HomeMy WebLinkAbout0.0d - Public Comments - Items 1 and 2 - Jim Moshner - PA2013-118Public Comments
Item No. O.Od
Planning Commission Meeting
09/19/2013
Sept. 19, 2013 Planning Commission Agenda Comments
Comments by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosheravahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-
548- 6229). strikeout underline format is used to suggest changes to the passages quoted in italics
Item No. 1 Minutes of September 5, 2013
1. Page 1:
a. Last paragraph: "Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner
Brown and carried (7 — 0), to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting of August 22, 2013, as corrected; a&471e."
2. Page 2:
a. Line 1 of first motion: "... to adopt Resolution No. (INSERT RESQ N MBE4?) ? ??
..." [note: based on the resolution number identified in the minutes for Item 5 (Woody's
Wharf), the present resolution number is probably 1920, and the resolution for Item 3 (Lido
Villas) — which is also not identified -- was probably No. 1921]
b. Line 5 of amended motion: "... related to the choice of design concepts as eri&aJ
originally proposed including..."
3. Page 3:
i
a. Paragraph 2 from end: "Steve Mills, Dart DART Development, the applicant, thanked
the Commission..."
a. Paragraph 8: "...the project will be subject to all of the Cal Grc° ° ^^^ CALGreen
regulations ...
5. Page 7:
a. Paragraph 4: "Steve Mills, Dart DART Development, wondered if..."
b. Paragraph 9, line 2: "... and suggested stepping the side site slightly..." [ ?]
c. Paragraph 10, line 2: "Discussion followed regarding minimizing restricting
allowable uses to "condominium and recreational "."
d. Page 8, paragraph 3: "Jeremy Jeramey Harding, 61146 T &B Planning, City
Environmental Consultant, stated that ...
6. Page 10:
a. Paragraph 12: "8utside Counsel Deputy City Attorney Kyle Rowan noted that ...
[note: the term "Outside Counsel" may have been used at the hearing, but it gives the
incorrect impression that Kyle is not connected with the City or the applicant]
b. Last paragraph:"... when the Planning Commission originally considered the Use
Permit in November 2012, the it denied patron dancing on the basis that..."
Sept. 19, 2013 Planning Commission agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
7. Page 12:
a. Paragraph 2 under Item 7: "Vice Chair Tucker addressed items for discussion on the
.-,...eral Pla n , al Coastal Preg_am I ,.i,....,.ntation Land Use Element
Amendment Advisory Committee's upcoming agenda." [note: the audio indicates Vice
Chair Tucker was responding to a question from the Chair regarding LIJEAAC, and
addressed the CEQA- required SEIR. GP /LCP is a different committee.]
Item No. 2 216 Crystal Variance (PA2013 -118)
Regarding the draft Resolution of Approval (Attachment PC 1):
Section 1.1: "... and legally described as Lot 9, Block 5 requesting ..." [note: Sometimes
further information is supplied identifying the map on which this is the description. In the present
case, I believe the map being referred to is Balboa Island Section 5.1
2. Section 3:
a. A.5: "The irregularly shaped buildable area and prohibits the ability to create
additional parking without eliminating the habitable area of the first floor unit."
b. B.3: "The existing duplex was permitted in 1951 to provide a 1 -car garage per
unit, per the Zoning Code in affeet effect at that time."
c. C.1: "The unusually large setback area and unusual triangular shape is not
typical of other lots within the block or on Balboa Island and significantly limits the
floor area and buildable area." [note: the City GIS map suggests there are about six
triangular lots on Little Balboa Island and a similar number at the west end of the main
island. If the desire is that these can all be developed to a FAR of 1.0, should the Zoning
Code not be modified to say that ?]
C.3: "The proposed encroachment into the side yard setback, consistent with the
existing structure, is reasonable in this case due to the unusual triangular shape
that limits the buildable area." [I believe this is referring to the encroachment of the
second floor into the alley. It needs, perhaps, to be balanced against the fact that on the
ground floor this structure needs to be set back only 4 feet along the bulk of its alley
frontage (because the alley is regarded as a "side" setback) compared to the 5 feet ( ?)
required for the other lots along the alley.]
e. D.2: "The proposed side yard setback along E. Bay Front Alley of 2 feet 6 inches
is consistent with the existing structure and does not result in a special privilege
because ..."
3. Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A "):
a. Condition 2: "The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval."
[At the August 29, 2013, Zoning Administrator hearing, a resolution for approval omitted
this standard condition, supposedly because the City Attorney had determined it (and
similar statements reminding the applicant of the continuing applicability of state and
other laws, as in Condition 5) to be superfluous, and recommended its removal. Since
later resolutions have included it, again, it is unclear what the City's policy is.]
Sept. 19, 2013 Planning Commission agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
b. Condition 12: "...to City's approval of the 216 Crystal Avenue Variance including,
but not limited to, the Variance No. VA2013 -005 (PA2013- 1181."
c. Condition 15: What does "...and to include sound rating" mean?
d. Condition 17: "The development site is subject to liquefaction zone policy and
flood Zone; therefore, the structure shall comply with liquefaction and FEMA
guideline policy." Does this mean the proposed construction will trigger the need
to raise the foundation? If so, wouldn't the plans be completely different?
Regarding the draft Resolution for Denial (Attachment PC 2):
Section 2: 1 believe a CEQA determination is not required when an application is being
denied (to quote from earlier resolutions of denial: "Pursuant to Section 15270 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency
rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. ")
2. Section 4( ?): The proposed resolution appears to be missing the Decision and signature
sections.