HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_11-21-2019
1 of 8
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2019
REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Rosene
III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Sarah
Klaustermeier, Commissioner Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Mark Rosene
ABSENT: Commissioner Curtis Ellmore
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill,
Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland, Planning Consultant Liane Schuller,
Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative Support Technician Amanda Lee
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Mosher reported during the November 5 City Council meeting, Council Member Brenner suggested a Charter
amendment to include traffic in the Planning Commission's scope of work.
V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None
VI. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2019
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to approve the minutes of the
October 17, 2019, meeting with Mr. Mosher's suggested revisions.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Rosene
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Ellmore
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 NEWPORT AUTO CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW (PA2017-097)
Site Location: 445 East Coast Highway and 1131 Back Bay Drive
Summary:
A one-year review of Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-014, which authorized vehicle sales and service
at the existing Newport Auto Center. Included in the discussion is off-site parking for employees at the
Newport Dunes Resort property located at 1131 Back Bay Drive. The purpose of this review is to
determine compliance with the conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Recommended Action:
1. Receive public comments; and
2. Direct the Applicant to apply for a Limited Term Permit by December 21, 2019, and an amendment
to Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-014 by February 28, 2020.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 21, 2019
2 of 8
Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland reported the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit in
2017 to allow the dealership to continue operations, to authorize off-site employee parking at the Newport Dunes
Resort (“The Dunes”), and to resolve complaints. In 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use
permit to ensure the applicant was complying with all conditions of approval. Historical areas of concern had been
resolved, but minor issues related to trash and storage were discovered.
Assistant Planner Westmoreland stated that in preparing for the current review, staff found the trash and storage
issues have not been resolved and identified an issue with the off-site parking agreement. The Zoning Code
requires an off-site parking agreement to be recorded against the property when the off-site parking is integral to
the use. Newport Auto Center has a lease agreement with The Dunes; however, a permanent agreement has not
been recorded against the property. The County of Orange, the owner of The Dunes property, is not willing to sign
and record an agreement. The Dunes has the authority to lease the property; however, the County is the only
party able to record an agreement. Staff recommends Newport Auto Center to relocate employee parking on the
dealership site or find another property where an agreement can be recorded.
Assistant Planner Westmoreland continued to report that staff recommends the applicant revise the site plan
design and construct a trash enclosure and parts/tire storage area when it amends the Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for employee parking. Staff also discovered inventory vehicles stored at The Dunes. In the past, the
applicant received a limited term permit to store excess inventory vehicles at The Dunes, but the limited term
permit has expired. The Zoning Administrator may authorize a limited term permit for one year and extend the
permit for a second year, at which time the applicant would need to identify a permanent solution. The applicant
has submitted an application for the permit, pending Planning Commission direction. If the applicant cannot reach
an agreement with the County for off-site employee parking at The Dunes, the applicant should return to the
Planning Commission in February 2020 with a plan to allocate parking on-site or an agreement for off-site parking
at another location.
In reply to questions from Secretary Lowrey and Chair Koetting, Assistant Planner Westmoreland advised that the
Zoning Code specifically requires a recorded parking agreement. The Dunes is authorized to lease the property
under its lease agreement with the County, but The Dunes cannot record a document against the property.
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill added that in order to encumber the property, the property owner should
authorize it. Staff can explore the issue further with the County.
In response to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiry, Assistant Planner Westmoreland explained that Condition of Approval
No. 18 required a review one year after the effective date of the resolution, and the review was held in 2018.
In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's query, Assistant Planner Westmoreland indicated the original review was
related to complaints that employees were parking in residential areas and deliveries were occurring in the right-
of-way. At the second review, those issues had been resolved, but the trash and storage issues were discovered.
Commissioner Kleiman noted concern that the applicant has not corrected the trash and storage issues.
Tim Tauber of Newport Auto Center, applicant, reported no complaints about parking and deliveries have been
made in the past two years. He will need time to locate other off-site parking options for employees. Construction
is underway at the dealership and will include the recommended trash and storage enclosures. The construction
should be complete by the spring.
In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. Tauber indicated tents have been erected over the trash area, and
the tires are picked up weekly. He is exploring a better location for the trash enclosure, but there will be a
permanent enclosure once construction is finished. Employees are shuttled between the parking and dealership
sites, and it works well.
Aaron Albertson, Commercial Development Resources, advised that he is Newport Auto Center's consultant with
respect to the CUP amendment and temporary parking. The dealership is planning to construct a new building,
which will house spare parts and tires.
Brian Chapman, Newport Dunes Resort Director of Security, related that the relationship between Newport Dunes
Resort and Newport Auto Center is working well. The employees use the parking area during the day, and Newport
Dunes' events are usually scheduled at night. Newport Auto Center stores some excess inventory on the marina
Planning Commission Minutes
November 21, 2019
3 of 8
side of The Dunes' property, and there have been no issues at that site. The vehicles are driven rather than
delivered to the site.
In reply to Secretary Lowrey's query, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill reported Municipal Code Section
20.40.100.C requires the agreement to be recorded. Staff is not aware of the specifics of The Dunes' interaction
with the County, but staff can look into it.
In answer to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Assistant Planner Westmoreland confirmed the applicant has applied for a
limited term permit and will pay the application fee if the Planning Commission approves the proposal. Staff
proposed a delay in amending the Conditional Use Permit to allow the applicant time to identify a solution to off-
site employee parking.
In response to Mr. Albertson's question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill advised that a variance is not the
appropriate process to address employee parking.
In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's query, Assistant Planner Westmoreland related that the applicant may submit
an application for redevelopment of the dealership in the next six months or so.
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Klaustermeier to direct the applicant to
apply for a limited term permit by December 21, 2019 and to amend the Conditional Use Permit and to direct
staff to schedule a review in six months.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Rosene
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Ellmore
ITEM NO. 3 APPEAL OF SHEEHY RESIDENCE CDP (PA2017-179)
Site Location: 2495 Ocean Boulevard
Summary:
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s July 11, 2019, decision to approve Coastal Development Permit
No. CD2017-076 authorizing the demolition of an existing single-family residence and detached one-car
garage, and the construction of a new 6,630-square-foot, single-family residence with an attached 656-
square-foot, three-car garage. The proposed development also includes accessory elements such as
walls, fences, patios, hardscape, swimming pool, drainage devices and landscaping. The proposed
project complies with all applicable development standards and no deviations are requested. The appeal
was filed by a neighboring resident and property owner.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a de novo public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15303 - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the State CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the
environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-032, overturning the Zoning Administrator’s approval of Coastal
Development Permit No. CD2017-076.
Planning Consultant Liane Schuller reported the project site was developed in 1984 with a variance for the garage
to exceed the height limit. In 2014, the property owners requested a grade determination and subsequently
submitted an application and a design. In July 2019, the Zoning Administrator approved a coastal development
permit. A neighbor appealed the Zoning Administrator's approval.
Planning Consultant Schuller described that the project includes demolition of the existing home and single-car
garage and construction of a new home with a compliant three-car garage. The design complies with all
development standards including the Bluff Overlay standards. In preparing a recommendation to the Zoning
Administrator, staff reviewed coastal hazards, public coastal access, and scenic and visual quality impacts. Staff
Planning Commission Minutes
November 21, 2019
4 of 8
determined that the project complies with the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the goals of alleviating coastal
hazards and allowing public coastal access. The design will open some public views of the Bay. The proposed
home will be massed and situated similar to the existing home. Staff has received written confirmation that the
applicant and appellant have reached an agreement that includes lowering certain rooflines, reducing the chimney
height and using a transparent material for the top 15 inches of the driveway guardrail.
In reply to Chair Koetting's questions, Planning Consultant Schuller reiterated that she received written
confirmation of an agreement from the appellant's representative.
In answer to Commissioner Rosene's query, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo recalled Mr. Mosher's suggestion of
an open design for the driveway gate to enhance the public view from the roadway. That suggestion is not a
component of the proposal.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Chris Brandon, applicant representative, reported the parties have reached an agreement.
In response to Commissioners' inquiries, Mr. Brandon advised that the proposed home will have four bedrooms.
The driveway gate will be located below the level of the curb. Mr. Brandon indicated he would have to consult with
his clients about using a transparent material or an openwork design for the gate.
Mr. Mosher believed the Planning Commission had to require a transparent material or an open design for the
gate in order to enhance the view from a designated viewpoint. The Coastal Commission would likely require
glass that minimizes bird strikes for the proposed home and the guardrail.
Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to adopt Resolution No. PC2019-
032, overturning the Zoning Administrator’s approval of Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076.
Commissioner Rosene requested an amendment to include conditions of approval requiring an open design
for the driveway gate and the architect to explore special glass to minimize bird strikes.
Mr. Brandon explained that an open-work gate would not improve the view as the driveway would be the only
view through a gate with an open design. The Coastal Commission considers special materials for glazing on
railings and other elements of the exterior of the home but not for glazing on the house. He would have to
investigate whether special materials are available for curved glazing.
Commissioner Rosene expressed certainty that an open design for the gate would be beneficial.
Chair Koetting did not believe a solid gate would obstruct the view but would provide privacy.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Klaustermeier, Kleiman
NOES: Rosene
RECUSED:
ABSENT: Ellmore
ITEM NO. 4 COTTAGE PRESERVATION CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-181)
Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
Amendments to the Local Coastal Program (Coastal Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan), Newport
Beach Municipal Code Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), and Title 15 (Building and Construction) to
incentivize the preservation of cottages. Specifically, the amendments would allow larger additions of up
to fifty (50) percent of the existing floor area of a residential development that is nonconforming due to
parking when the project would result in the preservation of the cottage character of the development and
a building envelope representative of traditional development patterns in the City. Eligible projects would
Planning Commission Minutes
November 21, 2019
5 of 8
also receive relief from a building code valuation threshold, which requires building code compliance as
new construction.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378. The
proposed action is also exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it
has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-033 recommending the City Council approve Code Amendment
No. CA2019-006; and
4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-034 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local
Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-004 to the California Coastal Commission.
Principal Planner Jaime Murillo reported the Planning Commission raised a number of concerns and directed
staff to refine the amendments on October 17. In response to community concerns regarding the massing of
new residential development, the City Council directed staff to explore Code amendments that could reduce
the massing of new residential development, particularly for three-story developments. The Council also
directed staff to explore incentives that encourage homeowners to retain the historic look of cottages when
remodeling them.
Principal Planner Murillo described that defining a cottage is difficult because cottages do not have a specific
architectural style and were not built in a specific timeframe. Cottages typically have one story, but some may
have a second-story component above parking at the rear of the lot. Cottages have been characterized as
second homes or beach cottages, but they are now being used as primary residences. Property owners are
redeveloping cottages to include modern amenities and improve livability. Because of high property values,
property owners maximize the height and square footage of development to obtain the maximum return on
investment. Two Code sections contribute to property owners' decisions to demolish cottages. Many cottages
are nonconforming because they do not have the Code-required number of parking spaces or the existing
parking spaces do not meet current size requirements. The Code limits additions to no more than 10 percent
of the existing floor area for nonconforming structures. With the small size of cottages, a 10-percent addition
does not benefit the property owner. A standard in the Building Code states that if the cost of improvements
exceeds 50 percent of the replacement value of the home, excluding the value of the land, the structure must
comply with the current Building Code standards. The cost of retrofitting deters homeowners from improving
cottages.
Principal Planner Murillo stated that staff proposes an incentive program that allows additions of up to 50
percent of the existing floor area for nonconforming structures and provides an exception to the Building Code
limitation. In exchange for the incentives, the remodel or addition would comply with a specific building
envelope, and the homeowner would agree to a deed restriction. The specific building envelope is a one-story
elevation at a maximum height of 16 feet on the front half of the lot and a two-story elevation at a maximum
height of 24 feet on the rear half of the lot. Third floors and third-floor decks would not be allowed. The
incentive program would be voluntary. At some future time, the homeowner could choose to redevelop the
property, and the City would remove the deed restriction and require the homeowner to redevelop the property
consistent with current Code requirements.
Principal Planner Murillo reported that previously, the Planning Commission raised concerns regarding
applicability, parking impacts, the size of additions, and short-term rentals. Staff revised the amendments to
limit incentives to projects of three units or less; to limit additions to 50 percent of floor area up to a maximum
of 500 square feet; and to prohibit the use of cottage projects for short-term lodging. Limiting the incentive
program to single-family projects would render the program ineffective. The specific building envelope
restrictions may further help to limit the size of cottage additions. Staff has received public comments regarding
nonconformance of cottages. With respect to Mr. Mosher's proposed revisions, staff concurs with correcting
the valuation number, striking subjective language, and correcting the typographical errors.
In reply to Commissioners' questions, Principal Planner Murillo explained that the previously suggested cap of
750 square feet on additions was thought to be too high. The case study analyzed additions of 500 square
Planning Commission Minutes
November 21, 2019
6 of 8
feet. Staff consulted with architects, and they generally supported a cap of 500 square feet. The 500-square-
foot limit applies to the total structure. He also clarified that the program would allow second-floor decks.
Chair Koetting suggested a requirement to recess second-floor decks and development of an in-lieu parking
fee program.
Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis advised that the City does not require in-lieu parking fees.
A nexus study would have to be conducted if there is a recommendation for some type of in-lieu fee program.
Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications for Item No. 2. Vice Chair Weigand disclosed ex parte
communications with Chris Brandon and the Vallejos for Item No. 3. The remaining Commissioners disclosed
no ex parte communications for Item No. 3. For Item No. 4, Secretary Lowrey disclosed communications with
residents of Balboa Island, and Vice Chair Weigand disclosed communications with staff. The remaining
Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications for Item No. 4.
Commissioner Kleiman remarked that absent of a complete revision of development standards, the program
will be ineffective. The program is limited to a small number of units and will not address residents' concerns.
Removing a deed restriction from title is extremely difficult.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Julie Luckey noted the difficulties of installing appliances in cottages and supported the incentive program.
Jim Moloney explained that cottages have no attics or basements. Therefore, the garage is used for storage.
With two- and three-story homes adjacent to his cottage, he cannot view a sunrise or sunset. He supported
an addition of 750 square feet. Cottages represent the history of Newport Beach.
Tom Houston supported and appreciated the program.
Lee Pearl, Balboa Island Improvement Association, felt the program would be important to preserving cottages
on Balboa Island. A limit of 750 square feet for additions would be better than 500 square feet. Staff has not
considered filling in breezeways. Balboa Island residents support the program.
Charles Klobe emphasized that few residents opposed the program. He encouraged the Planning Commission
to support the program.
Mr. Mosher noted the requirement for the City to revise the Local Coastal Program (LCP) available to the
public. He inquired whether the program would apply to cottages that do not conform to modern setbacks and
whether a homeowner could utilize the program more than once. The addition could be greater than 500
square feet if the homeowner provides parking. The word “smaller” should be replaced with “single-family.”
Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kleiman advised that she supported the spirit of the program, but the program may not apply
to many cottages. At some point, a cottage owner will want a two-or three-story home to escape the shadow
of surrounding two- and three-story homes.
Vice Chair Weigand felt increasing the cap to 750 square feet and developing an in-lieu fee program warranted
further discussion. Making the preservation of cottages attractive is important.
In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Principal Planner Murillo indicated the City has designated a couple of
properties as historic. A property owner typically initiates the process.
Secretary Lowrey appreciated staff preparing incentives rather than additional regulations. The program
provides the opportunity for owners to improve their cottages and for people to purchase cottages with the idea
of improving them. Commissioner Kleiman made some good points, but the program will benefit some owners.
He could support increasing the limit to 750 square feet.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 21, 2019
7 of 8
Chair Koetting requested staff suggest in-lieu parking fees to the City Council. The variety of existing cottages
is surprising.
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill advised that the recommendations to the Council do not have to include a
finite number for the limit.
Motion made by Secretary Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Klaustermeier to approve staff's
recommendation with revisions to consider increasing the square footage minimums and to include the
changes Principal Planner Murillo proposed.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Klaustermeier, Rosene
NOES: Kleiman
RECUSED:
ABSENT: Ellmore
VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS
ITEM NO. 5 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA)
Summary:
Staff will provide a presentation regarding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process.
The presentation will include the regional determination made by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development and current draft allocation for the City recently identified by the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Principal Planner Murillo reported the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is
tasked with determining regional housing needs. HCD has determined 1.3 million housing units are needed for
the region. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) will develop a methodology to allocate the
regional housing need to each jurisdiction. The City is required to identify sites and to zone the sites for the
potential development of housing units. The planning period is October 2021 to October 2029. In August 2019,
SCAG released three draft methodologies for public review. Under those methodologies, the City would be
responsible for planning for 2,300 to 5,200 units. City staff is participating in SCAG outreach meetings. In October
2019, SCAG released a hybrid methodology, which allocated approximately 2,700 units to Newport Beach. In
November 2019, the regional council changed the methodology to focus housing growth on jurisdictions close to
jobs and transit. That change increased the number of housing units allocated to Newport Beach to approximately
4,800 units. SCAG has submitted the draft methodology to HCD, who will review and comment on the
methodology. SCAG will develop a final methodology, which may be released in February 2020.
Principal Planner Murillo stated that there is an appeal process for jurisdictions to appeal the number of units
allocated to them. The methodology has two components, projected need and existing need. Orange County
received approximately 171,000 units. Irvine's projected need is approximately 22,000 units, 13,000 units for
Huntington Beach, 11,000 units for Costa Mesa, and 390 units for Laguna Beach. The next step is to distribute
the local allocation to different income levels. The allocation for Newport Beach is composed of 1,452 units for
very low income, 928 units for low income, 1,048 for moderate income, and 1,405 units for above moderate
income.
Principal Planner Murillo reported that the City must update its General Plan, specifically the Housing Element.
HCD reviews and approves Housing Elements. The City's updated Housing Element is due in October 2021. The
City will identify sites for potential housing development and develop an inventory of sites. If the City misses the
October 2021 deadline, its cycle will change from eight years to four years. If the City fails to zone adequate sites,
it will have to adopt a program for by-right project approval. If the City fails to adopt a compliant Housing Element,
any unaccommodated need will roll into the next cycle. A court may impose additional requirements. AB 101
allows the State to fine local jurisdictions for noncompliance. The City is seeking community feedback through the
General Plan Update Listen and Learn workshops and the website newporttogether.com.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 21, 2019
8 of 8
In reply to Commissioners' questions, Principal Planner Murillo explained the definition of unit. A housing covenant
or some type of documentation can verify the income level for housing units. While the Coastal Commission
recognizes the need for housing, it continues to be concerned with constructing housing in hazardous areas and
discourages constructing housing in sensitive areas. The City's allocation for the current cycle is five units. Boats
and recreational vehicles are not considered housing units. Manufactured homes are considered housing units.
The City has to zone for the required number of units, not construct them.
Principal Planner Murillo stated that there is a lot of talk about CEQA changes to help accomplish housing, but
nothing has been proposed. Community Development Director Jurjis added that the Mayor has requested staff
prepare an action plan for addressing the RHNA numbers. Staff anticipates every coastal city will appeal their
RHNA allocation. The community has focused housing on Banning Ranch, Newport Center, and the airport area.
The applicant is redesigning the Koll Center project. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill explained that Huntington
Beach did not have a Housing Element.
Mr. Mosher suggested the City could annex the 400 acres of John Wayne Airport and place housing on the site.
He questioned whether the City could deny an application to build housing in an area the City zoned to fulfill the
RHNA allocation. The income requirement may affect the number of accessory dwelling units (ADU) the City can
count toward the RHNA allocation.
IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 6 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 four items have been placed on the agenda for the December 5,
2019, meeting. The December 19, 2019, meeting will be canceled. Staff will schedule a study session to discuss
ADU laws. Staff will prepare and present updates to the City's ADU ordinance.
Chair Koetting reported he attended the scoping meeting for the Newport Village Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). He encouraged Commissioners to attend upcoming scoping meetings.
ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
None
X. ADJOURNMENT – 8:42 p.m.
The agenda for the November 21, 2019, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday,
November 15, 2019, at 3:15 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,
November 15, 2019, at 3:30 p.m.
_______________________________
Peter Koetting, Chairman
_______________________________
Lee Lowrey, Secretary
January 23, 2019, Planning Commission Item 1 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 1. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 2019
Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in strikeout underline format.
Page 3, recommended action: “Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-032, overturning the Zoning
Administrator’s approval of and approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076.”
Note: the recommended action has been incorrectly copied from the Nov. 21 agenda. The
garbled version indicates the PC denied the project by overturning an early approval, but
does not suggest it approved anything new.
Page 4, motion: “Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to
adopt Resolution No. PC2019-032, overturning the Zoning Administrator’s approval of and
approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076.”
Note: per the video at 43:30, the motion appears to have been read as corrected. Why it
appears in a different form in the draft minutes is a mystery. Curiously, though, Resolution
No. PC2019-032 contains nothing I can find saying it is overturning the Zoning
Administrator's earlier approval of a CDP with the same number.
Page 6, paragraph 6 from end: “Mr. Mosher noted the requirement for the City to revise make
revisions to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) available to the public.”
Planning Commission - January 23, 2020
Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received
Draft Minutes of November 21, 2019