Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_12-07-2017IV V VI. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017 REGULAR MEETING — 6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER —The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chair Koetting ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Erik Weigand, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Kleiman, Commissioner Kory Kramer, Commissioner Lee Lowrey ABSENT: Vice Chair Peter Zak Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager, Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Ben Zdeba, Administrative Support Specialist Brittany Ramirez PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher, 2210 Private Road, suggested the Planning Commission adopt a single email address to receive public correspondence. Perhaps Director Jurjis' presentation to the Building and Fire Board of Appeals regarding pending development projects can be made available to the public. Updating and improving the Case Log and Planning Activities on the City's website would benefit the public and the Commission. Director Jurjis reported staff will investigate a single email address for public communications. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Director Campbell announced the Taco Bell Cantina applicant, Item 3, has requested a continuance to February 8, 2018. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to continue Item 3, Taco Bell Cantina, to the first Planning Commission meeting in February 2018. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Kramer, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2017 Recommended Action: Approve and file Commissioner Dunlap corrected Newport Heights to Cliff Haven in Ms. Palmer's public comments on page 1. In Item 7, his comments should end with "... properties in Cliff Haven." Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to approve the draft minutes of the November 9, 2017 meeting, as amended by Mr. Mosher and Commissioner Dunlap. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Kramer, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak 1 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/7/2017 Director Jurjis recommended the Commission consider Item 5 first, and Commissioners concurred. VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 MALIBU FARM LIDO (PA2017-190) Site Location: 3416 Via Oporto, Suite 106 and 3420 Via Oporto, Suite 101 Summary: A minor use permit to allow a 2,795 -square -foot eating and drinking establishment with a Type 47 (On Sale General) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License. The establishment will include 1,130 square feet of interior net public area, an 866 -square -foot outdoor dining area, and a 624 -square -foot take out only ice cream shop. The restaurant would be located in an existing building in Lido Marina Village and no late hours past 11 p.m. are proposed as a part of this application. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2072 approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2017-026. Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager reported the tenant space is located on Via Oporto in an area designated as mixed-use water related. The applicant requests approval to operate a 2,795 -square -foot restaurant with a Type 47 ABC license, which allows service of beer, wine, and liquor for onsite consumption. The restaurant will contain 1,130 square feet of net public area and 65 interior seats. The outdoor patio will contain 866 square feet and 43 seats. The take -out -only ice cream shop will contain 624 square feet. Proposed hours of operation are Monday through Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Friday through Sunday 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The applicant has not proposed any late hours. Staff presents this application for a minor use permit to the Commission because of the location in the RD -15 zone and the full alcohol service. With no late hours proposed in the application, the Police Department does not oppose the application. Condition Number 12 contains a typographical error in the stated time of 11:00 p.m. The previous tenant was George's Camelot, and it had a Type 49 ABC license, which is beer and wine only. Staff recommends approval of the application. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's request, Assistant Planner Crager advised that a new parking management plan for Lido Marina Village was approved and subsequently appealed. At this time, the appeal has not been heard. Regardless of the outcome of the appeal, the restaurant is sufficiently parked. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Assistant Planner Crager explained that the gross square footage of the restaurant is 2,795 square feet. The architect's letter refers to 3,037 square feet, which includes the take- out ice cream shop. The ice cream shop has no seats; therefore, it is not included in the restaurant square footage. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. John Stockwell, owner, shared the history of the restaurant and its locations. Service is oriented to daytime patrons. The restaurant offers an organic cocktail program and cooking classes. Jim Mosher remarked that the resolution states the nearest recreational location is the beach, approximately a half mile away from the subject site. Apparently, Newport Harbor is not considered a recreational amenity. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines and to adopt 2of9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/7/2017 Resolution No. 2072 approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2017-026 with correction of the typographical error in Condition Number 12. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Kramer, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak ITEM NO. 3 TACO BELL CANTINA (PA2017-198) Site Location: 2121 West Balboa Boulevard Summary: A conditional use permit to allow an existing restaurant (food service, eating and drinking establishment) with late hours (7 a.m to 2 a.m), and a Type 41 (On Sale Beer and Wine) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license. Currently a legal nonconforming restaurant use with a Type 40 (On Sale Beer Only) is allowed to operate with no limitation of business hours. Tenant improvements for Taco Bell Cantina are currently in progress with an anticipated opening date in mid-December. The floor plan includes a dining room with 32 seats. If approved, the restaurant as described requires the owner/operator to obtain an Operator License from the Police Department pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 5.25. because a new conditional use permit including alcohol sales is requested that would allow operations after 11 p.m.. Recommended Action: 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. 2073 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-028. Chair Koetting noted this item was continued. ITEM NO. 4 MAMA D'S RESTAURANT CORONA DEL MAR (PA2017-162) Site Location: 3732 E. Coast Highway Summary: A conditional use permit to allow a new restaurant (food service, eating and drinking establishment) in the former Sweet Lady Jane's Bakery tenant space. The Conditional Use Permit is required to allow additional seating, the sale and service of alcohol with a Type 41 (On -Sale Beer and Wine — Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license, and an adjustment to the parking requirement. No late hours beyond 11 p.m. are requested as part of this application. If approved, this Conditional Use Permit would supersede Minor Use Permit No. UP2012-024. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2074 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-022. Associate Planner Ben Zdeba reported the subject property is located in a commercial corridor that includes restaurants, personal services, retail, and residential. The General Plan and Zoning Code encourage uses such as outdoor dining areas and restaurants to foster pedestrian activity. The existing building was constructed in the 1940s, which predates parking requirements. Associate Planner Zdeba discussed the previous tenants of the space. The proposed restaurant will be largely a dinner time operation, as proposed. The applicant proposed hours of operation of Sunday through Thursday 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday of 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Condition of Approval Number 5 will allow the restaurant to remain open until 11:00 p.m., daily, without needing an amendment to the permit, should the business owner wish to expand the hours of operation. Removal of the display cases will allow the customer area to expand. The Zoning Code allows 25 percent of the interior net 3of9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/7/2017 public area to be an outdoor dining area without requiring additional parking. At 150 square feet, the outdoor dining area complies with this requirement. A Type 41 license allows service of beer and wine and requires the sale of food during the entire operation. The existing tenant space is afforded an eight parking space credit. The proposed use with expanded net public area requires 15 parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant requests a waiver of seven parking spaces. The property owner has entered into lease agreements with two banks for 15 offsite spaces, but does not propose approval of an offsite parking agreement because the property owners of the bank locations do not wish to have an agreement recorded against the property title. As part of the waiver, the applicant is proposing a parking management plan wherein employees will park offsite and remaining parking will be free for patrons. Staff recommends approval of the application. In reply to Chair Koetting's queries, Associate Planner Zdeba indicated a change in ownership of the offsite parking lots will void the parking agreements. In that case, the applicant will have to notify the Planning Division and locate substitute parking. The applicant or operator will enforce parking for customers and employees only. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Lisa Siegel, property owner, reported signage for Mama D's parking will be placed on the side of the building. The adjacent bank's policies restrict where signage can be placed and would not allow parking designation signs. Scott Laidlaw, architect, advised that the restaurant has regular customers who would know where parking is available for customers. In answer to Commissioner Weigand's query, Keith Davidson, business owner, stated lunch service on Saturdays and Sundays is a possibility. Commissioner Weigand supported allowing hours of operation to serve lunch on weekends and holidays if banks are closed. Jim Mosher referred to a statement on page 4 of the staff report regarding the previous Zoning Administrator's decision. According to the minutes, the Zoning Administrator reasoned that a bakery was not a more intense use than other uses that could have occupied the space. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kleiman suggested the Commission should review parking requirements for the area. The parking management plan needs penalties or fines for failure to comply with it. There needs to be clear parking signage. Commissioner Weigand felt the proposed location will attract neighborhood patrons who travel by foot, bicycle, or rideshare. Commissioner Kleiman could not support additional hours of operation as the parking in one lot is not available on Saturdays. In response to Commissioner Weigand, Associate Planner Zdeba suggested a condition of "subject to securing a lease for parking acceptable to the Community Development Director, the restaurant may be open beginning at 11:00 a.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays for lunch service." Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines and to adopt Resolution No. 2074 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-022 with the condition of approval suggested by staff. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Kramer, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak 4of9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/7/2017 Chair Koetting suggested staff consider a policy for deviating from parking requirements. Commissioner Kramer stated the free market will regulate parking. Commissioner Kleiman indicated the Business Improvement District hoped to lessen parking restrictions as a means to incentivize businesses to locate in the area. ITEM NO. 5 GINSBERG RESIDENCE (PA2016-170) Site Location: 2607 Ocean Boulevard Continued from November 9, 2017 Summary: A Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a new 4,500 -square -foot, single-family residence and a 684 -square -foot, three -car garage and a Variance request to allow the residence to: 1) exceed the maximum floor area; 2) encroach into the 10 -foot rear yard setback along Way Lane, 3) encroach into the 10 -foot front yard setback along Ocean Boulevard; 4) exceed the height limit for an elevator shaft and portions of the roof deck guardrail; and 5) provide open volume within the required setback areas. The new residence building height will not exceed Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb elevation height limit. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing, and if the applicant's proposed changes to the project address Commission concerns and the Commission is able to make all of the required findings; 2. Find the 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 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2075 approving Variance No. VA2016-005 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-080, allowing the development of a new 4,178 -square -foot, single- family residence and a 629 -square -foot three -car garage, for a total of 4,807 square feet to encroach 10 feet into the 10 -foot rear yard setback along Way Lane and 7 feet into the 10 - foot front yard setback along Ocean Boulevard. Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung reported the property is located at 2607 Ocean Boulevard in the China Cove neighborhood. At the November 9 meeting, Commissioners expressed concern about the overall size, bulk, mass, and height of the proposed residence and continued the item to allow the applicant to consider reducing the size, bulk, and mass to promote compatibility with nearby residences; eliminating the request for a height variance for the elevator; installing story poles; and adding language to the construction management plan regarding construction parking in public areas. The applicant has submitted revised plans. Revisions include reducing the size of the residence to 4,807 square feet, which decreases the floor area ratio (FAR) to 1.13; moving all open volume area outside the required setbacks; reducing the bulk and mass of the residence by moving glass elements and the building footprint inward; and limiting the elevator to the third floor only. The applicant installed story poles, which will be removed the following day; notified all property owners within 300 feet of thesubject property; and included more stringent construction parking in the construction management plan, which is included in Condition Number 28. Staff has received public comments and provided them to the Commission. In response to Chair Koetting's questions regarding FAR, Associate Planner Ung referred to the last attachment in the additional materials packet, which provides a detailed analysis of all properties in China Cove. The FAR for the subject residence is 0.67, as built. The applicant is proposing to double the FAR. She then explained the calculation of FAR. Commissioner Dunlap clarified that the proposed residence would comply with the FAR requirement if the Commission granted the requested variances. Associate Planner Ung noted the applicant requested two variances, one for setbacks and one for buildable area. The Planning Commission has to consider the variance for setbacks before the variance for buildable area. At Chair Koetting's request, Associate Planner Ung explained the calculation of open volume area. The proposed project now complies with the open volume requirement. With respect to ex parte communications, Commissioner Kleiman met with the applicant's consultants the prior week. Chair Koetting met with the applicant's contractor. Commissioner Weigand talked with the applicant and members of the public. 5of9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/7/2017 John Ramirez, applicant, presented revisions to the applicant's proposal since the November meeting. The construction management plan now prohibits construction parking on any street in China Cove at any time. During the off-peak season, construction workers will be allowed to park in the Big Corona lot. The request for a height variance has been eliminated through removal of the elevator stop on the roof deck. The proposed project now complies with height requirements. Story poles have been installed as suggested. In reply to Commissioner Kramer's inquiry, Mr. Ramirez advised that the privacy screen cannot be completely eliminated because a portion of it serves as a pool barrier required by the Building Code. In answer to Commissioner Dunlap's query, Mark Teale, architect, stated the screen is 6 1/2 feet in height from the main part of the deck. At a secondary location, the privacy screen is 3 -feet -10 -inches, in height, and serves as a guard rail. Commissioner Dunlap noted the screen wall inhibits the views to the shoreline of China Cove and suggested the applicant could lower the height and still comply with the Code. Commissioner Kramer remarked that lowering the height could facilitate approval even though the area is not designated as a public view corridor. In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. Ramirez advised that the gate across the walkway will be relocated below the curb line of Ocean Boulevard to secure private entry to the home. The applicant installed the gate in response to a letter from Code Enforcement staff. The public sidewalk does not run along the subject property on the water side of Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Teale indicated the screen is made of metal and has an open design. Commissioner Kramer preferred glass over metal for the screen. Mr. Ramirez reviewed changes made to each floor of the proposed residence. On the first floor, the mechanical bay was moved from the roof into the garage. The inset at the stairwell/elevator was reduced by 1 foot, and support columns were beefed up. On the second floor, the large space was converted into an outdoor patio. The deck was removed; the back corner was straightened; and the deck was widened to include a second bay. On the third floor, the deck size was increased; one support column was removed; and the central section was pulled back. On the roof deck, one screen was removed; another screen was reduced in size; the overhead cover was removed; the hipped roof was added; and the elevator shaft removed. In addition, the applicant removed 57% of the screen's length and decreased the height by 18 inches. The applicant mailed notices regarding story poles to neighbors and held a meeting for neighbors on November 30. The applicant is requesting 65 percent of the floor area that would be allowed on a similarly sized, flat lot. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's request, Mr. Ramirez advised that a home constructed without variances and to complywith Codes would have a greater height and visibility impact, would have fewer architectural details, and would have a higher construction cost in a smaller footprint. Commissioner Kleiman added that if the project complied with the Building Code, the Commission could not suggest changes. Mr. Ramirez reiterated the decreased square footage of the home. Neighbors are focusing on bulk and mass. A rectangle house that complies with Code requirements would contain 74,400 cubic feet of space. On the subject site, a home that complies with Code requirements would contain 66,000 cubic feet. The proposed project has less impact on height than if it complies with the Code. Darren Ginsberg, property owner, remarked that the request is reasonable. Complying with the Code would result in a house he did not want to own or live in. The proposed home will not block views of the ocean. In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Mr. Ramirez indicated approximately 13 people attended the November 30 meeting. In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's question, Director Jurjis explained that the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Implementation Plan does not contain a variance process. As Director, he can interpret the LCP and has the right to enforce the Implementation Plan. To allow due process, the City's Zoning Code provides a variance process. The City has submitted an amendment containing language for a variance process to the Coastal Commission. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. John Cummings, Ocean Boulevard, opposed the rooftop swimming pool because use of it would disturb the neighborhood. 6of9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/7/2017 Martha Peyton, Femleaf Avenue, calculated a reduction of 7 percent of bulk with the revisions. The Commission is giving away buildable area. Ron Thommarson, 4 Hutson Center Drive, Santa Ana, noted the potential for environmental effects from constructing on the hillside and questioned whether the CEQA exemption applies to this project and whether the City has the ability to issue a coastal development permit (CDP). The pool will create noise and light pollution. The proposed project will impede public views and is out of character for the neighborhood. Linda Beek, 2616 Way Lane, supported the latest project. It will hold the hillside in place Jim Mosher commented that the findings for a CDP demonstrate inconsistency with the Local Coastal Plan rather than consistency. The proposed construction is not consistent with the coastal view protection policies of the LCP. Allan Beek felt the size of the project should conform to the largest existing home in the neighborhood plus 3 percent. Beth Kiley, Jasmine Creek, remarked that a project of 4,500 square feet and without the pool and screen would probably face less apposition. Dorothy Kraus, SPON, opposed the project because it is out of character with neighborhoods and will intrude into public views. Susan Skinner objected to using the increased buildable area as justification for constructing a house larger than could be constructed on a standard -size lot. Granting a variance that would allow the applicant to build a house larger than 4,200-4,400 square feet is granting the applicant a special privilege. Karen Carlson, 2616 Cove Street, believed the project will block the views for people walking the China Cove ramp. Youth congregate on the hill above the site and will attempt to throw objects into the pool. Joy Brenner spoke about residents' perception of elected officials and their appointees. The Commission should follow the letter and spirit of the law in considering this project and all projects. Margaret Quinlan, Heliotrope, opposed the Commission granting a variance for the project. Nancy Skinner, Westcliff, agreed with comments regarding blocking the views and removing the rooftop pool and screen. Tom Nicholson, applicant, reported the proposed house is not larger than other properties at 4,200 square feet, and the scale, as revised, is appropriate. Constructing a basement would cause an excessive amount of excavation and shoring and be disruptive to China Cove neighbors. The roof deck is the only outdoor living area for the residence. Mr. Ramirez concurred with Mr. Mosher's comment at the prior meeting regarding granting a variance for one property cannot justify granting a variance for another property. Granting a variance for this property will not set a precedent for granting a variance for another property. The number of properties disproportionately affected by setbacks is 14 out of 625; only the subject property is located on a slope. The property is unique and has unique challenges. The applicant has addressed the Commission's comments and worked with neighbors. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dunlap noted the Dawson residence had an outdoor pool. The applicant is requesting an FAR of 1.13. Of the 46 homes in China Cove, six other homes have a greater FAR. The applicant has provided better architecture with the revisions. He could support the project if the screen wall is changed to obstruct less of the view and if the size of the homes is reduced a little more. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's request, Assistant City Attorney Torres explained that there are no findings within the LCP for a variance, but the LCP allows the Director to interpret the LCP. The City has submitted an amendment to insert that language into the LCP. One section in the LCP contemplates discretionary approval of 7of9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/7/2017 a variance. The Director has interpreted the LCP to apply variance procedures contained in the Zoning Code. The same findings contained in the Zoning Code are proposed for the LCP. Mr. Thommarson incorrectly thought the City did not have the LCP in place and no ability to issue a CDP. Staff and he reviewed Mr. Thommarson's letter and determined the CEQA exemption is appropriate. In answer to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiries, Assistant City Attorney Torres stated the property is not located in tidelands. If it were, the Coastal Commission would have permitting authority. There are areas within the City where an appeal is made to the Coastal Commission, but this property is not located in one of those areas. Commissioner Kramer commented that the applicant made progress in design. He could make the findings, but he remained troubled by the pool deck screen. The applicant should work with staff to lower the height and change the material to a translucent one. Commissioner Weigand felt the public does not trust the process of staff review and suggested additional revisions be brought to the Commission. Chair Koetting could not support the setback variance. A further reduction in square footage would be good In response to Commissioner Kleiman's query, Deputy Director Campbell advised that the walkway is mostly located in the public right-of-way. Part of the walkway is located on the subject property. Motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Kramer to find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303, Article 19, of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 and to adopt Resolution No. 2075 approving Variance No. VA2016-005 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-080 with additional conditions that the square footage be reduced to 4,500 square feet and that the screen wall be reduced in height to 42 inches maximum and be constructed with a translucent material such that views to the Bay are not obstructed. AYES: Koetting, Dunlap, Kleiman, Kramer NOES: Weigand, Lowrey ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak Chair Koetting requested staff return to the Commission with plan revisions that comply with the Commission's direction. Director Jurjis recommended Commissioners view plans in the Planning Department. VIII. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO. 6 REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL, "L" SERIES POLICIES Site Location: Citywide Summary: Establish and appoint members to a Planning Commission subcommittee to assist City staff in reviewing the City Council "L" Policies (Public Works/Traffic/Utilities). Changes proposed to the policies will be presented as recommendations to the City Council at a yet to be determined date. Recommended Action: 1. Determine that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; 2. Form a subcommittee and authorize the Chair to appoint up to three Planning Commissioners to assist City staff in reviewing the City Council L -Policies "Public W orks/Traffic/Utilities." Director Jurjis reported the City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to review the City Council L Policies. Staff suggests the Planning Commission form a subcommittee of, at most, three Commissioners to work with staff and other departments to review the L Policies. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/7/2017 Motion made by Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Kramer to form a subcommittee comprised of Commissioners Lowrey, Kleiman, and Dunlap to review City Council L Policies. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on City Council Items 2. Status of the General Plan Update Process Community Development Director Jurjis reported the City Council heard an item regarding the General Plan Update and directed staff to develop a slower -paced plan for updating the General Plan. Staff believes more community engagement and education are needed and is crafting a new plan to present to the City Council. The City Council chose not to form any committees at the current time. He thanked Commissioners for their service and patience during staff transitions. Director Jurjis recommended cancellation of the December 21 and January 4 meetings. The January 18 agenda is full. The December 11 City Council meeting will include a ceremony for the outgoing and incoming Mayors. ITEM NO.9 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Chair Koetting announced Vice Chair Zak will host the planning staff holiday event on December 20, 4:30-6:00 p.m., at Newport Beach Country Club. ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None. X. ADJOURNMENT — 9:30 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, December 1, 2017, at 3:50 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, December 1, 2017, at 3:58 p.m. Peter Koetting, Chairman Erik Weigand, Secretary 9of9 January 18, 2018, Planning Commission Item 1 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in strikenut underline format. Page 2, line 1: "Director Jurjis recommended the Commission consider Item 5 first, and Commissioners concurred." [As seems to be the practice, the minutes proceed as if the items were heard in the order originally planned — that is Item 2, 3, 4 and after those, 5. Shouldn't the minutes report the meeting as it actually happened (that is, with Item 5 first, before 2), rather than as it may have been planned?] Page 5, next to last sentence of paragraph 3 from end: "The applicant installed story poles, which will be removed the following day; notified all property owners within 300 feet of •;esubjeet the subject property; and included more stringent construction parking in the construction management plan, which is included in Condition Number 28." [note: the condition being referred to here appears as Condition 29 in the final resolution due to the insertion of a condition about the screen wall.] Page 7, last sentence of paragraph 2 from end: "He could support the project if the screen wall is changed to obstruct less of the view and if the size of the homes home is reduced a little more." Page 8, paragraph 2, last sentence: "There are areas within the City where an appeal is made to -the Coastal Commission has original permit jurisdiction, but this property is not located in one of those areas." [In this rather confusing exchange at around 2:03:00 in the video, Commissioner Dunlap asked if the PC's decision could be appealed to the Coastal Commission, which it could, but Assistant City Attorney Torres' answer is to the unasked question of whether the subject property was in an area of original jurisdiction.] Page 8, paragraph 3, last sentence: "The applicant should work with staff to lower the height and change the material to a translucent one." [According to the video, the expression "translucent so you can see through" was used here and in the motion to refer to the pool deck screen wall, although the intended word was undoubtedly "transparent" (one can generally see only light, not images, through a "translucent" material). The Resolution of Approval refers simply (in Condition 6) to "clear material."] Page 8, paragraph 5: "Chair Koetting could not support the setback variance." [Since three paragraphs later Chair Koetting is listed as voting "aye" to approve/support the variances, the minutes may wish to make more clear he said he could not support the variances unless the building size was reduced.] Page 9, Item 8, last sentence: "The December 44 12 City Council meeting will include a ceremony for the outgoing and incoming Mayors." [The date was stated correctly in the video, but seems to have been somehow garbled in the transcription.]