HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_04-23-2020
1 of 9
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2020
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 – Chair Koetting
III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Curtis
Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner
Mark Rosene
ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim
Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe, Principal Planner
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Benjamin Zdeba, Associate Planner David Lee, Administrative Support Specialist
Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative Support Technician Amanda Lee
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None
VI. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 2020
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to approve the minutes of the
March 5, 2020, meeting with the revisions suggested by Mr. Mosher.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, and Rosene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
VII. STUDY SESSION
ITEM NO. 2 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2014-225)
Site Location: Northerly portion of the Campus Tract, generally bounded by Birch Street,
Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard and the extension of Corinthian Way
Summary:
The proposed Newport Airport Village Planned Community would cover approximately 16.46 acres of land
generally located northwest of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street near John Wayne Airport.
Future development will include up to 444 residential units (including some affordable housing units) and up to
297,000 square feet of commercial and office development that will replace existing non-residential uses over time.
The specific applications include: 1) General Plan Amendment to re-designate 16.46 acres of the northerly portion
of the Campus Tract from Airport Office and Supporting Uses (AO) to Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU-H2); 2) Zoning
Code Amendment to change the zoning district of the project site from Office Airport (OA) to Planned Community
Planning Commission Minutes
April 23, 2020
2 of 9
(PC) including the approval of a Planned Community Development Plan (a zoning regulatory plan); and 3) a
Development Agreement that would provide vested rights to develop the planned community while providing
negotiated public benefits.
Recommended Action: No action on either the project or EIR addendum.
Secretary Lowrey recused himself from the item as he has a business relationship with the applicant.
Principal Planner Gregg Ramirez reported the site contains approximately 16.5 acres and is located in the Campus
Tract. The General Plan and zoning currently allow a 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) or approximately 358,000 square
feet. The area has an eclectic mix of uses such as retail, restaurant, office, and vehicle rental facilities. Notably,
John Wayne Airport is an adjacent land use. The applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment to change
the land use designation from Airport Office (AO) to Mixed Use Horizontal (MU-H2). The MU-H2 designation is
unique to the Airport area. The applicant proposes to convert 61,000 square feet of the total commercial floor area
to 329 dwelling units. The applicant proposes to rezone the property to Planned Community (PC) and will request
approval of a Development Agreement, which is being negotiated with the City. Under density bonus laws, an
applicant can receive a maximum 35 percent density bonus, up to 115 in this case. The applicant proposes to
construct affordable housing and is seeking the density bonus. Future development on the site will have to comply
with development standards contained in the PC Development Plan (PCDP). The General Plan, which was
updated in 2006, includes approval of 2,200 dwelling units in the Airport area. The Koll project has applied for 550
of the dwelling units, and the Uptown Newport project has also applied for some of the dwelling units. Regarding
the 1,650 replacement units, the property owner or developer is allowed to convert underlying allowed land uses
on a trip neutral basis. Density bonus units are not included in the Amendment and are allowed to exceed general
limits by State law.
The Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) contains two major standards
regarding development location. The City's General Plan and Zoning Code discourage residential uses in areas
with a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) greater than 65 decibels (dB). Different types of development
are allowed in safety zones surrounding JWA, but the AELUP discourages residential development in safety
zones. This project proposes residential development in compliance with the AELUP and City standards. The
Airport Land Use Commission will review the proposal and, if it finds the project is not consistent with the AELUP,
there is a process through which the City Council may review and override the Airport Land Use Commission's
determination. The applicant has not proposed a specific development for the site, just the legislative amendments.
The City's General Plan calls for residential developments in the Airport area to provide a park. Due to constraints
on the site, the applicant requests a waiver of the policy and proposes to pay an in-lieu park fee. Because the
project does not exceed development studied in the 2006 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and in the 2014 Land Use Element Supplemental EIR, staff does not anticipate any new
environmental impacts and is preparing an addendum to the two EIRs.
In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Principal Planner Ramirez explained that General Plan Amendments and
ordinances are legislative and require City Council approval. Staff is investigating the requirement for a residential
development in the Airport area to provide parkland and believes the park must contain either an acre or a half
acre.
Commissioners Rosene and Klaustermeier disclosed they had conversations with the applicant and/or the
applicant's consultant. The remaining Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications.
Patrick Strader, applicant representative, related his work with the City to allow residential development in the
Airport area through the 2006 General Plan Update and the 2014 Land Use Element Update. The applicant
proposes a Development Agreement that would guarantee the applicant's right to apply for a residential
development on the site. Development of the site is driven by the noise contours of JWA and the General Plan
requirement for such a project to be located on a minimum 10-acre site. The project proposes residential and
commercial uses. The project's intensity of use matches the intensity contained in the 2014 Land Use Element
Update. The applicant proposes affordable housing in an attempt to meet the needs of the City. The applicant also
proposes to pay a park in-lieu fee because residents probably would not enjoy a community park located in the
noise contour line. A PCDP will create custom zoning for the site. The project includes 329 multifamily base
residential units, 115 density bonus units, and 297,572 square feet of commercial and office uses. The applicant
Planning Commission Minutes
April 23, 2020
3 of 9
anticipates seeking a future discretionary Site Development Review for building construction. The applicant
proposes no less than 5 percent of residential base units will be designated for very low income households, no
less than 10 percent of residential base units will be designated for low income households, or no less than 10
percent of residential base units will be designated for moderate income households in exchange for a density
bonus that corresponds to the level of affordability. Architectural design considerations include consistent and high-
quality materials, articulation and modulation of mass, abundant landscaping, integration of residential and
nonresidential uses, and orientation of nonresidential buildings around public spaces. He noted two parcels within
the site that are not part of the project. The applicant has filed notices of the project with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and is awaiting a second determination.
In reply to Commissioner Klaustermeier's query, Mr. Strader indicated the applicant has not held any discussions
with the Airport Land Use Commission. In many cases, the Airport Land Use Commission finds multifamily and
residential projects located in the Airport area inconsistent with the AELUP. In many cases, city governments
override the determinations. Sean Matsler, applicant representative, added that JWA's questions about the project
will likely be answered once it and the Airport Land Use Commission review the proposed PC text.
In answer to Vice Chair Weigand's questions, Mr. Matsler indicated the PC text would allow the location of certain
accessory residential or nonresidential amenity space within the 65 CNEL. Principal Planner Ramirez advised that
the residential units, if approved, would be counted towards the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
for the upcoming cycle.
In response to Commissioner Ellmore's inquiries, Mr. Matsler reported a person named Pham owns the parcel
located in the center of the project site but not included in the project. The property owner originally agreed to be
included in the project but has elected to withdraw from the project.
In reply to Commissioner Rosene's question, Principal Planner Ramirez reported staff is working with the applicant
to ensure zoning in the PCDP is right.
In answer to Chair Koetting's queries, Mr. Strader explained that the amount of proposed retail space is based on
needs for resident-serving retail and the amount of existing retail uses in the area and onsite. The developer will
determine the phasing, if any, of construction. Generally, residential uses are constructed prior to nonresidential
uses. Mr. Matsler clarified that the site plan is conceptual, and the submitted project may not be exactly as shown
in the site plan.
Jim Mosher inquired about the legislative requests returning to the Planning Commission in two meetings, the
amount of existing development, and the effect of the 65 CNEL line's movement on the proposed project. A waiver
of the park requirement may not be appropriate given the existing half-acre park will probably be too small for the
number of residents.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 3 THE CRAB COOKER SIGNAGE AND ENCROACHMENTS (PA2019-126)
Site Location: 2200 Newport Boulevard
Summary:
A request to establish a comprehensive sign program for the reconstructed The Crab Cooker restaurant
building. The applicant proposes to replace most of the signage that was existing prior to demolition. This
proposal requires approval of a modification permit to allow an increase in maximum cumulative sign area over
what is allowed by the Zoning Code. The previously existing rooftop “Don’t Look Up Here” fish-shaped sign is
proposed to be refurbished, reinstalled and designated as a heritage sign pursuant to the Zoning Code.
Also included in the request is a waiver of City Council Policy L-6 to install private improvements within the
Newport Boulevard and 22nd Street public rights-of-way consisting of the replacement of previously existing
benches and refurbishment of an existing freestanding clock. All other proposed encroachments are consistent
with Policy L-6.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 23, 2020
4 of 9
Recommended Actions:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15303
and 15311 (Class 3 [New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures] and Class 11 [Accessory
Structures]) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the
environment. The exceptions to the use of these categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15300.2 are
not applicable
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-011 approving Comprehensive Sign Program No. CS2019-006,
Modification Permit No. MD2020-003 and designating a heritage sign;
4. Waive City Council Policy L-6, Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way to allow the reconstruction of
benches and refurbishment of an existing freestanding clock that encroaches into the Newport
Boulevard and 22nd Street public rights-of-way subject to the conditions of the Encroachment Permit
process being satisfied; and
5. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-012 waiving City Council Policy L-6 and approving Encroachment
Permit No. N2019-0361.
Senior Planner Ben Zdeba reported The Crab Cooker is located in the McFadden Square area. The restaurant
has operated for more than 50 years with minimal aesthetic changes. The applicant proposes to install refinished
and new signage, refurbish an existing freestanding clock, and replace benches that were part of the restaurant
prior to its demolition. The applicant seeks approval of a comprehensive sign program, a modification permit, a
heritage sign designation, and a waiver of Council Policy L-6 for the items that would encroach within the public
right-of-way. Typically, a sign program and modification permit would be presented to the Zoning Administrator.
Because the heritage sign designation and Council policy waiver must be approved by the Planning Commission,
all four items are before the Planning Commission.
Senior Planner Zdeba further reported the proposed sign program and modification permit will recreate the
characteristic theme of the restaurant, memorialize all signage, and maintain the restaurant's iconic character. The
proposed signage will not be incompatible with the surroundings. Strict application of Zoning Code allowances for
signage would limit the re-establishment of the restaurant's branding. The applicant seeks a heritage designation
for the fish-shaped "Don't Look Up Here" roof sign. The criteria for a heritage sign is historic significance and visual
significance. The Code defines “historic significance” as being erected at least 35 years earlier. The sign was
established more than 35 years ago based upon old photographs, is unique, and characterizes the restaurant and
seafood market. With a heritage designation, the sign cannot be altered except for routine repair and maintenance.
The applicant requests an encroachment permit and waiver of City Council Policy L-6 to refurbish and reinstall a
free-standing clock located in the Newport Boulevard sidewalk and replacement of benches within the right-of-
way. The Public Works Department has reviewed and supports approval of the requested waiver of City Council
Policy L-6 and an encroachment permit.
Vice Chair Weigand suggested staff monitor restaurant projects for opportunities to serve patrons in a protected
manner, such as allowing a takeout window.
In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Senior Planner Zdeba advised that news racks had been removed from
the sidewalk since at least May 2016 or earlier. A separate encroachment permit would be needed to return them
to the location. As previously approved, the trash enclosure is located within the building footprint.
Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Marice DePasquale, applicant representative, advised that the applicant concurs with the staff report, findings, and
conditions of approval.
Jim Wasko, business owner, thanked staff for their work, counsel, and guidance over the past five years.
In reply to Chair Koetting's question, Mr. Wasko advised that the restaurant's menu and recipes will be the same.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 23, 2020
5 of 9
Jim Mosher inquired about the deviation of the sign on the rear of the building, the ability of the business owner to
alter the text of the proposed heritage sign, and the location of bicycle parking.
Charles Klobe supported The Crab Cooker restaurant and Mr. Mosher's written comments.
Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
At Vice Chair Weigand's request, Senior Planner Zdeba summarized Mr. Mosher's written comments.
Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to approve the staff
recommendation.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, and Rosene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ITEM NO. 4 501 PARK AVENUE RESTAURANT (PA2019-238)
Site Location: 501 Park Avenue
Summary:
An amendment to an existing conditional use permit to upgrade the current ABC license from a Type 41 (On-Sale
Beer and Wine-Eating Place) to a Type 47 (On-Sale General) for an existing restaurant and to extend the hours
of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. The applicant also requests a
continuation of a previously approved off-street parking reduction. If approved, this Conditional Use Permit would
supersede Use Permit No. UP2014-009.
Recommended Actions:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301
under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential to have a significant
effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-009 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-053.
Associate Planner David Lee reported the applicant seeks to upgrade its Type 41 Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC) license to a Type 47, to change the hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and
to continue the previously approved parking waiver. The restaurant was established in 1961. The property is zoned
mixed use, and apartments are located above the restaurant. Nearby uses include mixed, residential, Balboa
Island Park, and the ferry. The existing restaurant offers a dining area, a wine bar, a coffee bar, a takeout area,
and outdoor dining. The property provides three off-street parking spaces for the restaurant and a nonconforming
garage parking space for the residential units. The applicant does not proposed any physical alterations to the
building but does propose to reduce the number of seats from 95 to 86. The parking requirement for the site is 27
spaces, and in 2014 the Planning Commission approved a waiver of 23 spaces and due to a mathematical error,
it should have been 24 spaces. Because there has been no increase in floor area or number of seats, and the
apparent lack of detrimental conditions with the existing operation, staff recommends the Planning Commission
approve the continuation of the previously approved parking waiver including the additional space (24 total). The
restaurant is located in a residential neighborhood and seeks to serve local residents. The Police Department has
no objection to an upgrade of the ABC license or change in operating hours. Associate Planner Lee requested the
Planning Commission add conditions of approval regarding maintenance of the existing parking lot and employee
parking, if the Commission chooses to approve the project.
Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 23, 2020
6 of 9
Dan Miller, business owner, advised that the business is operating successfully. The change in license and hours
of operation will better serve the community.
In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. Miller indicated the garage is too small for a car and is used for
storage. Beer and wine are served to tables. The bar area has five seats. With Daylight Savings Time, customers
are dining later in the evening, and the extended hours of operation will enhance diners' experience.
In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiries, Mr. Miller related that diners are requesting hard liquor as part of a
complete dining experience. The restaurant can be more competitive with the addition of hard liquor sales. He
estimated food sales exceed alcohol sales. The reduction in seats resulted from an accurate count of seating
rather than a modification of seating. The license upgrade will benefit the restaurant and the community. Neighbors
have not complained to him about noise or expressed concerns about a 10 p.m. closure. Customers and neighbors
who have spoken with him are supportive of the changes. In his eight years on Balboa Island running the Village
Inn, he has shown integrity in meeting obligations.
Jim Mosher noted the garage does not serve as parking for the residential units and questioned the number of
waived parking spaces and the location of parking for the residential units.
Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
Chair Koetting remarked regarding the history of missteps at the site and hoped no future variances would be
needed.
In answer to Vice Chair Weigand's query, Associate Planner Lee advised that he has not received any complaints
about Village Inn.
Commissioner Kleiman expressed a general concern about alcohol licenses and recognized the current economic
difficulties facing restaurants. The restaurant likely needs a license upgrade to compete with other restaurants on
Balboa Island. She expressed concern regarding noise from bar and outdoor dining customers. Residences
surround and are in close proximity to the restaurant. She proposed approval of the staff recommendation with the
exception of extended hours of operation.
At Chair Koetting's request, Mr. Miller indicated he has read and agrees to the conditions of approval including the
two staff proposed during the presentation.
Associate Planner Lee informed the Planning Commission that, when reviewing the project, staff was not aware
of the garage being used for storage rather than parking. Approval of the parking waiver would require the applicant
to return the garage use to parking as it was not part of the parking waiver analysis or request.
In response to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Associate Planner Lee advised that the nonconforming garage measures
16 feet, 10 inches deep and approximately 11 feet wide. Based on the plans and the proposal, the garage could
be used for parking of a small vehicle. The plans reflect three onsite parking spaces and one garage parking space.
A condition of approval requiring use of the garage for parking can be added to the resolution.
Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis reported Peter Paley provided written comments late in the day
and requested staff read the comments during the meeting. Mr. Paley's comments have been provided to
Commissioners.
The applicant indicated his acceptance of the additional condition of approval for the garage.
Motion made by Secretary Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to approve the staff
recommendation with the three conditions of approval presented during the meeting.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, and Rosene
NOES: Kleiman
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Planning Commission Minutes
April 23, 2020
7 of 9
ITEM NO. 5 iL FARRO CAFFE TRATTORIA USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (PA2019-162)
Site Location: 111 21st Place
Summary:
A request to amend the currently effective Use Permit in order to change operational restrictions for an existing
restaurant. The applicant specifically requests the following: (1) to change the allowed hours of operation to 6
a.m. to 1:30 a.m. daily with alcohol service not beginning until 11 a.m.; (2) to allow a happy hour prior to 9 p.m.;
(3) to allow the sale of alcohol for off-site consumption on a limited basis with a Type 21 Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC) License; and (4) to allow limited live entertainment. If approved, this Conditional Use Permit
would supersede Use Permit No. UP3690 and Outdoor Dining Permit No. OD0032. Also, if approved, the
operator is required to obtain an operator license from the Police Department pursuant to Newport Beach
Municipal Code (NBMC) Chapter 5.25.
Recommended Actions:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301
under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-010 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-050.
Senior Planner Zdeba reported the project site is located in the heart of McFadden Square in a mixed-use zoning
district. The Land Use Element designates McFadden Square as an entertainment hub, which should have a
mixture of restaurants and entertainment-related uses. The site has historically been a restaurant. In 1998, the
Planning Director approved an outdoor dining permit for the site, and in 2001 the Planning Commission approved
a use permit for a Type 47 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license. Improvements to the restaurant have been
primarily repair and maintenance with a few cosmetic upgrades that did not require a permit. Hours of operation
for the indoor and outdoor dining areas are 11 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. daily from September to April and 11 a.m. to
1:30 a.m. daily from May to August. The project site provides no onsite parking, which is typical in the area, and
shares public parking with other area businesses. Currently, live entertainment, dancing, and a happy hour are not
permitted at the restaurant. The applicant proposes to change the hours of operation to 6 a.m. to 1:30 a.m., daily,
year-round; not to sell alcohol before 11 a.m.; to offer a happy hour before 9 p.m. and live entertainment with
amplified sound, which would cease by 11 p.m.; and to add a Type 21 ABC license alcohol sales for off-site
consumption. In consultation with the Police Department, staff recommends approval of the applicant's proposals
with the exception of amplified sound, i.e., live entertainment would be limited to acoustic sets within the restaurant.
Senior Planner Zdeba reported that facts supporting staff's recommendation include the restaurant operation has
not been detrimental to the area; expanded hours will benefit patrons and visitors; the use is compatible with
adjacent land uses; conditions of approval minimize potential impacts; and an operator license is required.
Condition of Approval No. 21 addresses off-sale of alcohol as incidental to the restaurant use and not a liquor or
convenience store. Condition of Approval No. 45 limits live entertainment to acoustic sets. The Police Department
has no objection to the project if live entertainment is restricted to acoustic sets. Senior Planner Zdeba clarified
that in the resolution, "not" should be deleted from Condition of Approval No. 15, and Condition of Approval No.
24 should be deleted as a duplicate of Condition of Approval No. 19.
Vice Chair Weigand noted a business with a Type 47 ABC license is required to obtain a Type 21 ABC license.
Senior Planner Zdeba added that Condition of Approval No. 21 can be modified to limit the sale of alcohol to wine
and to indicate alcohol sales shall remain incidental to the restaurant operation. Vice Chair Weigand indicated he
could approve off-sale of beer and wine.
Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 23, 2020
8 of 9
Domenico Maurici, business owner, advised that customers repeatedly ask to purchase wine with takeout meals
and by the bottle and to include live entertainment in private parties. Live entertainment will most likely be a DJ or
one-man band. Seasonal hours are confusing for customers.
In response to Vice Chair Weigand's questions, Mr. Maurici indicated a DJ or one-man band is sufficient live
entertainment. Senior Planner Zdeba explained that the primary concern about amplified music is a house DJ
entertaining at the facility. The business owner may apply for a special events permit, which would allow live
entertainment with amplified sound for a private party as a temporary exception to the restriction.
Mr. Maurici agreed to the proposed conditions of approval and the changes proposed during the meeting.
In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiries, Mr. Maurici related that there is a takeout window, but alcohol will
not be sold through the window. Senior Planner Zdeba clarified that Condition of Approval No. 21 is more specific
than Condition of Approval No. 42 regarding alcohol sales. Conditions of Approval Nos. 45 and 46 could be
temporarily modified with a special events permit. Condition of Approval No. 48 is intended to preclude patrons in
the outdoor dining area from handing alcoholic beverages to passersby. Enforcement of some of the conditions of
approval recommended by the Police Department can be challenging, but the conditions of approval can be useful
if there are complaints about an establishment.
Charles Klobe believed the applicant should be allowed to offer live entertainment with amplified sound as an
adjacent business has a permit for the same.
Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Weigand wanted to modify the conditions of approval to allow the applicant to offer some type of live
entertainment.
Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to approve the staff
recommendation with amendments to Conditions of Approval Nos. 15 (delete "not"), 21 (limit alcohol sales to
beer and wine), and 24 (delete in its entirety).
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, and Rosene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None
ITEM NO. 7 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 Manager will propose budget cuts for FY 2019-20 and
2020-21 at the April 28 Council meeting. On April 14, the City Council approved a professional services agreement
with Kimley-Horn regarding the Housing Element Update, and work has begun. The Council also formed a Housing
Element Update Advisory Committee, and its first meeting could occur in May.
Chair Koetting congratulated Commissioner Ellmore on the recent birth of his son.
ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES - None
X. ADJOURNMENT – 9:12 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 23, 2020
9 of 9
The agenda for the April 23, 2020, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, April 17, 2020,
at 3:00 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 17, 2020, at 2:45
p.m.
_______________________________
Peter Koetting, Chairman
_______________________________
Lee Lowrey, Secretary
May 7, 2020, 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 APRIL 23, 2020
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes. Corrections are suggested in strikeout
underline format.
Page 1: Item III, Members Present: Since the minutes say the meeting took place at 100 Civic
Center Drive, this section should reflect at only Chair Koetting was physically present at
the stated location. The remaining members were present at various locations via video
conferencing technology. Without such an annotation, this would not be at all obvious.
Page 2: middle of first long paragraph: “Under density bonus laws, an applicant can receive a
maximum 35 percent density bonus, up to 115 units in this case.”
Page 2: last sentence of same: “Density bonus units are not included in the Amendment and
are allowed to exceed general plan limits by State law.”
Page 4: paragraph 8 from end, next to last sentence: “The applicant requests an encroachment
permit and waiver of City Council Policy L-6 to refurbish and reinstall a free-standing clock
located in the Newport Boulevard sidewalk and replacement of benches within the 22nd Street
right-of-way.”
Page 4: paragraph 6 from end: “In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Senior Planner Zdeba
advised that news racks had been removed from the sidewalk since at least May 2016 or
earlier. A separate encroachment permit would be needed to return them to the location.”
[comment: The installation of news racks appears to actually require not an encroachment
permit (that is, a PROW Permit issued pursuant to NBMC Chapter 13.20, but a newsrack permit
issued to NBMC Sec. 5.70.020.]
Page 5: paragraph 3 from end, line 7: “The applicant does not proposed propose any physical
alterations to the building but does propose to reduce the number of seats from 95 to 86.”
Page 6: paragraph 8, sentence 3: “She expressed concern regarding noise from the bar and
outdoor dining customers.”
Page 7: paragraph 5 from end, line 3 from end: “...; and to add a Type 21 ABC license for
alcohol sales for off-site consumption.”
Page 7: paragraph 4 from end, last line: “…, and Condition of Approval No. 24 should be
deleted as a duplicate of Condition of Approval No. 19”
Planning Commission - May 7, 2020
Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received
Minutes of April 23, 2020