HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_08-19-2021
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 2021 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 Klaustermeier III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Lee Lowrey, Vice Chair Lauren Kleiman, Secretary Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Mark Rosene, Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Associate Planner Liz Westmoreland, Associate Planner Chelsea Crager, Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe, Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez, Department Assistant Amanda Lee IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2021 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Secretary Ellmore to approve the minutes of the July 22, 2021, meeting with suggested edits from a member of the public. AYES: Ellmore, Koetting, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand NOES: ABSTAIN: Klaustermeier and Kleiman ABSENT: Secretary Ellmore recused himself from the following item due to real property conflicts. ITEM NO. 2 AERIE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ENCROACHMENT (PA2021-166) Site Location: 101 Carnation Avenue Summary: The Applicant requests approval to retain non-compliant private improvements consisting of a 42-inch high wrought iron guardrail on top of a 40-inch maximum height retaining wall below the sidewalk elevation that encroaches up to 4 feet 2 inches into the 50-foot wide Carnation Avenue public right-of-way. Recommended Action: 1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because it has no significant effect on the environment; 2. Waive City Council Policy L-6, Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way, to retain existing non-compliant private improvements including a 42-inch high wrought iron guardrail on top of a 40-inch maximum height retaining wall below the sidewalk elevation that encroaches up to 4 feet 2 inches into the 50-foot wide
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021
2 of 9
Carnation Avenue public right-of-way ("Project"), contingent upon all conditions of the Encroachment Permit process being met; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-022 waiving City Council Policy L-6 and approving Encroachment Permit No. N2021-0322.
Jim Mosher remarked that an encroachment permit is needed regardless of Edison's error and offered revisions to the proposed resolution. At Commissioner Koetting's request, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell indicated that the project
is exempt from a coastal development permit because the detached structure is extremely minor and poses no risk of environmental impact to the bluff, view, or public access. In reply to Vice Chair Kleiman's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell was not aware of the
precise reasons for the original location of the transformer, but it was relocated outside the public right-of-way. The wall and fence were constructed to provide required clearances around the transformer. An encroachment permit is required
for the wall and fence to remain in the public right-of-way. The applicant is responsible for the project, and the transformer is needed for the project. The transformer was probably placed in the wrong location, and the project was built around the transformer. This was an unauthorized changed to the approved plans, and the applicant is seeking relief from standards in order to maintain the project as constructed.
Chair Lowrey opened the discussion.
Brion Jeannette, project architect, reported Edison installed the transformer 7-8 inches over the property line, and the
sidewalk was constructed to provide clearances. The original project plans provided a 2:1 slope from the top of the sidewalk to the pad. The transformer encroached into the slope and increased the slope, and staff did not like the
steeper slope. The safety rail, installed to prevent access to the transformer, is the reason for the encroachment application.
In response to Vice Chair Kleiman's inquiry, Mr. Jeannette advised that construction is complete.
In answer to Commissioner Klaustermeier's query, Mr. Jeannette indicated that the railing would have crossed the face
of the transformer in its original location.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lowrey closed the discussion.
Chair Lowrey noted that the guardrail increases the public's safety, the project design is nice, and staff seems satisfied with the project.
Motion made by Chair Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Koetting to approve the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Koetting appreciated the design of the guardrail.
AYES: Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand
NOES: RECUSED: Ellmore ABSENT: VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 CIRCLE HOOK ALCOHOL LICENSE UPGRADE (PA2021-107) Site Location: 3432 Via Oporto Summary: A request to amend and supersede an existing minor use permit that allows a restaurant with a Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine—Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license. Approval of the new minor Use Permit would allow the restaurant to upgrade its ABC license to a Type 47 (On-Sale General—Eating Place).
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021
3 of 9
There are no late hours (after 11 p.m.) and no operational changes or physical alterations proposed as part of this project. Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to 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 none of the exceptions to the Class 1 exemption apply; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-023 approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2021-020, which upon approval
and implementation would supersede Resolution No. ZA2017-090. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported Circle Hook is an existing eating establishment located in Lido Marina Village. The applicant is requesting an upgrade in the establishment's ABC license to serve distilled
spirits. Staff consulted the Police Department regarding alcohol-related issues, and the Police Department did not object to the application. The applicant does not propose any physical or operational changes.
Commissioner Weigand disclosed communications with the applicant and the Police Department regarding the establishment's hours of operation and proposed extending the hours of operation from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m.
Vice Chair Kleiman expressed concerns about the lack of a physical boundary to prevent patrons from supplying alcohol to non-patrons and the possibility of impaired patrons operating vessels.
Commissioners Rosene, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Koetting, and Ellmore and Chair Lowrey disclosed no ex parte
communications.
Chair Lowrey opened the public hearing.
Steve Rawlings, applicant representative, advised that the owners wish to provide distilled spirits in response to patron requests. The owners are excellent operators and are not proposing a bar atmosphere. Local events such as the Boat
Parade are conducive to a later closing time, but the standard closing time will remain 10 p.m.
Thos Carson, the applicant, advised that the application was submitted in response to patrons' requests for mixed drinks and to help the business remain viable in the face of increased costs.
In reply to Commissioner Koetting's query, Mr. Carson advised that the menu includes breakfast items. Mr. Rawlings
added that the owners may offer a weekend brunch in the future.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lowrey closed the public hearing.
In answer to Vice Chair Kleiman's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported a Commissioner proactively contacting an applicant is neither customary nor concerning. Noise complaints are common
for businesses operating after 11 p.m. He was not aware of complaints about Circle Hook. Complaints were made about a cruise operator in Lido Marina Village, but the operation has moved from Lido Marina Village. Commissioner
Weigand clarified that he contacted Police Civilian Inspector Wendy Joe, who expressed no objection to extending the hours of operation, prior to contacting the applicant. He noted he has done this in the past. Secretary Ellmore related that the operator's history is a factor in his consideration of an application for an ABC license
upgrade. This operator has a good track record, and he can support the application and extending the hours of operation to 11 p.m.
Chair Lowrey understood Vice Chair Kleiman's concerns. There was one call for service at the establishment, and it was related to an animal. In light of the pandemic's impact on businesses and the establishment's track record, he supported the application.
Vice Chair Kleiman stated her concern is the collective impact of alcohol service and alcohol-related incidents that occur on the water.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021
4 of 9
Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Chair Lowrey to approve the staff recommendation with an amendment to Condition of Approval 7 to extend the hours of operation to 11 p.m.
Commissioner Koetting expressed concern that the Commission was not provided a revised Police Department recommendation indicating no objection to extending the hours of operation. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the applicant did not request a change in the existing hours of operation, and staff evaluated the application on the applicant's and the Police Department's representations. Over the past few days, staff reviewed alcohol-related incidents on the water and concluded there is not a concern about such incidents. Staff does not object to extending the hours of operation.
Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill advised that the Commission's consideration of extending the hours of operation is consistent with notice for the public hearing.
AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand NOES: Kleiman
ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ITEM NO. 4 RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT CENTER (PA2020-020) Site Location: 150 Newport Center Drive Summary: Development of a four-story, 28-unit condominium project on a 1.3-acre parcel located at the southwesterly
corner of the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive. The application includes: 1) a General Plan Amendment to change the site's land use designation from Regional Commercial Office (CO-
R) to Multiple Residential (RM) with a development limit of 28 units; 2) a Zoning Code Amendment and Planned Community Development Plan to change the site's zoning classification from Office Regional (OR)
to Planned Community (PC) District and establish land uses and development standards for the Project Site; 3) a Site Development Review and Tentative Tract Map application for the development of the four-
story condominium building; 4) a Development Agreement that would provide vested rights to develop the project to the applicant and provide public benefits to the community; and 5) the rescinding of Use Permit
No. UP1461 for the existing car wash currently operating at the site that will be demolished. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-024 recommending the City Council approve the project and Certify Environmental Impact Report No. ER2021-002 (SCH No. 2020110087); Approve Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-001, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2020-008; Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2020-001, Major Site Development Review No.
SD2020-001, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2020-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. 17915), and Development Agreement No. DA2020-001; and Rescind Use Permit No. UP1461.
Associate Planner Liz Westmoreland reported the project is located in Gateway Plaza and across the street from Blocks
200 and 300 of Newport Center and Fashion Island. Three restaurants are located near the project. Staff and the applicant have provided responses to Commissioners' comments from the May 6, 2021, study session. A carwash and convenience store were developed on the site in the 1970s. Underground gasoline storage tanks will be removed under the oversight of the Orange County Health Agency. The project proposes 28 condominium units in the style of flats,
two levels of subterranean parking, four stories at a height of 53 feet, and common and private open spaces including a pool area and private balconies. Flats would range in size from 1,430 square feet to 5,689 square feet with smaller
units on the ground floor and larger units on the top floor as penthouse units. Associate Planner Westmoreland continued indicating the applicant has entered into a voluntary Development Agreement (DA), and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared. The property owner has rights to
utilize the access drive, which is not located on the project site and is owned by Irvine Company. The lobby, common areas, and eight units will be located on the first above-grade floor. An entrance on Anacapa Drive provides access to the lobby and underground parking. Residents mainly enter underground parking from the access drive, and vehicles
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021
5 of 9
exit underground parking onto the access drive. A receiving area designated for large deliveries and moving trucks, a freight elevator, and a space for trash are located in the underground garage. Based on staff's calculations, the height of the main part of the project, at the tallest point, is approximately 53 feet. The height reaches 60 feet at the top of the elevator overrun and mechanical equipment. The applicant proposes to place much of the mechanical equipment in
the underground garage. Associate Planner Westmoreland further indicates that a Charter Section 423 ("Greenlight") analysis concludes that a vote of the electorate is not required. A Draft EIR evaluated four alternatives, was circulated for public review, and identifies no significant and unavoidable impacts. Mitigation measures were identified for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources. A condition of approval requires the applicant to comply
with mitigation measures. Staff responded to six comments from agencies and the public and received no follow-up questions or concerns. Staff has consulted with two tribes to prepare mitigation measures in the event tribal cultural resources are unearthed. Staff received and responded to a confidential comment letter from one of the tribes. The Final EIR has been posted online for public review. A fiscal analysis of the project and the four alternatives concluded
that the project provides the highest net fiscal impact. The Development Agreement provides a $2.5 million payment to the City of Newport Beach, a term of ten years, and use of the funds for the general public, affordable housing,
services for unhoused neighbors, and public safety. In response to Commissioner Koetting's questions, Associate Planner Westmoreland advised that the applicant plans to provide valet service, and the Public Works Department is reviewing those plans. Guests are not required to utilize
valet service. Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis related that expenditure of the general public portion of the DA payment is within the City Council's discretion. Because of the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA), staff is negotiating funding for affordable housing when projects do not contain affordable housing units.
In reply to Chair Lowrey's inquiries, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated Irvine Company is not a signatory on the final Tract Map. The escalator stops when the DA payment is made. Associate Planner Westmoreland added
that staff will review Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) prior to recordation of the Tract Map.
Commissioner Rosene and Vice Chair Kleiman disclosed a meeting with the applicant and the applicant's consultant. Commissioners Klaustermeier, Secretary Ellmore and Chair Lowery disclosed no ex parte communications.
Commissioner Koetting disclosed communications with the applicant's consultant. Commissioner Weigand disclosed a meeting with the applicant and the applicant's consultant and communications with a neighboring business owner.
Chair Lowrey opened the public hearing.
Coralee Newman, applicant representative, advised that the applicant agrees with the terms of the conditions of
approval and the Development Agreement. Project representatives met and resolved all issues with SPON, Harbor View Hills Community Association, Irvine Terrace Community Association, neighboring businesses, and Irvine
Company. The total lot area is 54,959 square feet. Underground parking provides 83 total parking spaces, and each unit will have a garage and storage space.
Jason Adrian, project architect, noted that units are located in two wings, which are connected by a lobby. The style of
the building is California Coastal Contemporary. All units have balconies and large windows. The exterior of the building will be clad in light-colored limestone with a dark accent stone. Lush landscaping is planned for the perimeter of the
site. Amenities include a fitness area, pool, spa, lounge, meeting room with kitchen, and concierge. Mark Schattinger, project landscape architect, indicated that landscape areas are located along sidewalks, private patios, and Anacapa Drive, and in the pool/seating area. The entrance area includes a fountain feature. The seating
area adjacent to the pool will be shaded. The pet area will be fenced, lit, and accessible from the property. The rear of the property and public sidewalks will be well lit with fixtures mounted on the building and directed down to the sidewalk.
Mark Nero, project civil engineer, related that visitors may park outside the lobby, utilize valet service, or park in the garage. A loading zone is also located outside the lobby. The upper level of the garage will provide 17 resident spaces and 10 guest spaces, two of which are ADA spaces. The lower level will provide 40 resident spaces and 10 guest
spaces, two of which are ADA spaces. With Irvine Company's agreement, access to the site will be limited to trucks with a maximum length of 30 feet. Trash bins will be placed outside for trucks to empty without entering the garage.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021
6 of 9
Ms. Newman added that resident garages will include electric vehicle charging stations. Valet service will always be available for visitors' use. The car wash will continue operations until the project obtains building permits. The building height is commensurate with building heights in the area. The project does not fall within the view plane from Harbor View Hills and does not impact views from Harbor View Hills. The project will reduce traffic by 75 percent, water
consumption, and wastewater flows compared to the existing carwash. The DA payment was calculated at $89,000 per unit, $325,000 for affordable housing, $150,000 for homeless services, and $150,000 for public safety. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's questions, Mr. Adrian explained that the stone cladding will be applied in horizontal bands and composed of 3 feet by 6-8 inch tiles with larger tiles toward the bottom of the building. The stones have different textures to create interest and highlight building planes. The flat roof can accommodate solar panels. Mr.
Nero indicated that architectural lighting would wash solid walls. The pet area is not large enough to constitute a dog run but will provide an area for pet relief if owners do not wish to leave the property. Greg Sadick, Construction Consultant with Snyder Langston, advised that staff will be involved in developing a construction management plan that complies with requirements.
Commissioner Koetting remarked that he consulted a local moving company and learned that the proposed access for
moving vans is a perfect solution. In answer to Commissioner Weigand's query, Associate Planner Westmoreland indicated the applicant has submitted a draft construction management plan. Public Works staff reviewed the plan for potential issues. Staff will review a
final version prior to issuance of permits. City Traffic Engineer Brine added that a section of the EIR discusses the construction process.
In reply to Chair Lowrey's query, Ms. Newman reported Irvine Company is pleased with the status of the project, and
work with Irvine Company is progressing.
In response to Commissioner Rosene's inquiries, Ms. Newman explained that building heights at several points were averaged to calculate the reported building height. The adjacent Planned Community calculated building height using
only one point. Associate Planner Westmoreland added that the adjacent Planned Community utilized the highest finished grade on the street to measure building height. Because the project site slopes, staff utilized measurements
from an elevation line to the tops of various features. Mr. Adrian reported the project will be solar-ready. Special glass for potential bird strikes is required for buildings located within a certain distance from the coast, and the building is not
located within that area. Large expanses of glass are not proposed for the building.
Jim Mosher expressed concerns regarding the building height and a Planned Community designation for a single building. A prior amendment to the Planned Community allows 50-foot-tall buildings in Block 100, but existing buildings
are less than 50 feet tall. The Planned Community designation is intended for a mixture of uses located on a parcel of 10 acres or more. Perhaps staff could compare what is allowed on the project site with and without a PC designation.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lowrey closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Koetting described the project as presented in 2014, 2016, and today. The applicant has resolved issues
raised in 2014 and 2016 and proposed high-quality details and materials. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to approve the staff recommendation. Commissioner Weigand appreciated the applicant and consultants meeting with neighbors and resolving their
concerns. No public comments have been submitted for the project as currently proposed.
AYES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand NOES: RECUSED: ABSENT:
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021
7 of 9
ITEM NO. 5 PACIFICA CHRISTIAN GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS (PA2021-068) Site Location: 1499 Monrovia Avenue Summary:
Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code to change the land use designation from Multiple Unit Residential (RM 18 DU/AC) to Private Institution (PI0.49 FAR); and change the zoning district designation from Multiple Unit Residential (RM 2420/3100) to Private Institution (PI0.49 FAR). The amendments were initiated by the property owner who seeks to utilize the existing office building as a private high school, subject to a future use permit. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in
the environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-025 recommending the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2021-002 and Code Amendment No. CA2021-003. Associate Planner Chelsea Crager reported the application before the Commission is an amendment to the General
Plan land use designation and zoning district and it does not include a use permit. The existing use is an office building, which Pacifica Christian is using as office space and renovating. A Private Institution (PI) General Plan
land use designation and zoning district allows for the continued office use and consideration of a use permit in the future. Pacifica Christian High School is currently operating in the West Newport Community Center. Parcels zoned
for residential, public facilities, medical office, commercial, and open space surround the project site. The existing office building was constructed in the 1950s, and the parcel was annexed into the City in 1979 and zoned
manufacturing.
Associate Planner Crager further indicates the 2006 General Plan Update changed the General Plan land use designation to multi-unit residential. A 2008 ordinance established an abatement period for nonconforming,
nonresidential uses located in residential zones. The zoning district for the property was changed to multi-unit residential in the 2010 Zoning Code Update, at which time the existing office building became nonconforming and
subject to abatement. In 2012, a Hearing Officer extended the abatement period to February 1, 2022. Pacifica Christian began operating at 883 West 15th Street in 2014 and began using 1499 Monrovia for offsite parking in
2017. The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.49 allows a future addition of approximately 1,000 square feet. Use of the subject site as a school requires a use permit. A Charter Section 423 analysis concludes that a vote by the electorate is not required. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) prohibits a reduction in residential capacity without a concurrent increase elsewhere. The project will reduce residential capacity by 14 units, which is offset by an increase of 28 units at the Residences at Newport Center. Approval of these two projects concurrently would fulfill SB 330 requirements. In answer to Commissioner Weigand's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the Coastline College site was designated for residential use in the 2006 General Plan Update. Coastline College, as a state agency, is exempt from local zoning requirements and built a facility on the site after 2006. At the
appropriate time, the site designation will be changed to match the existing use. Associate Planner Crager added that use of the roadway through the parking lot for parking for the subject property has been authorized. In reply to Secretary Ellmore's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated action on the Pacifica Christian application is not possible without action on the Residences at Newport Center project in order to maintain consistency with SB 330. Both projects will be presented concurrently to the City Council.
Commissioner Rosene and Vice Chair Kleiman disclosed communication with the applicant's representative. Commissioners Klaustermeier, Koetting, and Ellmore disclosed no ex parte communications. Chair Lowrey disclosed communications with school staff and a school trustee. Commissioner Weigand disclosed a meeting and tour with the
head of school.
Chair Lowrey opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021
8 of 9
Shawna Schaffner, applicant representative, indicated the building contains approximately 17,000 square feet over two stories, and the parcel contains approximately 35,000 square feet. The applicant was prevented from previously applying for a General Plan Amendment due to the provisions of Measure S. A residential use has never been located
on the property, and the property is not designated an opportunity site in the Housing Element. The applicant hand delivered letters to 75 neighbors and received direct communication from 15 neighbors. Additional outreach will be conducted prior to submission of an application for a use permit. In answer to Vice Chair Kleiman's query, Ms. Schaffner related that construction is underway to bring the building up to current code requirements and to improve the building's functionality for a school. If a future use permit application is
approved, student-centered services and learning would be moved to this location. Jim Mosher noted that the application would eliminate a potential housing site when the City is searching for potential housing sites. He questioned whether the potential number of dwelling units on the site was 11 or 14 and whether a PI
designation allows any type of office or an office related to a private institution.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lowrey closed the public hearing. At Vice Chair Kleiman's request, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill reported there is a critical SB 330 issue. Staff believes a CEQA categorical exemption for the project is justifiable and appropriate. The project can move forward.
Motion made by Commissioner Kleiman and seconded by Chair Lowrey to approve the staff recommendation.
In answer to Commissioner Koetting's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that
Ms. Krauss' concerns appear to pertain to the future operation of the school, which is not before the Commission. The concerns will be considered when a use permit application is reviewed should the subject application be
approved.
AYES: Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand NOES: Ellmore
RECUSED: ABSENT:
VIII. 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. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the City Council approved the 2510 West Coast Highway project as revised subsequent to the Planning Commission's review, and an appeal of the decision was filed with the Coastal Commission. On August 13, 2021, the Coastal Commission held a hearing on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, found no substantial issue with the appeal, and approved an amendment to the Sunset Ridge Park component of the project. The agenda for the September 9, 2021, Planning Commission meeting includes a study session on accessory dwelling units, the medical office project on Bristol, and a Development Agreement amendment for Hoag Hospital.
In reply to Commissioner Koetting's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the quotes pertained to his statements regarding a plan for Mariner's Mile. Staff is not working on any type of comprehensive or new plan for Mariner's Mile.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 19, 2021
9 of 9
ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None IX. ADJOURNMENT – 8:34 p.m. The agenda for the August 19, 2021, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, August
13, 2021, at 8:45 a.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,
August 13, 2021, at 11:15 a.m.
_______________________________
Lee Lowrey, Chairman
_______________________________
Curtis Ellmore, Secretary
September 9, 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 AUGUST 19, 2021
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with corrections suggested in strikeout
underline format.
Page 2, paragraph 3, last sentence: “This was an unauthorized changed change to the
approved plans, and the applicant is seeking relief from standards in order to maintain the
project as constructed.”
Page 3, paragraph 4:
“Commissioners Rosene, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Koetting, and Ellmore and Chair Lowrey
disclosed no ex parte communications.”
or
“Commissioners Rosene, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, and Koetting, and Secretary Ellmore, Vice
Chair Kleiman and Chair Lowrey disclosed no ex parte communications.”
[note: Since the PC’s elected officers are also commissioners, either form would seem
correct. Using titles for some but not others is odd.]
Page 4, last paragraph, sentence 2: “The property owner has rights to utilize the access drive,
which is not located on the project site and is owned by the Irvine Company.”
[note: there is some ambiguity even on TIC’s website as to whether their official business
name still includes the word “the” or not (see some text and the footer contradicting the title
line), it is (almost) universally referred to in that way. So omitting the “the” will be perceived
by most readers as an error.]
Page 5, full paragraph 1: “Associate Planner Westmoreland further indicates indicated that a
Charter Section 423 ("Greenlight") analysis concludes that a vote of the electorate is not
required.”
Page 5, full paragraph 3, sentence 1: “In reply to Chair Lowrey's inquiries, Community
Development Director Jurjis indicated the Irvine Company is not a signatory on the final Tract
Map.”
Page 5, full paragraph 6, sentence 2: “Project representatives met and resolved all issues with
SPON, Harbor View Hills Community Association, Irvine Terrace Community Association,
neighboring businesses, and the Irvine Company.”
Page 5, sentence 2 from end: “With the Irvine Company's agreement, access to the site will be
limited to trucks with a maximum length of 30 feet.”
Planning Commission - September 9, 2021 Item No. 1a - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of August 19, 2021
September 9, 2021, PC agenda Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Page 6, paragraph 5: “In reply to Chair Lowrey's query, Ms. Newman reported the Irvine
Company is pleased with the status of the project, and work with the Irvine Company is
progressing.”
Page 6, paragraph 7: “Jim Mosher expressed concerns regarding the building height and a
Planned Community designation for a single building. A prior amendment to the adjacent
Planned Community allows 50-foot-tall buildings in Block 100, but existing buildings are less
than 50 feet tall. The Planned Community designation is intended for a mixture of uses located
on a parcel of 10 acres or more. Perhaps staff could compare what is allowed on the project site
with and without a PC designation.”
[Note: My memory was fuzzy on the night of the hearing. I remember now that I believe staff
is misreading the Municipal Code in claiming this building can be allowed to exceed the
normal city-wide 28-foot height limit for flat-roofed multi-family residential structures if it is
declared to be a “planned community.”
NBMC Subsection 20.30.060.C provides a grandfathering exception for greater heights that
existed in “adopted” planned communities prior to the creation of the height limits in 1972. It
also recognizes planned communities as one of several discretionary mechanisms that can
be used to allow increasing the height limit from the “base” height of 28 feet to a maximum
height of 32 feet.
It does not recognize planned communities, especially new ones, as a mechanism that can
be used to set arbitrary height limits, such as 53 feet (see Ordinances No. 1454 and 1554).]
Page 7, paragraph 5, sentence 2: “Commissioners Klaustermeier, and Koetting, and Secretary
Ellmore disclosed no ex parte communications.”
Page 8, paragraph before vote: “In answer to Commissioner Koetting's question, Deputy
Community Development Director Campbell advised that Ms. Krauss' Kraus' concerns appear
to pertain to the future operation of the school, which is not before the Commission.”
Page 8, last paragraph: “In reply to Commissioner Koetting's question, Deputy Community
Development Director Campbell advised that the quotes attributed to him in various media
pertained to his statements regarding a plan for Mariner's Mile.”
Planning Commission - September 9, 2021 Item No. 1a - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of August 19, 2021