HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2018 - Planning CommissionIV.
V.
V1.
VII.
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS —100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2018
REGULAR MEETING — 4:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Secretary Weigand
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Erik Weigand, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Lauren
Kleiman, Commissioner Lee Lowrey
ABSENT: Vice Chair Peter Zak, Commissioner Kory Kramer
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 Liz
Westmoreland, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Administrative Support Specialist Brittany Ramirez, Administrative
Technician Patrick Achis
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Larry Tucker remarked that the General Plan provides the right to build housing on parking lots in the airport area.
Because the General Plan requires housing to be dense, up to 50 units per acre, development will have some
height. The Planning Commission should disregard claims about multistory residential to the extent a project is
consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code and opinion testimony about traffic unless supported by a report
from a credentialed expert. With respect to housing in the airport area, the General Plan contemplates certain
design features to ensure projects are compatible.
[Commissioner Kleiman arrived at 4:04 p.m.]
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None
CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. I MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 2018
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Mr. Mosher reported Tim Stoaks'surname is misspelled in the minutes.
Motion made by Secretary Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to approve the draft minutes of the
April 5, 2018, meeting with the correct spelling of Mr. Stoaks' name.
AYES:
Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Zak, Kramer
CONTINUED BUSINESS:
ITEM NO. 2 AGAPE ART COLLECTIVE (PA2017-232)
Site Location: 365 Old Newport Boulevard
1 of 9
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
5/17/2018
Aminor use permit to allow the establishment ofotattoo studio (Personal Services, Restricted Land Use).
inconjunction withsmartiot'satudko,vvithklmn existing commercial tenant space. This item was continued
from the April 5, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
Recommended Actions:
1. Conduct apublic hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) pursuant to
Section 15301 under C|oao 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guide|inea, because it has no
potential tohave osignificant effect onthe environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2O18-01Oapproving Minor Use Permit No. UP2O17-031.
Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland described the proposed operation ofatattoo use in conjunctionwith anartist
studio. The Planning Commission heard the project on April 5. 2018. and continued it to a|kmv staff and the
applicant to address concerns and provide additional restrictions on the tattoo component of the use. The
Commission's concerns related to clarification of the use, parking, neighborhood compatibility, and the address of
the site. The tattoo use ieanother artistic medium that the subject artist would utilize within the space. The artist
studio component ofthe use is permitted by right. Only the tattoo use naquinaa a minor use permit. Staff has
revised the statement of facts in the resolution to provide clarity and added a condition to ensure that the tattoo
component remains onancillary use. This condition applies tofuture operators who occupy the space. |naddition,
staff has revised conditions to limit the parking need during peak hours, when the parking demand in the area is
highest. Condition Number requires spacing between an individual artist's appointments so that there are no
additional customers waiting and utilizing parking. One of the most substantive changes from the original
resolution is that the number of tattoo artists operating at any given time would be very limited. During daytime
hours, between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., only one tattoo artist could operate atone time and during nighttime
hours between 6:00 p.m. and S:OO p.nn., only two tattoo artists could operate atone time. The site plan shows
three chairs; hovwever, dhs�ia because not There would never bethree tattoo artists
. �operating concurrently.
Several uses are permitted by right within the zone and would not receive any discretionary review. Whereas, for
this project, we have the opportunity to regulate the intensity of the use. Asmall fitness studio such as ayoga
studio, beauty parlor, barber shop, clothing store, or potentially a smoke shop could operate with just a business
license. A take-out service limited use, such as a sandwich shop, could operate with a minor use permit. Additional
revised conditions limit hours of operation to 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily; and appointments or walk-in customers
cannot beaccepted after 8:OOp.m. Staff determined that the existing sign onthe roof for the TimnaeArt Studio
was unpennittedand shall beremoved prior hooperation. Any second -floor signage requinastheoppnovo|ofa
sign program. Staff updated several addresses at the subject site and corrected known errors. Staff recommends
approval ofthe project.
In reply to Chair Assistant Planner Westmoreland advised that roof signage is prohibited.
One entity owns two buildings on the parcel, and odifferent entity owns the third building.
In naaponaa to Commissioner Uunlao's questions about enforcement of conditions, Assistant Planner
Westmoreland indicated a code enforcement officer would visit the site to observe the operations. |fthe officer
nbeenx*d issues or received o connp|aint, he would investigate. Community Development DirectorJurjie added
that code enforcement officers conduct routine inspections ofproperties with use pannks and conditions on a
monthly basis. Code enforcement officers would likely visit the artist studio once or twice a year.
Commissioner Kleiman remarked that the use isvery much atattoo parlor, and the area kssaturated with tattoo
parlors. Members of the public have written the Planning Department to voice their concern about the number of
tattoo parlors in the area.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Jacob Mello, applicant, clarified that he is an artist by trade, and skin is one ofthe media he uses. Hedoes not
plan to work from 10:OOo.m. toS:OOpm,daily, even though those are the hours of operation.Heourrentlydmes
five tattoos a week and hopes to do only two or three per week at this location. Signage for his shop will comply
with signage for other business entities inthe building. Aonecessary, hecan park his vehicle near the shop and
I,FOR0901 c, 43 WEa_UVIi<II►�[cZK�Ii�lIu11��• LSP
5/17/2018
ride a bike to the shop. He plans to expand his clientele to women who desire more privacy when obtaining a
tattoo.
Tom Baker, resident, commented that additional information and clarification for the project does not resolve the
existing problems and does not justify approval of the project. The further concentration of tattoo shops will have
an adverse impact on the surrounding area, which is considered a gateway to the City. Support for the tattoo shop
comes from people living outside the area; the majority of neighboring residents do not support it.
Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
Commissioners reported no ex parte communications since the April meeting of the Planning Commission.
In answer to Secretary Weigand's inquiry, Assistant Planner Westmoreland reiterated that the City cannot regulate
uses permitted by right in the same way it can regulate uses required to have use permits. If the project is
approved, there could be less parking than other by -right uses that could occupy the site.
In response to Commissioner Dunlap's queries, Assistant Planner Westmoreland advised that the conditions of
the minor use permit run with the property and apply to subsequent uses of the same type that occupy the space.
Motion made by Secretary Weigand to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines; and to adopt
Resolution No. PC2018-016 approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2017-031.
Secretary Weigand believed the staff -added conditions of approval are very specific to this particular operator
and that would prevent a subsequent tattoo operator from occupying the space under the same conditions of
approval. The applicant appears to be a niche business. The area wants to be a gateway to the City, but it
does not appear that will happen any time soon.
Commissioner Lowrey expressed concern regarding the subjectivity of the cluster statement in the land use
definition of the Zoning Code. Assistant City Attorney Torres reported the requirement did not state a definitive
radius from the use for locations of similar uses. The Commission should determine whether it could make
the findings for approval of a minor use permit.
Commissioner Dunlap liked the applicant not using blinking signs and not including the word tattoo in the
business name. He could support the project if the applicant changes the designation of limited walk-in service
to no walk-in service, i.e., by appointment only. His concern is people using alcohol and then getting a tattoo
on the spur of the moment.
Mr. Mello could agree to working by appointment only, provided an individual could walk in to make an
appointment for a future time. He is aware of the stereotype and wants to move from the Costa Mesa shop to
avoid some of the stereotype. His rates are not conducive to a spur-of-the-moment tattoo.
In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Mr. Mello stated he has a five-star rating on Yelp and that word
of mouth is the main advertisement for his business. His business will likely be shown in a Google search. He
has no control over reviews posted to Yelp; however, he can note "appointment only" on his Yelp page. He
wants to reduce the number of hours he works to focus on being an artist. He needs approval of additional
chairs so that he can earn income from them in the event he reduces his working hours even further.
Commissioner Kleiman's concern is the saturation of tattoo parlors in the Peninsula/West Newport area.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion made by Secretary Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to find this project exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of
the CEQA Guidelines; and to adopt Resolution No. PC2018-016 approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2017-031
with a requirement of appointment -only service.
AYES: Weigand, Dunlap,
NOES: Kleiman, Lowrey, Koetting
3 of 9
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Zak, Kramer
511712018
In reply to Secretary Weigand's questions, Assistant City Attorney Torres advised that the Commission can
consider the concentration of tattoo uses in making a decision for or against the project. The City Code does
not provide a definition of concentration. Staff does not believe the area is overly concentrated with tattoo
establishments. The Commission can continue the item until all Commissioners are present.
Motion made by Secretary Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to continue the item to a date
uncertain.
AYES:
Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap
NOES:
Kleiman, Lowrey
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Zak, Kramer
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 3 VERIZON AND AT&T MONOPOLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (PA2018-010)
Site Location: 1600 Newport Center Drive
Summary:
Conditional use permit (CUP) and a coastal development permit (CDP) to construct two, 43 -foot -tall, slim
line monopoles (i.e., antennas located within pole) to accommodate twelve, six -foot -tall antennas for
Verizon Wireless and AT&T. The telecom facility support equipment will be ground -mounted and enclosed
within a new 450 -square -foot enclosure. The two monopoles would exceed the 32 -foot height limit by 11
feet.
Recommended Actions:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 (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. PC2018-017 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2018-005 and
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2018-004.
Senior Planner Jaime Murillo reported the City Council previously reviewed and approved the project in 2014.
The California Coastal Commission issued a Notice of Intent to issue a permit for the project, subject to a
number of conditions. The applicant failed to implement the conditions, and the Coastal Commission approval
expired on August 26, 2017. The City's Telecommunications Ordinances (NEMC Chapters 20.49 and 21.49)
requires the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit for a Class IV facility (free standing) and
a height of 43 feet. With a certified Local Coastal Program, the City now has the authority to grant a coastal
development permit that is also required for the installation.
Chair Koetting seemed to recall approving a "decorated" cell tower in the past. Senior Planner Murillo advised
that a faux tree tower was approved at a nearby location.
Senior Planner Murillo continued, stating that south of the proposed site is a residential area and a public park;
that primarily office uses are located to the north and east; and to the northwest is the Newport Beach Country
Club and Newport Beach Tennis Club. The location for the proposed monopoles is approximately 278 feet
from Coast Highway and approximately 695 feet from Newport Center Drive. The proposed site is currently a
landscaped area. In order to provide the desired coverage, the poles must be tall enough to project signals
around surrounding obstructions. Supporting equipment will be housed in an 8 -foot -tall enclosure, which will
have the same colors and materials as the surrounding office buildings and equipment. The color of the poles
will be dark green/bronze to blend with trees around the facility. Trees and shrubs will be planted to screen
the enclosure. Staff analyzed potential view issues and the view simulation suggests the facility will be visible
from Newport Center Drive. Because existing buildings, trees, landscaping, and light standards project into
the view as well, the effect of the poles on the view would be minimal. However, as the screening trees grow,
4 of 9
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
5/17/2018
they could block the view more than the poles. Staff added Condition Number 8 to require the trees be
maintained at a height of 25 feet. A large part of the improved coverage area is comprised of residential and
park uses, but the Code does not allow installation of wireless facilities in those uses. Therefore, a location
for the facility is limited to the commercial area of Corporate Plaza and Corporate Plaza West. Placing the
facility atop or on the side of one of the existing buildings could result in the facility projecting into the sight
plane or exceeding the height limitation. Existing light poles are not tall enough to support the antennas and
provide the applicant's desired coverage. The property owner, Irvine Company, would not agree to a faux tree
design and required the proposed design. The proposed location would fill the coverage gap for Newport
Center and Irvine Terrace. The proposed location would also support and enhance the capacity of service
provided by other nearby antennas in the City. Federal law precludes the City from regulating antennas based
on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions to the extent the facilities comply with Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. AT&T and Verizon have submitted RF compliance reports
confirming the antennas will operate in compliance with FCC regulations. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission approve the proposed project.
In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Senior Planner Murillo indicated the slim monopole is unique in
Newport Beach and is the best design for the constraints of the location in staff's opinion. Typically, the City
requires wireless facilities be collocated; however, collocating facilities on one pole would result in a
significantly taller pole. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained that the carriers usually
design the facility. Poles are not typically 43 feet tall because of City height limits. In this area, the sight plane
ordinance limits height at 44 feet. As facilities become smaller, the trend is to place them on light poles. The
primary benefit for the community is better wireless coverage. Requiring a lower height could affect coverage
in the desired area and render the project infeasible. Senior Planner Murillo stated the proposed height in
2014 was 43 feet. The height limit in the area is 32 feet.
In reply to Secretary Weigand's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the
landscape plan proposes 36 -inch box trees, which are fairly large. The Commission could consider larger
specimens.
In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiries, Senior Planner Murillo agreed that fully mature trees that were
not maintained at a 25 -foot height would impact the view corridor.
In response to Commissioner Dunlap's question, Senior Planner Murillo reported staff did not believe the two
monopoles and landscaping would impact the view sufficiently enough to be a concern.
Peter Blied, applicant's representative, reported the two poles will be as near each other as possible without
creating interference between the two. In addition, the two carriers utilize different frequencies, which will limit
interference. The design is unusual; the design was utilized in the City of Irvine with a pole height of 65 feet.
The color and existing landscaping screen the poles well. The lowest height pole that will provide good function
is 42 feet, and the height limit in the location is 43 feet. Transplanting a larger tree species is an option, but it
may not result in a well -rooted, mature, healthy tree. The proposed trees work well in the area and tie into the
existing landscape palette. Maintaining the trees at a height of 25 feet will maximize signal propagation. In
response to public comment, Mr. Blied stated the design works well for the context. Irvine Company preferred
a freestanding facility that was as tall as needed, as narrow as possible, and within height limits. Coverage is
a problem in Corona del Mar, and carriers are working on other solutions. The carriers are prepared to accept
the conditions of approval as written.
Commissioner Kleiman reported she spoke with
representative with whom he is acquainted, but he
Commissioners reported no ex parte communications.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Mr. Blied. Secretary Weigand contacted an AT&T
did not hear from the representative. Remaining
Jim Mosher commented on issues with noticing the meeting and posting notices at the project site. The
proposed design is not desirable because the poles do not blend into the context of the surroundings. The
applicant seemed not to have considered other designs. If trees are maintained at 25 feet, the poles will extend
18 feet above the trees. He hoped conditions of the original Coastal Commission approval are part of the
present application.
5of9
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
5/17/2018
Peggy Palmer questioned whether poles could be removed in the future and whether the poles will obstruct
public views from any park in the area.
Sandra Ayres opposed the idea that impacts to a protected view are insubstantial simply because it is a view
from a road. She questioned the application being presented when the City is studying other options.
Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
Mr. Blied explained that Coastal Commission conditions were not implemented because of a lack of
coordination between the two carriers. He began working with staff on the project in Fall 2017. While
technology has improved over the past few years, carriers are asking for larger antennas on full-size sites.
Smaller sites are used to augment larger sites, and the smaller sites will be the subject of a City Council study
session the following week. The function of the subject site is to reduce the burden on other sites, which will
enhance the efficiency and capacity of the system. With respect to views, the proposed site is not problematic
and is supported by Irvine Company. In response to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Blied explained that
wireless facilities are located on the new high-rise towers. The proposed site will support those sites. The
proposed facility focuses on Newport Center office buildings and traffic along Coast Highway. Importantly, the
proposed facility will offload some volume from surrounding sites, which will allow all the nearby sites to function
better and improve quality for users in the area and those passing through the area.
In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Senior Planner Murillo explained the existing and proposed
coverage maps. The green area has the best service coverage. The hatched area will continue to have some
service gaps during high -demand periods. The purple area has service gaps during all demand periods. The
after map depicts better service in the green and hatched areas and a reduced purple area.
Commissioner Dunlap remarked that few residents in Newport Beach would have better coverage with this
project. Fashion Island would have some better coverage.
Commissioner Kleiman noted public comment from various parts of the City and expressed concern that the
project is not a comprehensive plan to improve coverage. She believed the carriers conducted a
comprehensive cost/benefit evaluation of the project.
In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's queries, Mr. Blied advised that several carriers are beta testing 5G
technology in various markets. Carriers could probably provide the quantified benefit of the project; however,
that information is proprietary. These projects are quite expensive to develop. The coverage objective for this
project is focused on capacity. In contrast to the proposed project, small cell projects are placed hundreds of
feet apart and focus on specific locations with high volumes. Carriers are aware of coverage issues in Newport
Beach and are working with staff to find locations and facilities that can improve coverage. All areas on the
coverage map have service, not great service, but service. The project is an attempt to strengthen the footprint
of the network. There has to be a clean overlap of service between towers or complete service drops occur.
Users on primary roadways do not have complete service drops. In residential areas, service weakens and
interference increases. Wireless technology requires an increasing number of towers as the number of system
users increases. Demand for wireless service far outpaces carriers' ability to build facilities. A number of small
cell sites are needed to match the function of one macro site. He is working with staff to develop standards
and designs for small cell sites in Newport Beach. He could re-evaluate alternative designs if the Commission
wanted it, but the Irvine Company will not agree to a different design. Neither the golf course nor the Tennis
Club was interested in a facility on their properties.
Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that Public Safety utilizes a different frequency than
commercial wireless service. The City Council approved a small cell agreement for the Police Department.
Commissioner Lowrey agreed that the project seems to provide the most benefit to users in Newport Center,
which generates a great deal of sales tax for the City. Irvine Company did not appear to want a better project
design even though the project primarily benefited Newport Center.
In answer to Commissioner Lowrey's question, Mr. Blied reported many design options are available.
However, the landowner can restrict options. This one site will not solve all the coverage problems.
6 of 9
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
5/17/2018
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported notice of the meeting was provided in
accordance with Municipal Code requirements. Staff has an affidavit stating notice was posted at the project
site, but he cannot guarantee the notice remained posted for the entire 10 -day period. The Municipal Code
states a lack of notice does not hamper the Commission's efforts.
Chair Koetting had not found a notice posted at the project site. He was not comfortable with the design or the
location of the project. He questioned whether the proposed design, if approved, would be implemented across
the City. The project does not look right in the proposed location.
Motion made by Commissioner Kleiman and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to continue the application to a
date uncertain.
AYES:
Koetting, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey
NOES:
Weigand
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Zak, Kramer
ITEM NO.4
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE (PA2018-099)
Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
Initiation of amendments to the Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program revising the City's regulations
pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to conform with Government Code Section 65852.2, as
effective January 1, 2018. Specifically, the proposed amendments would update regulations related to
the development of ADUs as new construction in single-family residential zoning districts, or as
conversions of existing floor area within single-family residences in all residential zoning districts.
Recommended Actions:
1. Take public comment;
2. Determine this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and
3. Initiate an amendment to Section 20.48.200 and other affected section's of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to appropriately reflect recent legislation affecting the development of
Accessory Dwelling Units.
Senior Planner Jaime Murillo requested the Planning Commission initiate amendments to the City's Zoning Code
and Local Coastal Program to reflect recent legislation pertaining to accessory dwelling units (ADU). If approved,
staff will provide a more -detailed staff report and presentation for the Planning Commission's and City Council's
consideration.
In response to Secretary Weigand's question, Senior Planner Murillo indicated the recent changes limit the City's
ability to regulate ADUs.
Chair Koetting invited public comments on the agenda item.
Jim Mosher understood State regulations for ADUs have precedence over local regulations whether or not the
City enacts changes to regulations. The only provision where local regulations would override State regulations
pertains to prohibiting ADUs as new construction in two -unit and multiunit zoning districts.
Seeing no additional speakers, Chair Koetting closed public comments.
In reply to Chair Koetting's queries, Senior Planner Murillo reported recent legislation eliminates a city's ability to
regulate ADUs. Any ordinance in effect at the time the legislation was enacted is deemed null and void. If a city
had not enacted an ordinance compliant with legislation, then it has to regulate ADUs with State standards. ADUs
can be created through conversion of existing floor area within an existing single-family home or through new
construction. The City has little control over conversion ADUs. The City can regulate the location, lot size, parking,
7of9
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
IX.
X.
5/17/2018
and aesthetics of new construction ADUs consistent with State law. The most recent legislation limits the City to
requiring only one parking space for a new construction ADU regardless of bedroom count. The City is now
required to allow a conversion ADU in any zone that allows single-family development. The law does not apply to
homeowners' associations (HOA) or communities with Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that
prohibit ADUs.
In answer to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiry, Senior Planner Murillo clarified that the law pertains more to the
existence of CC&Rs than to the existence of an HOA. Commissioner Dunlap remarked that he would address
CC&Rs for Cliffhaven and Newport Heights with staff at a later time.
Motion made by Secretary Weigand and seconded by Chair Koetting to find this action exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of
the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and initiate an amendment to
Section 20.48.200 and other affected sections of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to appropriately reflect
recent legislation affecting the development of Accessory Dwelling Units.
AYES:
Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Zak, Kramer
STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
None
ITEM NO. 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Update on City Council Items
Community Development Director Jurjis reminded Commissioners of the special hearing on May 31, 2018 at 4:00
p.m. The following Tuesday, staff will present a study session item to the City Council regarding small cell facilities.
The first Planning Commission meeting in June will likely be canceled. The June 21 Planning Commission meeting
will be held.
In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell learned that an
applicant is planning to install story poles for a large project in Mariner's Mile. He contacted the applicant to request
he postpone installation of story poles, but Deputy Community Development Director Campbell has not heard from
the applicant. The applicant may install story poles over the weekend.
ITEM NO. 7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT
None
ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
None
ADJOURNMENT — 6:23 p.m.
8 of 9
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
5117/2018
The agenda for the May 17, 2018, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, May 11, 2018, at 3:35
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, May 11, 2018, at 3:40 p.m.
4�