication of a traffic study multiple times during the summer during every day actually and weekends particularly we're full on grid light we are the emergency evacuation and emergency response for the whole Pacific Highway corridor and at many times during the year we have multiple millions of people on a weekend visiting our coast. We have no access to emergency services. We have three millions out of Newport Beach, Jamboree, MacArthur, and Laguna Canyon. And at Newport Highway, Newport Boulevard at the top, we have not made a provision in any of this conversation of how you're gonna handle that. Presently, we had parking at one time that was existing behind businesses. That city-free parking was converted to paid-for parking at the city. It's underutilized. The parking then has been forced into the residential neighborhoods. We're experiencing it in Irvine Terrace overflow many times during the year, but more importantly, the flower streets are impacted unbelievably, and cars drive up and down. Other cities have handled this by having parking permits for the residents, limited hours for parking. Before you approve an overlay that does this, you need to address the overall parking issue. We need our city to move forward, be revitalized, get more revenue. Make it an active, vibrant community. We've lost so many businesses. The reason you lost them is there's no parking. You cannot get out of your car without risking your door being ripped off or your leg many times over on PCH. Nobody parks on PCH and risks getting out on the driver's side. to shop at any of those businesses. If you haven't done it recently, I encourage you to try it. Anyway, that's all I have to say. Yeah, if you're feeling brave, do it. But otherwise, just realize there are many concerns in addition to residential concerns. As residents, we were totally clueless and unaware of this season going forward. And to this point, the staff has done an admirable job in working on it, obviously, very diligently for many years. The residents didn't have that same courtesy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Lisa Sutton. I want to thank all of you for your community service. Thank you to staff for everything you've done to put this document together. I've attended every meeting that the residents were notified of or entitled to join. I can tell you that what's been presented in terms of our opportunities to have feedback along this journey, even though they put up a chart up there, It's not necessarily how we feel about this process because it was clear to me from the first meeting that I attended, there was already a roadmap. That same roadmap has just been added to along the journey. Last week was the first time we've seen this level of detail, which to me, I've written, I wrote you all a letter. You don't need to go through that. But process matters. Our input matters. I live a half block from the corridor. I live on the ocean side of PCH. What's happened in our city has become a nightmare. Traffic. parking, noise, public safety. They all need to be addressed collectively and looked at in the context of what's being proposed here. Yes, businesses have struggled. COVID was a big, it took a big impact on all the businesses in the city, but also the homeless problem affected. retail retailers and landlords have known this is coming they dissolved the business improvement district this has been in planning it's unfortunate it didn't get really addressed in the general plan because I think it should have been a part of the general plan because residents may have had an opportunity to weigh in more this whole project is presented right now and it's its entirety it's so complex most of my neighbors have no knowledge of what's going on despite what the city says in terms of we've had public outreach. They spend more time notifying the city about what's going on with junior lifeguards than the detail and complexity of what this involves. And it's not just those of us that live in town and are homeowners there, but it's everyone that's gonna Drive that corridor. We've got a lot of residential building plan for this city and the public safety risk of not being able to get through there or in and out of there in a, you know, let's say, but gully burns. It's really something that needs to be looked at parking studies, traffic studies in the high peak summer months before we make any concessions as far as cramming more business into that corridor. It is not a main street. It is a highway. And I appreciate the resident that spoke before me to say that. There's a lot here. It's a lot to digest. It starts as a walkability and we're gonna dress up the city. It's turned into something much more complex. I really appreciate you taking the time to step back and look at this from a really high impact standpoint and try to make the best decisions around this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, commissioners. Wade Womack. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. In watching the presentation, some things seem kind of counterintuitive to me. If we start with the premise that everyone in this room loves Corona Del Mar and that area because it's quaint, then some of this starts to run counterintuitive. And so first, comparing or using Second Street as an example in this, They had a shooting killing 12 months ago. They've had three homicides in an 18-month period. So using that as an example just seems counterintuitive. I don't know about Santa Monica Promenade, but I think it has its fair share of problems. So it's kind of like, where are we going with this? And then specifically on the lot consolidation, once again, quaint. Small restaurants, medium restaurants, cute shops, quaint in the smaller lots. And so, To consolidate lots and to be incentivized to do that just, in my opinion, runs counterintuitive to what makes Corona Del Mar so special. And I would ask specifically on the lot consolidation, what's the limit? So is it basically if you have 10 lots in a row, you acquire them, you can build a very large shopping center there? What's the limit on the lot consolidation? Because I just think it's really important to do our best to keep that area quaint and special. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hey, guys. Thanks for hearing me. My name is Doug Harmon. I had no plans on talking tonight. I was just going to listen, see what was going on. So I have nothing prepared. I have been a resident of Corona Mar. I've grown up here. I've been here since the mid-'70s. And to reiterate what these guys have talked about behind me, cute, charming, that's what Corona Mart is really all about. And we don't have the parking. We don't have the traffic. All that stuff is very true. In fact, the parking, I'm on the flower streets, and the workers now have to park in front of our house just to have parking. So there is no parking in Coronamar and I don't know how we're all just going to create it. And to me, it sounds like we're trying to make this Santa Monica or Laguna Beach or Huntington Beach even. That's not what Coronamar is. And that's the that's the beauty of it. And so if we turn it in, if we want to turn it into one of those cities, we're just asking for trouble. We can't fit them. And it sounds like we want to get bigger restaurants. To me, all the delis, restaurants, and everything, they've all been there since the 70s. Gallo's, Gary's, Gina's, everybody's been there since the mid-70s. And so it'd really be tragic to see all those guys get moved out. And then we're just turning this whole thing into something different. So anyway, thank you for hearing me.

Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? Okay, then we'll go ahead and staff, any comments on what was presented?

I just have a few initial comments and then we're available if the commission would like us to address any additional ones. Just a couple of notes regarding the parking. Parking has absolutely been a concern within Corona Del Mar for many years and this is something that has been studied time and time again. So staff, when looking at this issue, really is approaching it in a holistic way. So not just looking at how can we provide more parking, but how can we look at the existing parking and free it up? How can we get people out of their cars if they're able and be able to get to the corridor in another way? As Jocelyn mentioned, 40% of people who visit the corridor are within five miles. So we think that the trolley could be effective. Bike improvements pedestrian improvements things of that nature as well The in lieu fee program would also provide another option that could help the city fund those things as well something that doesn't exist today Another thing that has been brought up is compatibility and this is something that's really important as well and that staff considered based on community feedback so when looking at the the streamlining that's been proposed all of those land uses will still require review they'll still have to make all the same findings including findings regarding compatibility additionally the police department public works fire all these departments will still continue to weigh on those weigh in on those proposals as well I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT THIS IS COMPLEX. ABSOLUTELY. THERE IS A LOT TO THIS, AND SO WE FELT THAT THIS STUDY SESSION WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO ALLOW THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC TO START LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE CHANGES BEFORE A DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE. I ALSO WOULD NOTE THAT THE FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED FROM BOTH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS HAVE ABSOLUTELY MADE THIS PROJECT BETTER. There also was a question about law consolidation and if there was a limit proposed. Staff has not proposed a limit at this time. That's something the commission could suggest. But I would note that consolidation is allowed today. But this would provide an additional incentive for them to consolidate through that additional FAR. And we're available for any additional questions.

Okay, thank you, and thank you everyone for comments and participation. Bring this back to the Commission for Discussion. Commissioners, I think we talked about kind of breaking this into sections. They've got 12 questions they'd like us to, if we could put that back up, kind of look at why don't we start with kind of the land use ideas and talk about that, and then we can move on to some of the other ones. Can we go back to that previous slide? Oh, this is it. Sorry. Commissioners, comments? Commissioner Reed.

Commissioner Salin, just a quick question. Are we being asked to make any decisions here tonight?

No. This is just for discussion and provide feedback for further clarification.

Got it. Thanks.

Commissioners, anybody, anything? Commissioner Langford.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THESE ADDITIONS, AND I GUESS A GENERAL COMMENT AS WE'RE GETTING INTO IT IS, AS LIKELY ALL OF YOU HAVE, I THINK ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WHEN YOU TELL PEOPLE YOU'RE A PLANNING COMMISSIONER OR YOU'RE INVOLVED IN THIS KIND OF THING, THEY'RE LIKE, OH, CDM, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING THERE. THERE'S TOO MANY RUG SHOPS AND REALTORS AND ALL THAT STUFF. SO THIS IS EXCITING THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING DOWN TO THIS AFTER A COUPLE YEARS OF STUDY AND GOING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. I'm appreciative of CDM Residence Association for updating the residents in the area to come out to meetings like tonight and the stuff that they've been doing the last couple of years. So that's been good to see. And we've just gotten comments for years. And I live down the CDM, as many of you guys have. And my folks live down there. My mother-in-law lives down there. My grandmother-in-law lives down there. So most of these things I'm going to be supportive of. Even as residents down there. They want to see this revitalization They want to see stuff that they can walk to so they don't have to get in their car They don't have to go park and hunt for stuff. And so I like the general just of most of these things and I have some comments on the other Sections, so I'll save them for for then but I like this land use section. I would be supportive of all four.

Okay

Any, does anybody have any comments on the relaxing of some of the requirement or the approval levels? Everybody good with that? Okay. Wine bars, thoughts on wine bars? Okay, okay. Just going to kind of go through the list. This idea of non-conforming uses being able to relocate seems a little confusing to me personally. Take example, the auto repair place. I mean, if it wants to relocate to someplace that, you know, if we don't want it there in the first place, why allow it to relocate to someplace within the corridor? So that one seems a little confusing to me personally. Go ahead.

I can speak to that. So originally auto-centric uses were proposed to be just prohibited and the community expressed some concern with the loss of these services that they use consistently. So this is in response to a very real concern and we believe that yes, this will allow businesses to relocate, but it still prohibits new businesses from moving in.

Okay, anything else on land use? So just to go back on that, in that example, if the auto business were to move to parcel B, it's grandfathered, but then if it's also to move again, it's grandfathered. It can sort of move around as much as it wants and still maintain its business in the long run, or is it kind of at this point open-ended?

IF THE AUTO BUSINESS WOULD LIKE TO RELOCATE, IT WOULD HAVE TO GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND AT THAT TIME WE CAN APPLY ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THEIR OPERATION OR ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE ABOUT COMPATIBILITY.

OKAY. LET'S MOVE ON FROM LAND USE. WHAT'S NEXT? MIX USE LAW CONSOLIDATION DEVELOPMENT LIMITS. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS, THOUGHTS?

Commissioner Rosina. Quick question for staff. The lock consolidation, is that just on the north side, not the south side, or is that for both sides?

It would be applicable to both sides.

So in the LCP and not the LCP, it's the same?

Correct.

Commissioner Rosina.

So from a mixed use perspective and the lock consolidation, I think, The lot consolidation and using incentives for the lot consolidation is probably a good idea, but I'm gonna throw a little monkey wrench into that in that if you're gonna do any kind of, my request or comment would be, if you're gonna do any kind of mixed use, that it parks 100% and we're not reducing, it doesn't become a preferred use. Whereas maybe a restaurant, I can get my head around people in the flower trees riding their bike or walking down them because there's a lot of that and we already know that. But if there's a mixed-use component to it and it's residential, it should park 100%. It just shouldn't be allowed any kind of additional parking requirements. And the thing is, is if you have lot consolidation, lot consolidation provides you the benefit of being able to park it. Right now, there's just no way. There's no physical ability to do it. And probably because of some of these land values, people are going to go subterranean. You might start seeing stuff like that. So I don't know. It's a thought. And in regard to the 30 unit max, this is going to seem counterintuitive, but I'm just going to throw it out there. It seems to be a barrier and I'm not sure why we would even start off by saying a max. It sounds like you're creating a race to 30. We already hear that with the housing overlay stuff and everybody's looking for a way to make sure that they get their numbers. So I think that probably should be removed and it seems somewhat limiting. But when it comes to parking, I think that any residential, any residential should be allowed to, should park at 100%. So I think I guess I said that 100 times. What is the limit? I heard that question and I think that's a really good one. And like how many lots could be consolidated are we talking about? and I think it's probably difficult for someone to purchase a home that's a duplex, for example, up there. There's no way that that's financially viable, probably, and you're gonna buy seven of them and create a, but there should be, so I think that there's an idea, a concept that maybe needs to be established, and I don't know what the answer is, but there should be a limit, and we should study that to some degree. And I heard a comment tonight that I thought was kind of interesting. It's not a main street, it's a highway. And finding the right balance, I think, is probably the biggest issue that we have here. What is that balance and how do you do it? The physical ability to park along there I do it. But yeah, you look before you open the door. We've got to come up with some different solutions. So maybe it's not just parallel parking. Maybe there's some other kind of parking arrangement. I don't know that there's the physical space right of way to do it, but it's just throwing it out there. So in terms of The FAR and residential, again, there was something that caught my eye was in common open space in the mixed use development standards. Maybe there's something to be said about because common open space is going to eat into potentially some other thing that's usually on the first floor. Maybe you eliminate it altogether and it helps with parking. Those are some of my first initial comments. Thank you.

Commissioner Lankford? Thank you, Chair Sandlin. Consolidated lots, I would like to see the inclusion of a benefit for non-contiguous lots In this case, I mean if there's an alley or a street between common ownerships, I think it might be preferential test for them to control those areas. And now they've got parking and AND BUILDING OR THERE'S A WAY TO KIND OF INCENTIVIZE THAT, WHICH I THINK MIGHT HELP. AND IT'S KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, NOT EXACTLY THE LOCK CONSOLIDATION WHERE THEY'RE NEXT DOOR AND NOW YOU'RE DOING A NEW PARCEL MAP AND YOU'RE CONSOLIDATING, BUT HAVING THEM, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THERE ISN'T THE ABILITY TO CONSOLIDATE OR GROW ONE DIRECTION, BUT IF WE COULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT, THEN IT COULD HELP.

THANK YOU.

MY QUESTION IS SIMILAR TO THE CAPS. 18,700 SQUARE FEET, HOW DID WE ARRIVE AT THAT?

I can speak to that. So the proposed development limits that were provided in the staff report this evening, they're for the purposes of evaluating a general plan amendment. We have to have a specific number of units and square footage in order to determine whether it is a major general plan amendment or a minor general plan amendment. THE 30 DWELLING UNITS WAS INSPIRED BY A DESIRE TO KEEP THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR PRIMARILY COMMERCIAL, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME KIND OF CAP FOR THAT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AS ONCE YOU GO OVER 100 DWELLING UNITS, YOU TRIGGER A VOTE OF THE ELECTORATE, SO WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME NUMBER TO ANALYZE. AND SO THE FIRST SCENARIO WAS COMPLETELY RESIDENTIAL. THE SECOND SCENARIO, THAT 25,000 SQUARE FEET FOR LOCK CONSOLIDATION, THAT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE TRIP GENERATION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND THAT STAYS BELOW THE CHARTER SECTION 423. THEN THE COMBINATION SCENARIO FIGURES OUT THAT BALANCE BETWEEN THE 30 DWELLING UNITS AND THE NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA TO, ONCE AGAIN, BALANCE TRIPS, FLOOR AREA, AND DWELLING UNITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.

AND ALSO TO CONFIRM, IT'S JUST FOR NET NEW. IF YOU HAVE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ON YOUR PARCEL, YOU TORE IT DOWN TO BUILD 10,000, YOU'RE ONLY USING THE ADDITIONAL FIVE.

THAT IS CORRECT. THE CAP ONLY APPLIES TO THE ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA.

Just to add a little bit. So these are three potential scenarios that we propose. So let's say, for example, we decided not to move forward with the lot consolidation incentive, but move forward with the incentive to allow residential. We could allow up to 100 units. and stay below our Charter Section 423 requirements. As Jocelyn mentioned, that doesn't require a full public vote. We recommended 30 in this case to, you know, introduce a limited amount of residential within the corridor. So we want to be clear, we're not looking to do a full-blown mixed-use concept throughout the corridor. It's just pockets that we were hoping to allow for an incentive. In another example, if we decided not to move forward with residential, but try to maximize the maximum amount of lot consolidation incentive, that's scenario two. So that could allow for essentially like a bucket of 25,000 square feet of additional floor area. If there was multiple properties that took advantage of that lot consolidation, there would be a maximum limit of no more than 25,000. So once that's hit, then that incentive then goes away. And then scenario three is that kind of ideal balance that stays below the thresholds for a vote. It would still allow for 30 dwelling units throughout the corridor and up to 18,700 square feet for that lot consolidation incentive.

So that is, I mean, there's also, there's a lot of background there. So I guess there is rationale for those numbers you provided. So is there basically a bank of square footage, so once the 18,700 hits, someone else submits their application, can they not exceed whatever they currently have? Are they stuck with whatever is grandfathered on their site?

Right, so under charter section 423, we do track these amendments for a 10-year period. So let's say somebody else comes after we've exhausted the development limit cap, and they ask for a separate general plan amendment. We then look at that cumulative number, and if it exceeds the thresholds for a vote, it would put that subsequent project towards a vote. Wow.

I had a question on this table. So the difference between two and three in the non-residentials, like what is that, 6,300 square feet? But 30 units would be like 60,000 square feet. So is the difference that 6,300 square feet of non-residentials at the traffic equivalent of the 30 units residential?

It is, yeah. Exactly. We track AM and peak hour trips. So it's not daily trips. It's just during peak hours.

Okay. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION? OKAY. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS IMPACT, NOPE.

PARDON ME.

I THINK IT'S PARKING OR? DESIGN GUIDELINES.

DESIGN GUIDELINES.

COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS? Nope. Move on to the next one. Parking. Commissioners.

Yeah, I have a comment on number 10, the in lieu fee approach. First, I want to provide maybe some comments. I want to get some clarification. So would a restaurant operator or property owner, they would have to pay monthly into a city-ran program that would then help run other parking mitigation measures? Is that the idea?

That is correct. So unlike prior in lieu fee programs that the city has had in place before it was dissolved many years ago, this would fund mobility and parking related improvements. So the more traditional in lieu fee is just to pay to buy more parking and build more parking. Right. And so that fee tends to be extremely high. In this case, we want to incentivize people to access the corridor in different ways and to also support the city potentially leasing private lots. So there's a lot of parking that's locked up in these private lots and that would allow us to open them.

So then my comment would be that I would not support that. I mean, if you're specifically for restaurant, it is almost impossible to operate a restaurant today, especially in California. It is so hard to talk to any restaurant operator out there. if you try to add on more fees to them i think you're going to end up doing is you're going to be driving restaurant business out of the area and not trying to incentivize them to come in i mean it is extremely difficult with minimum wages insurance costs food flavor i mean it's it's wild so i would i think that is would actually have the reverse effect so i would not be in support of 10.

I would, and just, and I'll get to in a second, I would also not be in support of TAN. I just, to me, it just, we shouldn't be taking money from them and then trying to figure out what to do with it. If we're going to increase parking and make parking better, then let's do that. so that the restaurants, let's do that first, so that the restaurants want to come in and be there, and then it'll take care of itself in the fees or whatever we charge. But if we want to do something like this and encourage the restaurants, then let's be proactive and get the parking taken care of in advance.

Well, I think that the rationale is to allow them an option in lieu of providing the parking is to pay the fee instead. So they can come in. But are we thinking in lieu of providing the onsite parking, they can just operate? No, I think, no.

I think, I mean, you know, parking is a huge issue here. They need to address the parking.

The other part is it's not just for restaurants, right? Because if there's another, if you pay for a trolley system, it's not just the restaurant tenants are able to use it, that's the retailers, it's everyone. So why are you making the restaurant tenant pay and the other businesses benefit from it?

Because we're requiring the other businesses to provide the parking on site. We're not giving them an option to not provide the parking. They have to have it, and the restaurants don't have to have it. If they don't have it, then they can pay the in-lieu fee.

But a restaurant, well, I guess my opinion is that a restaurant cannot handle any more fees, charges, everything else. They won't come.

And we're not saying that we're telling a new restaurant they don't have to have parking, right? I mean, they still have to have some parking.

Generally speaking, yes. They would need to provide parking. And what staff is proposing here or suggesting here is to provide another option. So what we've heard from business owners, property owners, is that going through the conditional use process, going to planning commission, preparing parking studies is very expensive. So there's a world where they may choose to pay this in lieu fee on that monthly basis. And we would gear that fee to be reasonable so that we can still be recouping and gaining something from that. But then also be able to, you know, they would have more flexibility. So this is really just providing additional option to them.

Do we, do you have a range of what you think would be reasonable? A, I guess. We're getting to that. And then B, do we have any track record of running this in the city anywhere? Or historically speaking?

Yes, historically speaking, we have had an in-LV parking program. It was relatively successful in the early days, but then parking became so expensive to build. So we typically would have to charge them the fee that it would cost us to build that parking space, which can be $35,000, $65,000 a space, right? So that doesn't make any sense. No business owner is going to want to choose that option. So with this fee, which is optional, so it's not governed by the Mitigation Fee Act, like our development impact fees, right, that are mandatory. We can set a different fee based on something reasonable, right? So for example, I can throw this out there. Other cities have participated in parking lot leases, right? Leasing private spaces. In some cities, those fees are about $35 per parking space per month. So you can build in some additional maintenance costs and some other things, so the fee may be higher than $35, but just throwing out one initial idea for that.

Quick question on that. Yep. In the coastal zone with coastal commission, how does the fee parkings, how are they going to view that from their perspective? Because we've had issues with, that's like a huge deterrent. It prohibits coastal access for them, right? So how do we get through that?

So staff is not currently suggesting any paid parking. So we're not adding additional paid parking at this time. That's something that the community generally didn't support. But in this case, our thought would be that the fee would support mobility related improvements that facilitate additional public access. So, you know, instead of it being just provided on one restaurant parking, one restaurant site, it could be used by the public. So now they could use that to do a variety of things. AFTER GOING TO CDM STATE BEACH, THEY CAN GO TO A COFFEE SHOP, THEY CAN DO ADDITIONAL THINGS. SO IT WOULD BE SEEN AS FACILITATING PUBLIC ACCESS. BUT WE WOULD NEED TO BE, THE LCB WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THEM AS WELL.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER, ANY COMMENTS ON THE SMALL SCALE RESTAURANT, 20 SEAT MAX AND A REDUCED PARKING RATE FOR THOSE? COMMISSIONER LANGFORD?

THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT. THAT'S GOOD. GOOD? OKAY.

Okay. Any other comments, commissioners?

I said one last one. In some parts of the city, street sweeping is not enforced, but in CDM it is. When I go down there, because I have to park down there, Mondays and Tuesdays, right, half the spots you can't park on, and it just, because the parking issue just gets exacerbated and goes further out from where it typically would be. So have they looked at enforcement or relief of enforcement of street sweeping in that area?

That's something that was brought up during the outreach, but staff generally was not looking at the residential areas. We were focused on the commercial corridor, but that's certainly something that we could explore further.

Thank you. Is there another section or is that the last of it? One more?

That's it.

That's it? Okay. Staff, do you have what you need to proceed?

We have one more comment. Sorry.

Sorry.

Sorry. What about for parking enforcement tickets that are collected in that area? Can it go stay in that community to help with parking mitigation programs?

THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER AT THIS TIME, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TO SET UP A PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT, SO ANY KIND OF MONEY THAT IS SPENT THERE, LET'S SAY ON THE PARKING METERS, THINGS LIKE THAT, CAN GO BACK TO THAT DISTRICT TO FUND IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT DISTRICT. SO THAT IS ONE APPROACH TO PARKING THAT COULD BE TAKEN. ENFORCEMENT TICKETS I'M NOT SURE I WOULD NEED TO CONSULT WITH OUR ATTORNEY ON THAT.

THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE TO ADD. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? Awesome. Staff, do you have what you need?

I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER ROSEAN, IF I MAY. COMMENTS WERE MADE REGARDING MIXED USE PROVIDING THE MINIMUM PARKING ON SITE. WAS THAT IN REFERENCE TO BOTH COMPONENTS OF THE MIXED USE? I HEARD VERY CLEARLY THAT YOU WANTED THE RESIDENTIAL TO BE PARKED, BUT IS THAT ALSO THE COMMERCIAL AS WELL? THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. AND THEN SECOND, WITH THE LOCK CONSOLIDATION, IS THE COMMISSION WISHING TO HAVE THOSE PROJECTS PROVIDE THE MINIMUM PARKING, OR WOULD THEY BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE EXISTING WAIVERS THAT EXIST, LIKE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, FOR EXAMPLE?

So from the mixed use perspective, I'm speaking strictly about the residential component. But when it comes to the second question that you had, can you say that again so that I understand it?

There are a couple of options for the lot consolidation. One option would be to allow them to go through the process, do the lot consolidation, build the additional FAR, and then if they wish, they could waive parking through the traditional procedures if they wanted to or if they desired and if the commission approved. THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE THAT THE LOCK CONSOLIDATION WOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON THEM PROVIDING THAT PARKING. SO I WANTED TO GET CLARITY FROM YOU ON THE INTEND.

A LOCK CONSOLIDATION WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON THE PARKING. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO FULLY PARK THAT RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT IS WHAT I WAS THINKING.

JUST THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.

THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.

THANK YOU. THAT'S HELPFUL.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE DISCUSSION AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. uh motion for reconsideration are there any motions for reconsideration none okay um does anyone from the audience want to let's see what is this no that's not request for excused absence any excuse absence okay then we are adjourned Never fast enough for you.