Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Draft Minutes_04-18-2019 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS— 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2019 REGULAR MEETING—5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER—The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Commissioner Kleiman III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Peter Koetting ABSENT: Chair Peter Zak, Commissioner Kory Kramer Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis,Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill,City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Principal Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Makana Nova, Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba, Planning Technician Patrick Achis,Administrative Support Technician Amanda Lee IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher noted the start times for the current meeting and a January meeting were not 6:30 as stated in the Bylaws and suggested the Planning Commission amend its Bylaws if the 6:30 time is not convenient. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Community Development DirectorJurjis recommended the Planning Commission continue Item 1,approval of the meeting minutes for March 21. Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to continue approval of the minutes for the March 21, 2019 meeting. AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore NOES: None ABSTAIN: Kleiman, Koetting ABSENT: Zak, Kramer VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 Minutes of March 21,2019 Recommended Action: Approve and file VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM NO.2 Minutes of March 7, 2019 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Koetting to approve the minutes of March 7, 2019 as presented. AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting NOES: ABSTAIN: Ellmore ABSENT: Zak, Kramer 1 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2019 VIII. STUDY SESSION ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 Vivante Senior Housing (PA2018-185) Site Location: 850 and 856 San Clemente Drive Summary: The project consists of the demolition of the former Orange County Museum of Art buildings (approximately 39,000 square feet) on a 2.91-acre site to accommodate the development of a 184,309- square-foot, six-story senior housing development(90 residential dwelling units)and memory care facility (27 beds). The development would include resident dining areas, fitness room, yoga room, indoor pool, lounge with bowling alley,salon,art room,theater,library,golf simulator,and support uses such as offices, mechanical and storage rooms, mail room, laundry, and housekeeping. The applicant, Nexus Development Corporation, requests the following applications from the City of Newport Beach: • General Plan Amendment — To amend Anomaly No. 49 to change the land use category from PI (Private Institutions) to MU-1­13 (Mixed-Use Horizontal). The proposed amendment also includes 90 additional dwelling units in Statistical Area L1. • Planned Community Text Amendment — To modify the San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community(PC-19) Development Plan to include development and design standards to allow for 90 senior dwelling units and 27 memory care beds. The applicant also requests an increase in the height limit from 65 feet to 77 feet 10 inches. • Development Agreement — Review of a proposed development agreement that would provide development rights in exchange for public benefits should the project be approved. • Conditional Use Permit — To allow the operation of the proposed senior housing development and memory care facility. • Major Site Development Review—To allow the construction of 90 senior dwelling units and a 27 bed memory care facility and to ensure the site is developed in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews). • Lot Merger—To merge the two existing lots into one parcel for development of the site. • Addendum to Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2016021023) — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals, the City has determined that an addendum to a previously certified EIR is warranted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Recommended Action: No action on either the project or EIR addendum can be taken by the Planning Commission at the study session. Associate Planner Makana Nova noted the project's location is 850 and 856 San Clemente Drive. The applicant proposes 90 units of senior housing and 27 beds for a memory care facility. The senior housing units are counted as residential dwelling units while the memory care facility is considered a nonresidential use. Ms. Nova recalled the prior Museum House condominium project proposed for 850 San Clemente Drive, which has a certified EIR but the project approval itself was rescinded by the City Council. Villas Fashion Island, Fire Station 3 and the Police Station, an office building and parking structure, and The Colony apartments and the Pacific Life surround the project site. The applicant proposes merging the two parcels into a single site. The building will have six stories and contain 183,983 square feet. The proposed building height is 68 feet 8 inches, and an additional 10 feet is allowed for appurtenances. The building height plus appurtenances is 77 feet 10 inches. The applicant proposes common spaces for exterior gardens, a bowling alley, an indoor pool, a theater area, a fitness center, and an activity room. The outdoor common area measures 21,233 square feet and contains two small seating areas at the building entry. The applicant proposes 118 surface parking spaces, one more than required by the Zoning Code. The applicant requests a General Plan amendment to change the land use category from PI to MU- H3. Currently Anomaly 49 limits the floor area on the site to 45,208 square feet, and the applicant requests a reduction to 16,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area to accommodate the memory care facility and the addition of 90 dwelling units. The proposed project does not meet any of the thresholds contained in Charter 2 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2019 Section 423. Both parcels are part of the San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community(PC),and the applicant proposes to amend the PC text to allow for the senior housing project use. The PC amendment would establish specific development standards for the property, including a height increase from 65 feet to 77 feet 10 inches (including appurtenances). Under the PC amendment, permitted land uses within the PC will be specific to a senior housing project. The project requires a major site development review due to the size of the proposed development. The project will be reviewed for compliance with PC development standards as part of the PC text amendment. The applicant also requests a conditional use permit, which will determine the application's consistency with the adjacent properties and allow the City to place operational conditions on the application. The applicant will obtain a State license for a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly(RCFE), and the license will cover both the dwelling units and the memory care facility. The applicant is negotiating the terms of a development agreement. A fiscal analysis found a net revenue of$41,569 and identified an additional expenditure of approximately$70,000 for fire services. The Fire Department estimates the project will generate an additional 100 calls per year. Staff has prepared an addendum to the Museum House EIR for use with the current project. The Museum House EIR found mitigation measures would be necessary for the categories of air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources, and the same mitigation measures will be carried into the EIR addendum and modified to be relevant to the proposed project. Staff has determined the proposed project will have no additional impacts. The EIR addendum process does not require a public comment period but staff will accept comments on the project as a whole. Staff anticipates scheduling a public hearing before the Planning Commission in June, depending on the feedback provided during the meeting. Following a Planning Commission public hearing, the Airport Land Use Commission will review the project because the project involves a General Plan amendment and code amendment. Finally,the City Council will hold a public hearing, perhaps as early as July or August 2019. In response to Commissioner Koetting's questions, Associate Planner Nova advised that she will search for the number of floors in The Colony apartments and office buildings surrounding the project. The applicant has worked with the Public Works Department to narrow the entry driveway,which increased the number of parking stalls from 115 to 118. The project is located within Statistical Area L1,which is related to the thresholds contained in Charter Section 423. The threshold for an increase in allowed nonresidential floor area is 40,000 square feet,an increase in a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips is 100 each, and an increase in allowed dwelling units is 100. Principal Planner Gregg Ramirez explained that the NBMC defines seniors as age 55 years for accessory dwelling units only. Associate Planner Nova indicated the senior housing requirement will be permanent through the PC text. The dwelling units are rental units. In reply to Commissioner Lowrey's query, Associate Planner Nova related that the Planning Commission can recommend the City Council adopt the EIR addendum, and ultimately the City Council will need to adopt the EIR addendum. Cory Alder, President of applicant Nexus Development,shared the impetus for Nexus proposing the project. The project fills a need for senior housing in the community. Nexus'goal is to make this facility the best in the country. Rob Eras,Vice President of applicant Nexus Development,clarified that the reference to a 153-bed count is based on one-and two-bedroom dwelling units and the beds in the memory care facility. The facility will be licensed by the State of California as a Residential Care Facility for Elderly (RCFE). The State requires residents to be a minimum age of 60 years. The average age of residents at the Vivante on the Coast facility in Costa Mesa is approximately 84 years. The building will have six stories and a basement. The height of the main building will be 68 feet 8 inches. With appurtenances and architectural features,the highest point of the building will be 77 feet 10 inches. The Code requires one parking space for every three beds in the memory care facility or nine parking spaces for 27 beds. The Code requires 1.2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit or 108 parking spaces for the 90 dwelling units. Primary access to the site will be via a new curb cut on San Clemente Drive. Currently, 15,000 residents,ages 75 years and older, live within a five-mile radius of the project site. A total of 514 units of licensed, full-service assisted living and memory care units exists within Newport Beach. A typical unit in a convalescent facility averages 500 square feet. The project's one-bedroom units will contain 800-900 square feet. Two-bedroom units will contain 1,300-2,500 square feet. A studio unit in the memory care facility will contain approximately 500 square feet. The existing primary access to the site will be removed, and the new primary access will be via San Clemente Drive. The courtyard will have raised herb gardens, a barbecue area, seating areas, fire pits, a putting green, a bocce court, and a dog park. A pool, jacuzzi, salon, art studio, movie theater, fitness center, tenant storage, bowling alley, and golf simulator will be located in the basement level. At the ground level, the building will have a cafe,dining room, kitchen,full-service bar, activity areas, library, and game room. The second floor will 3 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2019 accommodate the memory care facility and ten residential units. The memory care facility will be secure and contain a dining area, activity area, and administrative offices. The remaining residential units will be located on floors three through six. The architecture of the building is Italianate with Juliette balconies, natural stone on the lower levels, and cement plaster on the upper levels. Curt Olson, CEO of applicant Nexus Development, commented regarding the need for high-quality facilities for senior citizens in Newport Beach. This is a special project that will change the lives of seniors. The applicant has worked with the residents and businesses who opposed the previous project to address their concerns. In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Associate Planner Nova reported nine facilities, which provide services ranging from convalescent care to independent living, exist or have been approved. Seven facilities provide 752 units, and two convalescent hospitals provide 265 beds. The proposed project is different from the Harbor Pointe project in that its units comply with the Code definition of dwelling unit. Because the senior housing is considered a residential use and the memory care facility is considered a nonresidential use, staff believes the project fits well in the mixed-use definition. Community Development Director Jurjis added that the PC text amendment will restrict the type of units for senior housing. The project's conditional use permit will regulate the operation of the facility. The development agreement will contain additional stipulations for the project. Mr.Alder advised that the proposed facility will not replace the Vivante on the Coast facility in Costa Mesa. Nexus Development plans to own both facilities. The project's lenders required market studies for the project. The statistics regarding seniors living in the community indicate the great need for senior housing. The service and care models will be the same for the two facilities. Unlike Vivante on the Coast, the proposed project will have a bowling alley and larger units. At Vivante on the Coast, the rental rate for studio units starts at$4,500; rates for one-bedroom units are $5,500-$6,500; and rates for two-bedroom units are $7,500-$8,500. The rates include meals, activities, transportation, and utilities. Costs for medical services vary depending on the service. Nurses are on duty 24/7, and the medical teams work closely with the tenants' primary care physicians. The rates for the proposed facility will be slightly higher because the units will be larger, the quality higher, and the number of amenities greater. The facility will provide services for assisted living and memory care, but the facility will not provide direct medical care to tenants. In response to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated approval of the PC text amendment, use permit,and development agreement will restrict the site's use to senior living only. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's queries, Mr.Alder explained the area in the southwest corner is a turn-around for emergency vehicles. The secondary access driveway will become a recorded easement that is currently an undocumented easement. The applicant plans to use it as egress only during the day and access for emergency services at other times. The Irvine Company owns and maintains this driveway and the apartment complex to the north. Tenants in the memory care facility will have access to all amenities provided they are escorted by staff. Activities specifically for memory care tenants will be provided. The facility will operate with three employee shifts per day. The peak number of employees during a shift is expected to be approximately 25. Associate Planner Nova added that the expected number of employees during a typical shift is 15-35 with 45 employees expected during shift transition. Mr. Eras advised that 02-Natural is the natural travertine stone planned for the first and second floor facades on the south elevation. Mr. Olson added that the stone and smooth plaster finishes will be similar to the finishes on the 888 San Clemente Drive building. Commissioner Koetting requested the applicant prepare and present a materials board with samples for the Planning Commission's public hearing of the project. In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's questions, Mr. Alder reported the applicant reviews competitive analyses and inquiries to determine the number of memory care beds. Associate Planner Nova explained that the senior care facility designation would remain if the applicant proposed only senior residential units. The building height is measured from finished grade at the building entry. Mr. Eras indicated the basement floor will be approximately 12 feet below grade. The surrounding properties are located within the PC, which allows a maximum building height of 65 feet plus 10 feet for appurtenances. The applicant has met numerous times with the entity that owns the buildings surrounding the project site. Overall,the public feedback to the project has been positive. Mr.Alder added that the applicant has an agreement with the Irvine Company regarding modifications to special land use restrictions applicable to the smaller parcel. The applicant has also met with community groups. All renderings, site plans, and height exhibits have been shared with the Irvine Company and community groups. 4 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2019 In answer to Commissioner Lowrey's inquiries, Mr. Alder advised that he is working with the Irvine Company regarding deed restrictions. The applicant now owns the property. Typically, tenants want the second bedroom to store their furniture and furnishings because they have typically moved from a much larger home. The memory care facility will be secured with restricted elevator access, keycard access, and alarms on stairwell doors. In response to Vice Chair Weigand's query, Mr.Alder indicated the Orange County Museum of Art was located on approximately 1.9 acres, and the Irvine Company donated one acre with special land use restrictions. Nancy Skinner remarked that the existing Vivante facility is quite exciting. Seniors often lack social interaction when they can no longer drive or their spouses have passed. Jim Mosher noted the senior residential units count as dwelling units, which raises questions about the Charter Section 423 analysis and Newport Center. He did not believe multi-bed memory care units were common. Commissioner Kleiman recalled that a new Commissioner could be appointed to the Planning Commission prior to the anticipated June hearing, in which case the new Commissioner will not have the benefit of information from the study session or have time to become familiar with the project. In answer to Commissioner Koetting's question,Associate Planner Nova stated the ratio of memory care beds to residential units seems comparable to the existing Vivante facility located in Costa Mesa. Vice Chair Weigand hoped Commissioners and the public will tour the existing Vivante facility. The Planning Commission recessed at approximately 7:06 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:21 p.m. ITEM NO. 4 Ford Road Residential (PA2017-228) Site Location: 4302 Ford Road (APN 458 361 10) (at the southeastern corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection) Summary: The project consists of the construction of 21 residential condominium units on vacant property located southeast of the MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Drive intersection.The proposed development consists of a two-and three-story building over one level of subterranean parking and will include common amenity areas. The applicant, Hines, requests the following applications from the City of Newport Beach: • General Plan Amendment—To change the land use category from PF (Public Facilities)to RM (Multiple-Unit Residential).The proposed amendment also includes 21 additional dwelling units in Statistical Area M6. • Zoning Code Amendment —To change the zoning district from PF (Public Facilities)to RM (Multi-Unit Residential)and to revise the Zoning Map(Newport Beach Municipal Code[NBMC] Chapter 20.14 [Zoning Map]) to include a development limit of 21 dwelling units on the property. • Major Site Development Review — To allow the construction of 21 dwelling units with a tentative tract map and to ensure the site is developed in accordance with applicable zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews). Also requested is an increase in allowable height for a corner tower element that would exceed the maximum height limit. • Tentative Tract Map—To allow the residential dwelling units to be sold separately. • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals, the City has determined that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is warranted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. 5 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2019 Recommended Action: No action on either the project or draft IS/MND can be taken by the Planning Commission at the study session. Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba reported the site is located adjacent to the AT&T switch station and Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Nearby residential neighborhoods include BelcourttOne Ford Road, Big Canyon, Harbor View Hills, and Bonita Canyon. The applicant proposes 21 residential dwelling units containing two to four bedrooms for the site. The gross square footage is 48,000-49,000 square feet, as well as 23,000 square feet of amenity space. All parking spaces will be located in a subterranean parking garage. The Zoning Code requires 53 parking spaces for 21 dwelling units; the applicant proposes 55 parking spaces, 13 of which will be guest parking spaces. Site improvements include landscaping, a pool and other amenities. No residential parking is allowed in the parking lot for Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and that could be a condition of approval. A fire access easement is proposed on the AT&T property to provide emergency access to the site. The project requires a General Plan amendment to change the land use from Public Facilities (PF)to Multiple-Unit Residential (RM); a Zoning Code amendment to change the zoning district from Public Facilities (PF) to Multi-Unit Residential (RM) and to establish a maximum density of 21 dwelling units; a major site development review primarily to ensure compliance with development standards; and a tentative tract map to allow each residential unit to be sold separately as condominium units. The project as proposed does not exceed the Charter Section 423 thresholds. The applicant requests an increase in building height for a tower element on the corner nearest Bonita Canyon Drive. Otherwise,the buildings will comply with the maximum height of 33 feet in an RM zoning district. The City's environmental consultant, Kimley-Horn, has conducted an Initial Study and proposes a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mitigation measures are required for the categories of biological resources, cultural resources, geology, noise, and tribal cultural resources. The IS/MND was released on April 17, and the comment period extends through May 6, 2019. The Planning Commission and Airport Land Use Commission will schedule public hearings for the project with a subsequent City Council public hearing scheduled tentatively for July or August 2019. Ray Lawler, applicant representative, advised that the project is an opportunity to conceal an unattractive utility building. The architecture will complement the architecture of Port Streets with a Nantucket style. The building will have two stories along Bonita Canyon Drive and three stories inward by the switch station. The project will have minimal traffic impacts. Pieter Berger,project architect, indicated the building will be set back 20 feet from the public right-of-way on Bonita Canyon Drive. A pull-out area near the entrance will provide off-street parking for delivery trucks. The building does not have a traditional lobby in order to discourage visitors from parking in the park's parking lot. The building can be accessed from the underground visitor parking through the centralized core. The security gate is located at the bottom of the garage ramp. A pool/spa and pool house are located within the courtyard. The units along Bonita Canyon Drive have been pulled back, and the roofline is lower. An amenity deck is located on the Bonita Canyon Drive side of the building. The project will utilize brown shingle siding to blend with the landscape. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's questions, Scott Peterson of Hines related that AT&T will relocate the monopole currently on the site. Mr. Berger did not believe lighting from the park will impact the project. Delivery trucks will drive into the pull-out area, unload, and back-out on to Ford Road. A walkway leads from the pull-out area into the building. The project does not include a service elevator; however, the two elevators are oversized, and one will likely be designated a service elevator. The courtyard will be screened from the sidewalk with a stone wall. HVAC equipment will be mounted on the roof and hidden behind the pitches. The roof deck will be a small viewing area. The roof pitch acts as a guardrail for the roof deck. Commissioner Koetting requested the applicant provide a detailed drawing of the pull-out area and a material board for the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiries, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported the Ford Road cul-de- sac provides space for vehicles to turn around near the entrance to the project. During the week, Ford Road is lightly traveled. He did not have concerns regarding access to the project. Parking is prohibited on the north side of Ford Road near the project entry. The Fire Department does not have any issues with access to the site. Mr. Peterson advised that the environmental report for the project found no water or soil issues. The sale price will be in the range of$700-$800 per square foot. 6 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2019 Commissioner Kleiman requested the applicant provide more landscaping detail for the public hearing. Commissioner Ellmore requested the applicant provide information about wayfinding signage for the public hearing. In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's queries, Mr. Berger indicated delivery vehicles will park in the pull-out area. A call box will likely be located near the stairs for delivery drivers to contact residents. Depending on the market, the units may be condominiums or apartments. Community Development Director Jurjis added that the applicant will have the right to rent the units. Mr. Berger related that a pedestrian can exit the property along the driveway entrance or through a gate in the courtyard. The lighthouse elements will contain dwelling units and serve as wayfinding components. In response to Commissioner Lowrey's question, City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated the north side of Ford Road is clearly posted as no parking, but he was unsure of parking signage in the park. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's inquiries,Associate Planner Zdeba explained that the project does not exceed any of the thresholds contained in Charter Section 423. There have been no prior amendments in Statistical Area M6. Mr. Lawler reported heavy landscaping will screen the project from the AT&T switch station. In answer to Vice Chair Weigand's query, Mr. Lawler explained that AT&T will relocate the monopole to the other side of the building. Associate Planner Zdeba reported AT&T will need to file an application for a conditional use permit to relocate the monopole. A public hearing before the Planning Commission will be scheduled should AT&T file an application. Removal of the monopole would not require a planning application. He also stated that just prior to the study session, staff received an email citing concerns regarding traffic, parking, additional use of the park, the environmental component, and impacts on the school district. Jerry Schmitt inquired regarding the zoning or future development for the lots located on the opposite side of the switch station from the project. Associate Planner Zdeba advised that the lots are designated open space. Mr. Schmitt encouraged the Planning Commission not to approve the project. The site would be perfect for an expansion of the park. Delivery vehicles backing from the site will be dangerous for pedestrians. Sean Hanna felt the project site would be better used as a park. The vehicle trips for the project are too low. He expressed concern about the impact on children bicycling to school. For a 1-acre parcel, four residential units would be better than 21 units. Jim Mosher assumed the applicant would purchase the property for the project should it receive the requested entitlements. The Planning Commission should understand Pacific Bell's plans for the monopole when considering the application. He did not understand the rationale for designing a pedestrian-unfriendly project when the park is adjacent to the project. He questioned the City's ability to prohibit members of the public from parking in a public parking lot. He inquired whether the windows at the top of the towers were decorative or functional and whether the added height for the towers is needed. Diane Hornby expressed concerns regarding visitors to the project parking in the lot for the park and traffic congestion in the mornings. In answer to Commissioner Koetting's queries, Mr. Peterson explained that the switch station controls cell phone signals. Mr. Lawler advised that an RF study confirmed the switch station does not produce a harmful electronic field. Mr. Lawler indicated the applicant would agree to a condition of approval that limits project residents' vehicle access to the parking lot for the park. The current park is adequate for users' needs. The parcel is owned by AT&T, and expanding the park onto the site is not an option at the current time. 7 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2019 In reply to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis related that the City would have to purchase the property in order to convert the site to a park. A few years ago,the City was exploring the site for a dog park, but AT&T's sale price was cost prohibitive. Commissioner Koetting liked the architecture and the stepping of the stories, but added that wooden shingles deteriorate quickly. He acknowledged the layout as being creative and asserted that underground parking is necessary for the project. Commissioner Kleiman requested the applicant address its construction management plan during the public hearing for the project. Vice Chair Weigand suggested the applicant explore mitigations for traffic impacts and providing a public benefit. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Community Development Director Jurjis reported the City Council will address preservation of beach-style cottages, third-story massing for residential structures, and construction impacts on residential streets in study sessions scheduled for April 23. On May 1, the General Plan Update Steering Committee will review responses to a Request for Proposals (RFP)for a consultant to facilitate the Listen and Learn process. Items are currently scheduled for Planning Commission hearings on May 9 and May 23. In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that a decision regarding the proposal to prohibit Saturday construction has not been made. The Council has introduced and accepted an ordinance to limit the length of construction projects to three years and will consider adoption of the ordinance on April 23. Under the ordinance, a Hearing Officer can grant an extension of 280 days for construction projects,and the City Council will consider any additional extensions. If the Council adopts the ordinance on April 23, the ordinance will be effective at the end of May. Jim Mosher noted the City Council has called the Mesa Drive Townhomes project for review . ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Ellmore advised that he will not be present for the May 9 Planning Commission hearing . IX. ADJOURNMENT—8:23 p.m. The agenda for the April 18, 2019, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, April 12, 2019, at 3:10 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 Friday, April 12, 2019, at 3:09 p.M. Peter Zak, Chairman Lee Lowrey, Secretary 8 of 8 Planning Commission-May 9,2019 Item No.2a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of April 18,2019 From: Jim Mosher To: Plannina Commissioners Subject: Suggested corrections to April 18 PC minutes Date: Wednesday,May 08,2019 5:19:43 PM Attachments: 2019Mav09 PC Aaendaltem 2 Comments 3imMosher odf Please find attached three suggested minor corrections to the April 18, 2019, Planning Commission minutes (Item 2 on the May 9 agenda). I did not notice any typos in Item 1 (the March 21 minutes) -- Jim Mosher Planning Commission-May 9,2019 Item No.2a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of April 18,2019 May 9, 2019, Planning Commission Item 2 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2019 Suggested changes to the draft minutes passages are shown in strikeout underline format. Page 4: end of partial paragraph at top: "The architecture of the building is Italianate with Juliette Juliet balconies, natural stone on the lower levels, and cement plaster on the upper levels." [the reference is to Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet] Page 4: sentence 4 from end: "The surrounding properties are located within the planned district PC 56, which allows a maximum building height of 65 feet plus 10 feet for appurtenances." [see video, 1:16:25—the reference was to a different PC from the one in which the Vivante development is proposed] Page 8: Item 6, paragraph 2, sentence 3: "Under the ordinance, a Hearing Officer can grant-an PXten5ion of"^ daY-s up to two 180 day extensions for construction projects, and the City Council will consider any additional extensions." [see video, 1:51:50]