HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_02-18-2021
1 of 10
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2021
REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Klaustermeier III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Erik Weigand, Vice Chair Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Mark Rosene
ABSENT: Secretary Lauren Kleiman Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Principal Planner Matt Schneider, Assistant Planner Patrick Achis, Administrative Support Specialist
Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell reported Item 4, Benihana Dining Room Expansion, has been removed from the calendar. Staff requests Item 6, Superior Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, be continued to March 4, 2021. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 2021 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Weigand noted Jim Mosher's proposed edits to the minutes.
Motion made by Commissioner Klaustermeier and seconded by Commissioner Koetting to approve the minutes of the January 21, 2021, meeting with Jim Mosher's revisions. AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene, Lowrey, and Weigand NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Kleiman VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE STATUS REPORT Summary: A brief status report on the update of the General Plan Circulation Element Recommendation: Receive and file Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that approximately 20 people attended a workshop on February 10, 2021. A recording and a detailed summary of the workshop are available on newporttogether.com. The traffic engineer and the City's consultant are using the existing Circulation Element to prepare a draft update,
Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2021
2 of 10
and the draft will be presented to the Planning Commission on March 18, 2021, in a study session. It will be presented to community members at a virtual workshop in early April for their feedback.
Commissioner Koetting noted the workshop discussion encompassed Complete Streets, climate change, electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, bikes and electric bikes, the Santa Ana River Trail, construction management plan policies, and truck access to Newport Beach and Corona del Mar. Chair Weigand encouraged staff to work with the Public Information Officer to increase attendance at public meetings. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated Mr. Pope has been posting information to
social media and running ads about the workshops. Chair Weigand announced Item 5 will be heard out of order and before Item No. 3. VIII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 2510 WEST COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT (PA2019-249) Site Location: 2510 & 2530 West Coast Highway Summary: The proposed project will replace an existing marine sales facility with a mixed-use development consisting of 35 residential dwelling units, and an 11,266-square-foot boutique auto showroom. The residential
component will consist of 10 studio units, 16 one-bedroom units and 9 two-bedroom units. Three of the units will be set aside for workforce housing and made affordable to low income households. The commercial component of the project will consist of an 8,741-square-foot auto showroom, with a 1,484-square-foot mezzanine and a 750-square-foot office space.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 under Class 32 (In-fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-001 approving Coastal Development Permit No.CD2019-062, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-054, Site Development Review No. SD2019-003, and County
Tentative Parcel Map No NP2020-013.
Principal Planner Matt Schneider reported the project consists of 35 residential units, three of which are designated as affordable units, and an 11,266-square-foot boutique automobile showroom. The parcel fronts both West Coast
Highway and Avon Street. The General Plan designates the site as Mixed Use Horizontal 1 (MU-H1), and the zoning is Mixed-Use Mariners' Mile (MU-MM). Surrounding uses are childcare, vehicle sales, and retail. The MU-H1 designation requires Coast Highway frontages to be developed for marine-related and highway-oriented general commercial uses and allows portions of properties to the rear of the commercial frontage to be developed for free-
standing, neighborhood-serving retail, multifamily residential units, or mixed-use buildings integrating residential with retail uses on the ground floor. MU-MM zoning allows properties fronting on Coast Highway to be developed for
nonresidential uses only and properties to the rear of the commercial frontage to be developed for freestanding nonresidential uses, multiunit residential dwelling units, or mixed-use structures that integrate residential above the ground floor with nonresidential uses on the ground floor. In the MU-MM Zoning Districts, vehicle sales are allowed with a use permit.
Principal Planner Schneider went on to report that the existing marine sales use was established on the site in 1960
and expanded into the adjacent property at 2530 West Coast Highway in 2001. The site is currently developed with two office buildings, small sheds, and a paved lot for boat and automobile storage. The site has been vacant since
the first of 2021. The applicant proposes a 45,372-square-foot mixed-use project composed of a one-story commercial building and a three-story residential building that provides 58 parking spaces on the ground floor, 18
units on the second floor, and 17 units on the third floor. Two-way driveways provide access from West Coast Highway and Avon Street. The commercial building accommodates an 8,741-square-foot auto showroom, a 750-
square-foot office, a 11,266 square foot mezzanine and a roof deck that connects to the residential building. The
Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2021
3 of 10
residential building features a central courtyard and lobbies on the second and third floors that provide access to the parking level and Avon Street.
Principal Planner Schneider continued and indicated the State Density Bonus Law requires one parking space for each studio and one-bedroom unit and two parking spaces for each two-bedroom unit. The City does not require a specific parking rate for boutique or appointment-only auto showrooms. Therefore, the applicant has requested a parking reduction waiver through the conditional use permit process. The standard vehicle sales parking rate is based on the overall size of the lot. The applicant's parking demand analysis was conducted pre-COVID-19, includes three similar, appointment-only auto showrooms, and established parking rates that equaled 13 required parking
spaces. Principal Planner Schneider further reported that the style of the commercial building is described as California Coastal Modern. The landscape plan reflects landscaping in the central courtyard, palm trees along Coast Highway
and the driveways, and a grass and paver approach as part of the Avon driveway. The project qualifies for a density bonus and is eligible for 26 base units and 9 density bonus units. The applicant requests incentives for the unit mix
and height limit. The project is located in the Coastal Zone but outside the appeals jurisdiction. The Local Coastal Plan designates the project site as MU-H. The project will not impact any existing public accessways. The closest public view point is John Wayne Park. A conditional use permit is required for a vehicle sales use and a parking reduction.
In reply to Commissioner Rosene's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the
Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework provides guidelines and a few development standards. Realistic unit capacity is taken from the Housing Element and is based on development potential. Realistic unit
capacity is not a limit on development. The project exceeds expectations for development on the site. Principal Planner Schneider indicated the project cannot be appealed to the Coastal Commission. The project qualifies for
the State Density Bonus Law and is subject to the residential parking requirements of the State Density Bonus Law rather than the local jurisdiction.
In answer to Commissioner Koetting's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that
a few years ago staff attempted to develop a revitalization plan for Mariners' Mile, but there was not community consensus on moving a plan forward. The 2000 Mariners' Mile framework provides a more generic set of guidelines.
According to the General Plan, the entire area is designated for mixed-use development. The 2006 General Plan designation allows residential development up to 26.7 dwelling units per acre, and the project is taking advantage of
that designation. For the project site, Avon is the inland boundary of Mariners' Mile. From a planning perspective, Mariners' Mile is the commercial frontage down to Dover. A 12-foot strip has been designated for the expansion of
Coast Highway. If the City relinquished the strip through the approved process, it would return to the property owner. Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill summarized the Housing Accountability Act and its effects on the review
of development projects. Principal Planner Schneider explained that the total square footage for the commercial building includes 291 square feet for an egress stairway.
In response to Commissioner Ellmore's inquiries, Principal Planner Schneider indicated parking spaces have not
been designated. The applicant will be required to sign at least 13 spaces exclusively for the auto showroom during business hours. The spaces will be located in the ground-floor parking in the residential building.
In reply to Chair Weigand's queries, Principal Planner Schneider agreed that the view simulation from John Wayne Park does not show the full extent of the project. A large tree blocks a portion of the view. The simulation reflects the greatest impact to water views. Staff selected the view on a field visit and believes the simulation reflects the
project's greatest impact on views. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the simulation provides the worst-case scenario for the project's impact on views. At a higher elevation, the impact is not as great.
The project's impact on views from John Wayne Park depends upon the vantage point. Staff did not believe someone would pause at the top of the stairs to take in the view and, thus, did not use that view point. The photo in the simulation was taken from a standing position; the view would be slightly different from a seated position. The red line that delineates the project reflects the most recent changes to the plans. Principal Planner Schneider related
that standalone housing is not permitted on the project site. The commercial space would need to be occupied by a commercial tenant. Whether or not the five parcels are combined, a commercial use is required on the Coast Highway frontage and a residential use on the Avon frontage. The proposed driveway from Coast Highway is probably similar but not identical to the existing access. Staff received a request for a public meeting and responded
Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2021
4 of 10
that the number of public hearings for a project that is subject to the Housing Accountability Act is limited. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill clarified that the Housing Accountability Act limits the number of meetings to five when a project is consistent with all existing requirements and meetings are conducted by the City. Meetings that address
a larger area and potential General Plan and Zoning Code amendments likely will not be subject to the Housing Accountability Act and its limit of five meetings. Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis indicated staff can schedule a study session regarding Mariners' Mile and land use planning, if the Commission wishes. Commissioner Rosene disclosed a virtual meeting with the applicant. Chair Weigand disclosed communications with the applicant's attorney, residents, and community activists and a meeting with residents and business owners.
Commissioners Klaustermeier and Ellmore and Vice Chair Lowrey disclosed no ex parte communications. Commissioner Koetting disclosed communications with an entity known as Coast Highway Eat LLC, which may or may not be a party to the application.
Chair Weigand opened the public hearing.
Sean Matsler, applicant's counsel, reported 2510 Coast Highway and Coast Highway Eat LLC are owned by Mark Moshayedi. The project is a redevelopment of a former marine sales facility. The commercial component of the project will operate by appointment only, will not offer car repair services, and will not store vehicles on the exterior of the building. Mr. Moshayedi, who is a car collector, will likely use the commercial building for his personal business.
In January 2021, the applicant modified the plans to reduce the height of the building to 35 feet, incorporate a wave design on the western side elevation, reduce the height of vegetation along Coast Highway, and add a green wall
and permeable pavers to the Avon frontage. Revisions made on February 17, 2021 included a 5-foot reduction in the height of the commercial building's front façade and a flattening of the top edge of the commercial building's front
façade roof. The style is an updated version of California Coastal Modern architecture and is similar to that of the nearby Quay Work development. The project consists of three very-low-income units, two of which are studios and
one is a one-bedroom, that will be rent-restricted for 55 years. A single person earning approximately $44,000 annually would qualify for one of the units. Net rent would be $782 per month for a studio unit and $898 per month
for a one-bedroom unit. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Notice of the project was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed
to owners of properties located within 300 feet of the project, posted onsite, and hand-delivered to neighbors located in the notification area. The applicant hosted a Zoom meeting on February 2, 2021, and approximately 70 community
members attended the meeting. The applicant's team responded to questions and comments from the community. Staff selected the view points. The view from John Wayne Park is conservative and is not taken from an area where
people are likely to congregate. People are more likely to congregate in the grassy area, which is a higher vantage point. The project will have less impact on the view from the grassy area. Mr. Matsler responded to information and
questions provided by community members. The applicant has read and concurs with the proposed conditions of approval.
In answer to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Matsler indicated the parking area is not gated. The conditions of
approval may include hours that the roof deck may be open. The applicant is aware that the only allowed use on the site is a boutique auto showroom. There are constraints on constructing underground parking, and the site can
provide a limited number of surface parking spaces. The site could accommodate a few other uses, but not a restaurant or café. The area is popular with boutique auto showrooms. Customers will be seen by appointment
only, and the applicant has agreed to a condition of approval requiring appointments. Dan Delle advised that the roof deck has a synthetic turf area, but it is not intended to be a dog park. There are no onsite areas suitable for dog walking, even though residential tenants may have pets. Kenneth Ong advised that the existing curb cut and access from Coast Highway is centered on the overall width of the property. The entry point will be moved approximately
40 feet east, away from the intersection of Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue, which will increase traffic safety. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine related that the speed limit on Coast Highway is 45 mph in the eastbound direction and
40 mph in the westbound direction. The eastbound direction has two lanes, and the westbound direction has three lanes. Moving the driveway will not affect or increase safety depending on the movement. Staff reviewed auto accidents that occurred in the last five years and within 400 feet of Tustin and found 4 of 35 accidents were related to turning movements into driveways to adjacent properties. Thirty-five accidents in five years on Coast Highway is
not unusual or uncommon. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated the applicant is required to prepare a construction management plan for staff review before the City can issue a building permit. Larger construction vehicles will likely access the site from Avon. The condition of approval can require Planning Commission review of the construction management plan, but staff did not feel Planning Commission review was
Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2021
5 of 10
necessary for this project. Mr. Ong explained that his firm produced view simulations based on photographs, precise site surveys, and field measurements of adjacent buildings. The building information model was engineered to work with proposed grades. The use of an existing photograph for a view simulation requires some interpolation of the
proposed changes to the existing condition. . Mr. Matsler reported the applicant produced a new visual simulation from Cliff Drive Park as requested during the prior Planning Commission meeting. He has not received requests for view simulations from different locations from either staff or the community. The applicant provided numerous location options for view simulations and asked staff to pick one. Mr. Ong indicated a delivery vehicle could park in a designated area adjacent to the drive aisle from Avon. The area is large enough for the vehicle to maneuver and exit the property onto Avon. A striped no-parking area provides space for a vehicle to reverse and exit the property.
Deborah Rosenthal, Coalition to Protect Mariners' Mile attorney, summarized legal concerns regarding safety, traffic, parking, compatibility with view and design standards, and use of the CEQA infill exemption.
David Tanner, Coalition to Protect Mariners' Mile representative, commented on the lack of time to properly review the staff report and attachments, staff's bias, view simulations, and compliance with the General Plan, Municipal
Code, and Local Coastal Program. The project as proposed is out of character with Mariners' Mile and will set a precedent for subsequent development. The project will obscure views of the bluffs and the water. Avon Street is narrow, and the project will degrade safety. Residents of the neighborhood have indicated the number of accidents is greater than 37, and two of them have been serious. Staff should have conducted a traffic study. The project
does not provide 20 percent affordability. A decision on this application is appealable to the Coastal Commission.
Jim Mosher stated the proposed resolution addresses consistency with the Coastal Act in a cursory fashion. The project does not encourage the continuation of coastal-related uses. Notice of the hearing was defective. The
hearing should be rescheduled and noticed properly.
Charles Klobe, Newport Heights Association, asked members of the audience who support Mr. Tanner's comments to stand, and approximately 13 people did so.
Jim Carlson, Coalition to Protect Mariners' Mile, believed a notification radius of 300 feet was not sufficient for this
project. A full traffic study was needed. The applicant has not given staff sufficient information.
Sue Leau advised that Tustin Avenue is narrow such that two vehicles cannot pass one another and is heavily used by walkers, joggers, dog walkers, and children. On-street parking for this project is not available on Tustin Avenue.
Sandra Ayres remarked that residents believe laws and regulations are being ignored. In an application for a different
property, Mr. Moshayedi advised that he intended to store his car collection on that site. The project does not comply with the General Plan. The public wants a master plan for Mariners' Mile to prevent this type of conflict.
An unidentified speaker indicated Caltrans has jurisdiction of the area known as Mariners' Mile.
Lori Trottier inquired about a guarantee that the commercial building will not be converted to a different use. The
conditions of approval do not limit the future use of the commercial building.
Jim Malone encouraged Mr. Moshayedi to be a good neighbor. The project has not been thought through. Variances and waivers for the project should not be granted. Mr. Matsler clarified that the tenant of Mr. Moshayedi's other property on Coast Highway painted the building blue
without permission. The Coastal Land Use Plan policy states that in this area of Mariners' Mile, Coast Highway frontages shall be developed for marine-related and highway-oriented general commercial uses. Contrary to
statements, staff does not favor developers, and developing a commercial project in Newport Beach is difficult. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised of staff's opinion that the Planning Commission may proceed with the hearing. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill explained that staff believes the notice substantially
complied with requirements. She referred to Government Code Sections 11130.3 and 65010(b) and North Pacifica
v. California Coastal Commission. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated that the Coastal Commission recognized the City's need to allow a broad list of uses in the zone. The project fits the permitted uses of the zoning designation. In evaluating the project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local
Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2021
6 of 10
Coastal Program, staff reviewed all applicable policies and found no material discrepancies. Analysis of view protection is subjective. The project will diminish a small portion of the Harbor view but preserves the overall quality of a panoramic view. From Avon, the project does not affect views of the bluff. The project does not meet the
screening criteria for a full traffic study. City Traffic Engineer Brine evaluated the traffic safety issues and determined that the project does not create any undue hazard. Staff believes Coast Highway will be the primary access point for the property. The Class 32 exemption is intended to apply to projects that comply with the General Plan. If the property owner wants to change the commercial use, the applicant will have to provide the required parking for the proposed use. Principal Planner Schneider added that under the Housing Accountability Act, 20-percent affordable housing triggers a different set of criterion findings to deny or condition the project.
In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell did not believe Mr. Tanner's attacks on staff were merited. He disagreed with Mr. Tanner's statement that there was a lack of analysis of the Local Coastal Program. Mr. Tanner's photo showing air conditioning units on the roof is not
accurate. Avon Street is technically a driveway on City-owned land. The applicant has an easement for access to Tustin via Avon. The appeal jurisdiction is measured from the mean high-tide line, which is the bulkhead on the
bayward side of Coast Highway. Based on staff's review of the appeal jurisdiction map, the appeal jurisdiction ends at the front property line. Therefore, the property is not in the appeal jurisdiction. Mr. Ong advised that elevations on the east and west sides will be treated with materials and colors consistent with the elevations facing Coast Highway and Avon. On page 123, the elevations are not in color but they are keyed to a materials board that is in
color. Mr. Matsler clarified that the east and west facades will have the wave design. The materials board provides the colors and materials for the facades.
Chair Weigand closed the public hearing.
In reply to Commissioner Rosene's queries, Principal Planner Schneider indicated the air conditioning units will be
located in the corner of the parking area. Community Development Director Jurjis related that the project will have to comply with current standards for solar. Commissioner Klaustermeier understood the building will have to be solar
ready to comply with 2019 requirements.
In answer to Chair Weigand's questions, Commissioner Klaustermeier stated solar ready means infrastructure will be provided in the building such that solar panels could be added at a future time. Community Development Director
Jurjis added that the property owner would have to apply for a permit to install solar panels. Discretionary review of an application for solar panels is not permitted. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the
Council would have to amend the 300-foot notice radius if they wanted to increase it. City Traffic Engineer Brine reported staff can petition Caltrans for changes to Coast Highway. The 70 percent of traffic accessing Coast Highway
is based on vehicles leaving the project site and accessing Coast Highway to reach their destinations. The project may add about 80 cars to the 2,000 vehicles already using Tustin each day. Any changes to Tustin will require
outreach with the community. Staff can review traffic in the area outside of this project and make operational changes if warranted. Caltrans and staff would work collaboratively on potential changes to Coast Highway. Community
Development Director Jurjis clarified that signal requirements would be considered in a traffic analysis. A traffic analysis was not required for the project.
In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the
current use could be converted to another use that has a similar parking demand. That use might be a boutique boat dealership. Commissioner Klaustermeier noted the City cannot address parking and building height for this project because of
the State Density Bonus Law. The project complies with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Staff and the applicant thoroughly analyzed the CEQA exemption. The applicant has addressed citizens' concerns. Based on the staff
report, she supported approval of the project as drafted. Vice Chair Lowrey could not find any evidence that contradicted staff's findings in support of the project. The project complies with zoning and requirements. Mariners' Mile would benefit from an updated plan for development.
Comments about staff and their work were inappropriate.
Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2021
7 of 10
Commissioner Ellmore noted the Planning Commission makes decisions based on requirements of codes. Public comments about staff were disappointing. The Commission may want to add a condition of approval prohibiting tenants from having dogs or requiring the applicant to provide an area for pets.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the Planning Commission may add a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide a pet area. Chair Weigand reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Matsler reported the applicant agrees to provide an onsite area for pets. Perhaps the condition could require the applicant to prohibit pets if an onsite pet area cannot be accommodated. Chair Weigand closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Koetting concurred with Commissioners' comments. The public's comments and concerns about the
project are not valid arguments for denying the project. Commissioner Rosene reiterated the professionalism and thoroughness of staff. The project complies with code requirements.
Chair Weigand wanted additional view simulations because he believes the project may impact views. He preferred
to continue the hearing so that the applicant could provide additional simulations. He recommended staff schedule a study session regarding Mariners' Mile.
Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to approve the staff
recommendation and to add a condition of approval regarding an onsite pet area or prohibiting pets.
AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene, Lowrey NOES: Weigand
RECUSED: ABSENT: Kleiman
ITEM NO. 4 BENIHANA DINING ROOM EXPANSION (PA2019-258) Site Location: 4250 Birch Street Summary: An expansion of an existing 8,260-square-foot restaurant to include an additional 615-square-foot dining
room. This expansion requests the modification of the required parking rate on site, from one space per 40 square feet of net public area to one space per 50 square feet of net public area. The restaurant proposes
to continue an existing Type 47 (On-Sale General Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License. No late hours or live entertainment are proposed.
Recommended Action:
Removed from calendar Chair Weigand announced the item has been removed from the calendar. ITEM NO. 5 AT&T CAMELBACK TELECOM UPGRADE (PA2020-152) Site Location: 1111 Camelback Street Summary: The Applicant proposes a conditional use permit to modify and upgrade an existing wireless facility with improvements that are over the maximum height limit. The existing wireless facility is unscreened and
located on top of the mini-storage building. Upgraded antennas would be installed at a lower height and relocated behind a new screen wall that exceeds the maximum height limit by 3 feet, 5 inches. The total height of the project is 35 feet, 5 inches, including the building and the top of the new screening.
Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2021
8 of 10
Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15303, Article 19, of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and the exceptions to this exception do not apply; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-004 approving Conditional Use Permit no. UP2020-132 (Attachment No. PC1).
Assistant Planner Patrick Achis reported uses surrounding the site are industrial in nature and include Interior Design School, the U.S. Post Office, and multifamily residences, which are buffered by landscaping and a wide right-of-way. A mini storage facility is located on the site, and the telecom facility is located on the building that fronts Camelback
Street. The applicant proposes to modify and upgrade the existing telecom facility and to exceed the height limit by 3 feet 5 inches. A screen wall will be constructed along the middle third of the rooftop, measure 66 feet in length and
8 feet in height, and match the existing building in color and texture. This type of project is normally subject to an administrative review process, but a conditional use permit is required for the screen wall to exceed the height limit. A coverage study found that the project will increase coverage. Staff proposes an additional condition of approval to require the applicant to provide a materials board for the screen wall prior to plan check approval.
In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated the screen wall
will probably not be made of masonry but may look like masonry.
Commissioner Rosene disclosed a visit to the site. Commissioners Klaustermeier, Koetting, and Ellmore, Vice Chair Lowrey and Chair Weigand disclosed no ex parte communications.
Chair Weigand opened the public hearing.
Stella Shih, of Reliant Land Services on behalf of AT&T (Applicant), related that the screen wall will be made of
fiberglass that matches the color and texture of the existing building. The applicant accepts the proposed conditions of approval and will provide a materials board.
Jim Mosher commented that the General Plan designates the subject site as industrial (IG), but the site is not zoned
industrial because it is located in a Planned Community (PC). He believed there was another telecom facility that resembled a tree near the subject site and inquired whether the subject facility could be collocated on the tree facility.
Assistant Planner Achis indicated the applicant's report stated collocation is not possible because no nearby
opportunities exist and telecom facilities are prohibited in residential zones.
Chair Weigand closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to approve the staff recommendation.
AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene, Lowrey, Weigand NOES: ABSTAINING:
ABSENT: Kleiman
ITEM NO. 6 SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE BRIDGE, PARKING LOT AND RECREATION AREA PROJECT APPEAL (PA2019-014) Site Location: Bridge to span Superior Avenue north of West Coast Highway Intersection – Parking lot and recreation area at northeast corner of intersection and bounded by West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, Hoag Lower Campus and Sunset View Park
Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2021
9 of 10
Summary: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision on December 10, 2020, to approve a coastal development permit and mitigated negative declaration allowing the demolition of the existing surface parking lot and the
construction of a new 128-space surface parking lot, with pedestrian/bicycle concrete bridge over Superior Avenue. The proposed bridge includes a staircase from the bridge down to the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, and open space improvements to upper Sunset View Park. The project would include earthwork, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping improvements. The project includes retaining walls that exceed the 8-foot maximum height permitted by Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan). As such, the project includes a request for relief from this Newport
Beach Municipal Code Title 21 development standard, pursuant to Section 21.52.030. The project complies with all other applicable development standards. Recommended Action: Continue to the March 4, 2021, regular Planning Commission meeting.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell requested a continuance of the item in order to prepare additional information. Chair Weigand opened the public hearing.
Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to continue the hearing to March
4, 2021.
AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene, Lowrey, Weigand NOES:
ABSTAINING: ABSENT: Kleiman
IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None
ITEM NO. 8 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported on February 9, 2021, the Council approved the Residences at 4400 Von Karman project and denied the Shell carwash project. The Council also accepted suggested modifications to the Balboa Village parking management overlay and introduced an ordinance approving the overlay. Four items are on the Commission's agenda for March 4, 2021.
In reply to Commissioner Koetting's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the site with the Japanese restaurant has been sold, and the new owner will implement the senior housing project. ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Klaustermeier indicated she would not be present at the March 4, 2021 meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT – 9:59 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2021
10 of 10
The agenda for the February 18, 2021, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, February 12, 2021, at 4:40 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, February 12, 2021, at 4:42 p.m. _______________________________ Erik Weigand, Chairman _______________________________ Seimone Jurjis, Ex-Officio Secretary
March 4, 2021, 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 FEBRUARY 18, 2021
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes. Corrections are suggested in strikeout
underline format.
Page 2, last sentence: “Two-way driveways provide access from West Coast Highway and
Avon Street. The commercial building accommodates an 8,741-square-foot auto showroom, a
750-square-foot office, a 11,266-square-foot mezzanine and a roof deck that connects to the
residential building.” [add missing hyphens]
Page 3, sentence 2 from end: “Whether or not the five parcels are combined, a commercial use
is required on the Coast Highway frontage and a residential use on the Avon frontage.”
[note: the draft minutes appear to record statements in a sequence different from that in
which they appear in the video, so I was unable to locate this. It may be what was said, but I
don’t think it’s accurate. I believe a residential use is allowed, but not required, on the Avon
frontage. In particular, Table LU1 of the General Plan says “portions of properties to the rear
of the commercial frontage may be developed for free-standing neighborhood-serving retail.”]
Page 4, first full paragraph, last sentence: “Commissioner Koetting disclosed no
communications, but asked who the owners of the applicant entity, with an entity known
as Coast Highway Eat LLC, which may or may not be a party to the application are.” [see
video – it’s a mystery how this straightforward statement turned into the one attributed to the
Commissioner in the draft minutes]
Page 4, starting on line 7 from end: “Moving the driveway will either not affect or increase
safety, depending on the movement. Staff reviewed auto accidents that occurred in the last five
years and within 400 feet of Tustin and found 4 of 35 accidents were related to turning
movements into driveways to adjacent properties.”
Page 5, full paragraph 5: “Charles Klobe, Newport Heights Association, asked members of the
audience who support Mr. Tanner's comments to stand, and approximately 13 people did so.”
[note: the video does not show the full extent of the Community Room, so “at least” would be
more accurate than “approximately.”]
Page 5, full paragraph 7: “Sue Leau Leal advised that Tustin Avenue is narrow such that two
vehicles cannot pass one another and is heavily used by walkers, joggers, dog walkers, and
children.”
Page 5, full paragraph 9: “An unidentified speaker indicated Caltrans has jurisdiction of the area
known as Mariners' Mile.” [note: the unidentified speak was Peggy Palmer. The failure to state
her name was likely unintentional.]
Page 5, full paragraph 11: “Jim Malone Moloney encouraged Mr. Moshayedi to be a good
neighbor.”
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received
Draft Minutes of February 18, 2021
March 4, 2021, PC agenda Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Page 5, last paragraph: “Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised of staff's
opinion that the Planning Commission may proceed with the hearing. Assistant City Attorney
Summerhill explained that staff believes the notice substantially complied with requirements.
She referred to Government Code Sections 11130.3 and 65010(b) and North Pacifica v.
California Coastal Commission.”
[note: I believe the claim of “substantial compliance” is questionable when the hearing notice
completely omitted the entirety of the appeal information required in a CDP hearing notice.
However, staff’s point was that for there to be concern about a defective notice, it not only
has to be defective, but also to prejudice the interests those who were or should have been
noticed. Yet, Gov. Code Sec. 11130.3 is part of the Bagley-Keene Act, which applies to
meetings of state bodies, not to local planning commissions or hearings in general. And Gov.
Code Sec. 65010(b) excuses failures to notice hearings under the state’s Planning and Land
Use statues, not coastal development permits. Of the references cited, only North Pacifica v.
California Coastal Commission appears to apply the “must prejudice” standard to compliance
with Coastal Act regulations. By this standard, it would seem government agencies are free
to completely ignore noticing requirements, leaving it to the public to prove they have been
harmed by that. That does not seem like good policy to me.]
Page 8, first full paragraph: “Assistant Planner Patrick Achis reported uses surrounding the site
are industrial in nature and include Interior Design School an interior design school, the
U.S. Post Office, and multifamily residences, which are buffered by landscaping and a wide
right-of-way.” [note: the name of the school seems to be “Interior Designers Institute”]
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received
Draft Minutes of February 18, 2021