Attachment E
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from January 18, 2024 and Written Correspondence Submitted
13-95
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2024
REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER – 6:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Lowrey
III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Curtis Ellmore, Vice Chair Mark Rosene, Secretary Tristan Harris, Commissioner Brady Barto, Commissioner Jonathan Langford, Commissioner Lee Lowrey, and Commissioner David Salene
ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Jurjis, Acting Deputy Community Development Director Jaime Murillo, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Brad Sommers, Senior Planner David Lee , Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez, and Department Assistant Savannah Martinez
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Regarding the reasonable accommodation case at 1691 Orchard Drive , Jim Mosher thought the hearing officer and Planning Commission were not properly informed about the land use regulations and pre-annexation agreement that apply to Santa Ana Heights.
V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None
VI. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 2023
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Motion made by Secretary Harris and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the minutes of December 21, 2023, including Mr. Mosher’s edits.
AYES: Ellmore, Langford, Lowrey, Harris, Rosene, and Salene NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Barto
ABSENT: None
ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2024
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Motion made by Vice Chair Rosene and seconded by Commissioner Salene to approve the minutes of January 4, 2024, with Mr. Mosher’s edits.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB7E1031-6092-4360-8FB9-D97AFC201580 13-96
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2024
AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Langford, Lowrey, Harris, Rosene, and Salene NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 3 BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION (PA2023-0076)
Site Location: 250 East Coast Highway and 100 Dover Drive
Summary:
A major site development review and coastal development permit for the following:
• The demolition of an existing pump station and associated force mains and construction a new pump station (total of approximately 7,500 square feet) that includes a new underground pump room, electrical room, odor control facility, and a generator room;
• The installation of new, 30-inch dual force mains by micro-tunneling beneath East Coast Highway from the Project across the Newport Bay Channel, to a new valve vault located below grade in the public right-of-way at the southeast corner of the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive; and
• The temporary use of a portion of the City-owned Lower Castaways Park as a construction staging yard. The Applicant proposes to use approximately 18,000 square feet of the southwest corner of Lower Castaways Park, which is to be fenced and screened. This allows the Applicant to temporary locate office trailers, stage and store construction equipment and materials, and provide vehicle parking.
Recommended Actions:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it is consistent with the certified environmental impact report (EIR) for Project No. 5-67, also known as the Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Projects as approved by the Orange County Sanitation District, and the subsequent certified Addendum to the EIR; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2024-002 approving a Major Site Development Review and Coastal Development Permit (PA2023-0076).
Commissioner Barto recused himself due to personal property within 500 feet of the subject property.
Senior Planner Lee used a presentation to outline the Major Site Development Review and Coastal Development Permit for the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Bay Bridge pump station, including the project location, background, adjusted property lines, public views, access to DocuSign Envelope ID: FB7E1031-6092-4360-8FB9-D97AFC201580 13-97
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2024
Castaways Park, revised conditions of approval, CEQA review, and an additional proposed condition of approval.
In response to Commissioner Langford’s question regarding consistency with the architectural design of the future Back Bay Landing mixed-use project, Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo stated that early discussions for the mixed-use project included a coastal mediterranean architecture, but with possible development changes, staff thought the proposed design of the pump station would fit in better with the future project.
In response to Secretary Harris’ question regarding status of litigation , Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated that the court had a limited order, the addendum was completed and certified this summer, the case is closed, and both parties have agreed to terminate the litigation.
The Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Mike Dorman, Director of Engineering of OCSD, used a presentation to review the Bay Bridge pump station replacement, OCSD mission and service area, Newport Beach pump stations , project overview, existing Bay Bridge pump station, reasons for the project, microtunneling section, new pump station design, and pump station cut section rendering and access . He agreed to the recommended conditions.
In response to Commissioner Langford’s question, Mr. Dorman confirmed that the station will be at the same capacity as it is now.
In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s questions, Mr. Dorman clarified that the primary site access is a permanent easement and assumed that the roadway will be used jointly with the Bayside Village Marina during construction and then be integrated into the Back Bay Landing plan.
In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s inquiry, Harmik Aghanian with Arcadis and design consultant for OCSD, explained the background of the access road and stated that they have past renderings from PC-9. Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo stated that PC-9 contains conceptual plans included for exhibits and a coastal architectural theme and the City has not received revised designs from the Back Bay Landing team.
In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s suggestion to add a depression in the sidewalk (noted on page 177) to help with the transition, Mr. Aghanian stated that the minimum sidewalk is 8-1/2 feet at the driveway entrance and beyond 10 feet to the east side to accommodate chemical delivery trucks.
In response to Secretary Harris’ questions, Mr. Dorman stated that t hey have the rights to the property and will be going to court to determine the value of the property, the easement was granted with the eminent domain cas e, and they are willing to make building color changes to match a neighboring design. He reviewed the process to determine the location.
John Erskine, Nossaman LLP partner and representative of the property owners, stated a wonderful working relationship with staff and noted efforts to negotiate a willing seller/purchaser acquisition with the OC San District, having learned a lot from the depositions collected from the four project managers, the challenges of the project, and having tried to work proactively with the OC San District.
He relayed that the eminent domain case will go to a jury trial in July and the problems with the project size.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB7E1031-6092-4360-8FB9-D97AFC201580 13-98
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2024
Michael Gelfand, representing the ownership of the Bayside Village Marina and Back Bay Landing project, noted the impact of the project, suggested the proposal be rejected and recreated by OSCD with community input, traced the project history, and noted alternatives.
Jim Mosher reviewed the proposed project design diagrammed on page 177 and made suggestions.
Julie Sheffield expressed concern about the access road on Bayside Drive, the impact from the number of trucks, and hours of operation.
Mr. Dorman noted the daily truck traffic on the access road and thought the pump station is properly sized to meet the demand.
Traffic Engineer Sommers noted a rolled curb in the plans to address an abrupt driveway drop off and beneficial access off Bayside Drive.
Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo noted that staff worked with OCSD to review many design options, make changes, and justify sizing and indicated that staff believes that OSCD did the best they could to select an architectural theme not knowing what the neighboring mixed-use project will look like in the future.
In response to Commissioner Langford’s inquiry, Mr. Gelfand suggested that the exterior façade be changed in the future to match his project and expressed concern for the project footprint, setbacks, easement through the middle of the property, and size. He thought that there was not enough room to add a parking lot behind the easement.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lowrey expressed confusion for the status of the condemnation litigation. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill deferred the issue to the applicant but conveyed that she thought they have the right of possession, and the squabble is over the value.
Commissioner Langford expressed concern for the architectural impact with the future Back Bay Landing project.
Chair Ellmore r eminded the Commissioners to address the matter based on the merits of the application.
Commissioner Harris relayed that although the project has made its way through the courts, he does not think it is ideal.
Commissioner Lowrey expressed an increased comfort with the project ’s merits if the matter is settled by a judge.
Vice Chair Rosene expressed concern for the project size, location, and thoughtfulness.
Chair Ellmore noted future surrounding development is unknown and the Commission needs to focus on the application presented, expressed concern for the size and location , trusted staff’s recommendation, and did not find a reason to not approve the project.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB7E1031-6092-4360-8FB9-D97AFC201580 13-99
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2024
Motion made by Secretary Harris and seconded by Chair Ellmore to approve the item with a condition, modification, or inclusion that would state that staff can require the applicant to modify the exterior aesthetics in the future to match surrounding development.
AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Rosene, and Salene
NOES: Langford, Lowrey
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSED: Barto
VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
None
ITEM NO. 5 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR
MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED
ON A FUTURE AGENDA
Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo announced that the Airport Land Use Commission found two residential projects proposed for the John Wayne Airport area inconsistent and staff will schedule a public hearing with the City Council on February 13 to discuss a potential override. Furthermore, he noted that the February 8 Planning Commission meeting is cancelled, and the February 22 meeting has scheduled a variance and coastal development permit for a new single-family home, and one consent item to formally adopt a resolution for a reasonable accommodation request for the keeping of chickens.
ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
Secretary Harris requested an excused absence on February 22.
IX. ADJOURNMENT – With no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Chair Ellmore at 7:09 p.m.
The agenda for the January 18, 2024, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, January 11, 2024, at 5:35 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City’s website on Thursday, January 11, 2024, at 5:32 p.m.
_______________________________
Curtis Ellmore, Chair
_______________________________
Tristan Harris, Secretary
DocuSign Envelope ID: FB7E1031-6092-4360-8FB9-D97AFC201580 13-100
January 18, 2024, Planning Commission Item 3 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 3. BAY BRIDGE PUMP STATION (PA2023-0076)
General comments:
Unless I am dreaming, those who followed OCSD’s public outreach regarding this project some years ago were left with the impression the pump station was to be replaced by a new one in the northeast corner of the PC-9 property, near Bayside Drive, adjacent to the mobile homes, where it would be much less intrusive.
It is a surprise to find the replacement will be going in an expanded version of the current location. It is an even bigger surprise to find no mention or explanation of the change.1 The staff report extols the aesthetics of the project, including the “coastal architectural theme” and building façades that “avoid long, continuous blank walls.” Yet to my taste, the aesthetics are terrible. First, I would think darker earth tones, somewhat like the present building, would be less intrusive than off-white. Second, whatever the architecture, the renderings in Figures 4 and 5 show it will be largely hidden behind the kind of “long, blank walls” the façades seek to avoid.
To me, they create the impression of a secretive government installation or a prison yard.
What is the purpose of these property-defining walls along Coast Highway? It would not seem to be sound mitigation, since the only they protect is the highway. Wouldn’t an openwork metal security fence be adequate and far more aesthetically pleasing (as this example from CMSD)? Or is there really something OCSD doesn’t want prying eyes to see? 1 What seems to be the EIR for construction using the present “Adjacent Pump Station” alternative layout option was apparently approved by the OCSD Board as Item 8 on February 24, 2021.
Planning Commission - January 18, 2024
Item No. 3b - Additional Materials Received
OCSD Bay Bridge Pump Station (PA2023-0076)
13-101
January 18, 2023, PC agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 Comments regarding the proposed resolution:
square-foot pump station.” It is hard to believe the existing buildings occupy 4,800 sf if the entire parcel is only 4,875 sf. The existing concrete apron along PCH, alone, appears to represent more than 1,000 sf of unoccupied area. This appears to be a reference to the size of the existing lot, not the station.
acquiring an additional 9,713 square feet of land from the adjacent property at 100 Bayside Drive, which is the site of the future Back Bay Landing Mixed-Use Village”) does not match the definition of “Property” in Statement 1.1 on the preceding page. According to the prior definition, and presumably throughout the resolution, “Property” is used to mean the full 14,592 square foot. development area, not just the former parcel.
Pages 3 of 26 (and 19 of 26): Statement 1.2 refers to OCSD’s EIR. The link to it provided in Exhibit “B” is to the Final EIR, which is mostly just comment letters, responses to them and the mitigation monitoring plan. What most people would think of as the “real” EIR is the Draft EIR, more specifically the 2020 Recirculated EIR. A better link would be to the OC San’s Bay Bridge Pump Station Project CEQA Documents page, which includes that and more. The Draft EIR appears to have analyzed the impacts of replacing the existing station with one in the northeast corner of the Bayside Village Marina (PC-9) property. Wouldn’t the aesthetic impacts at that location be quite different from the ones from placing it directly adjacent to a designated Coastal View Road?2 Isn’t this new expanded location also blocking what was designated as a possible alternative ingress/egress point to PC-9 from PCH?
achieves the same purpose as the required 10 feet, or why the low height profile of the vegetation is a plus (generally, one would want higher vegetation to screen the walls, which already block views). I am particularly concerned about the project’s impact on the public sidewalk, which is well used by a mix of pedestrians and cyclists (it is “bicycle legal” as far as I know).
some subtle difference between a required finding that “The development shall not be incompatible with …” compared to “The development shall be compatible with …”?
Crystal Cove” Is that correct? I thought the flow all went the other way (also note, “wastewater” is one word).
(I have not reviewed the rest of the resolution)
2 On a quick glance, it looks like the various OCSD EIR’s rely on the City approval process to mitigate aesthetic impacts.
Planning Commission - January 18, 2024
Item No. 3b - Additional Materials Received
OCSD Bay Bridge Pump Station (PA2023-0076)
13-102
62469533.v1
January 17, 2024
Chair Curtis Ellmore and Planning Commissioners
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 3
January 18, 2024: OCSD Bay Bridge Pump Station (PA 2023-0076) Dear Chair Ellmore and Planning Commissioners:
Our firm represents Bayside Marina Village, LLC (“Bayside” or “BVM”), the owners and developers of Back Bay Landing, located at 300 East Coast Highway in Newport Beach.
The Back Bay Landing project, on 7+ acres and approved unanimously by the Planning Commission and City Council in 2016, surrounds the existing OC San’s 4,800 square foot Bay Bridge Pump Station (“BBPS”) on three sides and will be directly and irreparably adversely affected by the proposed BBPS expansion both in the short-term, during the ill-defined 4-6 year demolition, excavation and construction period, and in the long term.
Because neither BVM, its long-time Project Manager, R. Gordon Craig, or this firm received timely notice,1 the bulk of our comments and explanation of the reasons for our opposition to the proposed BBPS project will need to be presented to you at the Thursday, January 18 hearing on this matter.
In brief summary, your Staff Report fails to adequately disclose the multiple defects in the design of this massive and unnecessary industrial facility that will occupy the very threshold and entryway to Upper Newport Bay and dominate the scenic heart of Newport Harbor.
We say “unnecessary” because OC San had (and has) other alternative locations including potential locations immediately adjacent to and on either side of the East Coast Highway harbor bridge, and as has been done in other sewage pump station projects across the country and worldwide, could’ve been downsized, and/or utilized more subterranean construction, etc.
1 Apparently notices were mailed to a former Los Angeles address of the owner’s management company and hand delivered to the Bayside Village Mobilehome Park; BVM’s only actual notice was a posting on ECH observed by BVM representatives this recent Monday.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
18101 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92612
T 949.833.7800
F 949.833.7878
John P. Erskine
D 949.477.7633
[email protected]
Admitted only in California
Refer To File # 400244-0001 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
[email protected]
Planning Commission - January 18, 2024
Item No. 3b - Additional Materials Received
OCSD Bay Bridge Pump Station (PA2023-0076)
13-103
January 17, 2024
62469533.v1
As set forth previously by prior commenters on the various EIRs (there were 3-4 versions of the EIR) and the various and ever-expanding Project Descriptions, the BBPS is inconsistent with the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan, the Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan (“PCDP”), does not protect LCP-mandated coastal views, and does not comply with the PCDP’s Architectural Theme or Required Façade Treatment conditions (see section 10, Back Bay Landing PCDP, page 26). Contrary to Planning Staff’s assertions (page 9) in the Staff Report, we do not believe the proposed expanded, 22-foot high pump station is either “aesthetically pleasing as a stand-alone development,” appropriate for this central Newport Harbor coastal location, or visually/architecturally compatible with the Back bay Landing PCDP.
Finally, both the Staff Report and the Addendum -- prepared in response to the Superior Court ruling in BVM v. OCSD, fails to set forth additional environmental impacts that have only recently come to light, as many of the submittals for the Site Development Review and Coastal Development Permit post-date the preparation of the Addendum.
Thank you for your attention to our input on this matter; we urge the Commission to reject the current submittals and deny the Site Development Review and CDP unless revised and conditioned to be compatible with the City Back Bay Landing mixed-use coastal and Coastal Commission approved village.
Sincerely,
John P. Erskine
Nossaman LLP
JPE:dlf
Planning Commission - January 18, 2024
Item No. 3b - Additional Materials Received
OCSD Bay Bridge Pump Station (PA2023-0076)
13-104