Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_11-17-2016 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2016 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—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Ray Lawler and Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: Secretary Peter Zak Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Police Sergeant Brad Miller; Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan; Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Planning Program Manager Patric Alford; Associate Planner Makana Nova; and Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher remarked that the Commission at its last eetings omi public comment regarding minutes. Regarding the Museum House discussion, a Com ner r mmende elating incorrect statements made by a member of the public. Minutes should reflect s made. Director Brandt's comment regarding contemplation of conversion of hotel rooms to residenc as incorrect. If the minutes were corrected, that statement would be removed; however, he re , �ded t' inutes indicate what was said. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 3, 2016, as amended. AYES: Kramer, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Koetting ABSENT: Zak VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 SANTA ANA AVENUE COTTAGES (PA2016-069) Site Location: 20452 Santa Ana Avenue Deputy Director Wisneski reported the project would include demolition of three existing units and construction 7 units. The property is located at the boundary of the City, in an area annexed into the City in 2008. Land use in the area is multifamily. Surrounding the project site is a golf course, and land within the jurisdiction of Costa Mesa and County of Orange. Uses within unincorporated County are single-family and multifamily, while the uses in Costa Mesa are duplex. Structures in the area are predominantly two stories with a newer development containing multiple units of three stories. The applicant proposes demolishing the existing three units and constructing seven new units. Six of the seven units would be approximately 1,400 square feet, and one would be approximately 2,000 square feet. Each unit would be two stories over a two- 1 of 9 car garage with guest parking located in the rear. The architecture was somewhat eclectic, leaning more toward a Spanish style. Color highlights would be placed at exterior doors, and window frames and garage doors would be a darker color. A materials board was available. A low wall would be constructed at the front to create private open space. The project complies with existing regulations related to building height, setbacks, common and private open space, and parking. Staff recommends adoption of the Major Site Development Review and a Tentative Tract Map. Staff received letters from surrounding property owners, who shared concerns regarding the height of structures and safety at the intersection of Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue. The proposed three-story structures comply with height requirements. At the time of annexation, the City adopted County regulations for the area. The City's Traffic Engineer has been in contact with the City of Costa Mesa who, along with the County of Orange, are assessing the need for design improvements at the intersection. Staff does not believe the proposed project would create additional traffic or safety hazards at the intersection. Chair Kramer, Vice Chair Koetting and Commissioners Hillgren and Lawler reported no communications with the applicant. Commissioners Weigand and Dunlap advised that they had met with the applicant. Matt White, on behalf of the applicant, indicated he had been constructing custom homes in Newport Beach for 20 years. He shared photos of previous projects. The proposed project would have materials, style and quality similar to those of the Nautica project on Santa Ana Avenue. He introduced the project's architect, landscape architect, and owner. According to zoning regulations, eight units are allowed; however, the project would contain seven units, one of which would be ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible. All zoning and building requirements have been implemented. The applicant did not request any variances. The project proposed 1,240 square feet of open space, while the requirement is only 525 square feet. Proposed private open space for the project was 116-230 square feet for each unit. Building height would not exceed 33 feet. The proposed project complies with all regulations and Codes. Landscape would be drought tolerant and would comply with Newport Beach's Green Codes. The proposed project would contain 18 parking spaces with a turnaround area located in the rear. Steel structures on the front would provide shade and decorative elements. The garage doors wouldbe metal with dark gray, almost black trim. The roof would be a dark composite. Entry doors would be colorful. Window frames would be black. Adrienne Brandes, property owner, felt the project would add value to surrounding properties and provide revenue to the City. When speaking with neighbors, she did not receive any objections. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Sergio Sendowsky, project architect, explained that the California Building Code requires an ADA unit to have an accessible entry, exit, and bathroom, but no elevator. A physically handicapped person would need to retrofit the stairwell for a mechanical system. Vice Chair Koetting stated the roof for the project is not like those in other projects Mr. White showed. The architecture was bland on the outside; there is no trim around the windows and no variety on the elevations. The colors are the same. This project does not look like the other projects. The roof is not variegated or metal or standing seam. Architecture is lacking, especially on the street side. The units lacked great views over the golf course. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. White indicated the exterior finish would be a troweled-on stucco in white. The stucco would be neither smooth nor "popcorn." Entry to a unit's private space is through the garage; however, the garage would be nice. Fences will be located between each yard and along the front of the property and will be painted white. Commissioner Dunlap liked the project's compliance with Codes and the fact that it provided more open space than required. He agreed with comments that the west elevation was bland, stark and flat. Perhaps the street elevation could be embellished. From a technical standpoint, the proposed project met all the conditions, which made the Commission's job easier. Mr. White advised that he could work with staff on a siding treatment and possibly add a couple more windows. The metal structures will be hand-forged and would elevate the architecture. In answer to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Mr. White explained that the metal structures are more of a decorative element but would provide some shade. 2of9 In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiry, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported the City of Costa Mesa controlled Santa Ana Avenue as it is entirely within the City of Costa Mesa. He had requested but not received accident information for Santa Ana Avenue from Costa Mesa. In addition, he would join Costa Mesa's discussion with the County regarding potential improvements and changes to signal operations. Commissioner Weigand requested City Traffic Engineer Brine determine if adding on-street parking along Santa Ana would be possible. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Taso Nicklau supported the proposed project. He had no objection to increasing the density in the area. He requested the same rights in terms of building ADA accessible units when he develops his property adjacent to the proposed project. Because of trees and fences at the corners of properties, drivers cannot see around corners. This is a likely cause for automobile accidents. Dunn Voyer stated his home would be boxed in with the proposed project and an apartment building on the other side. This would be a fire hazard. There are no three-story units in the area and nothing to set a precedent for three-story buildings. The surrounding properties are single-family residences. Doubling the occupancy of the site would increase traffic at the intersection. a could support the project if it were two stories. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Chair Kramer supported the project and suggested,a motion include provisions for smooth stucco and enhanced architectural features on the fronts of both buildings along Santa Ana Avenue. Vice Chair Koetting supported the project but did not like the architecture, which had to change. The applicant's submission showed the roof almost like concrete shingles rather than a flat composite. The windows needed better trim. He preferred the color be broken up. The street-side elevation needed to be improved. Smooth stucco was needed. Chair Kramer noted the Commission had not approved anything like troweled finish, blown-on stucco since he had joined the Commission. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Deputy Director Wisneski reported CC&Rs (conditions, covenants and restrictions) rather than a homeowners association would be needed. Common or individual trash collection would be decided by the property owner. Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to adopt Resolution No.2036 approving Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 and Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003, subject to conditions discussed by Commissioners. Commissioner Hillgren and Vice Chair Koetting clarified that elevations along Santa Ana Avenue should be enhanced, the eyebrows above the garages are acceptable, and the landscape plan needed more life. Vice Chair Koetting indicated that if the elevations were not improved to staff's satisfaction, the item should return to the Planning Commission for review. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak ITEM NO. 3 VIEWPOINT CHURCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA2016-144) Site Location: 866 and 864 W. 16th Street Assistant Planner Whelan reported the surrounding uses are industrial and general office buildings. The use permit would be for assembly use and off-site parking located in Costa Mesa. The existing building was constructed in the 1960s for light manufacturing. The project included converting one tenant space of 5,000 square feet into a church use with offices, restrooms, reception area, and assembly area. The assembly area 3of9 would be sectioned off with a full-height wall according to Building Code requirements. Weekday uses would include office staff and groups of 32 people maximum. On-site parking is sufficient for those uses. Saturday uses would be small groups, which would also be served by on-site parking. On Sundays and some holidays, 75 off-site parking spaces would be provided at an industrial site in Costa Mesa. Shuffle service would be provided three times before and three times after services. Improvements include an existing storage shed towards the rear of the property, striping of 11 parking spaces for church use and 9 parking spaces for the adjoining tenant's use. The peak use during Sunday services and holidays would have a diminished impact because most of the surrounding businesses would be closed. Staff recommends approval of the use permit. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's questions,Assistant Planner Whelan advised that parking is sufficient for a seating of 128 people. Seating for 128 people is possible in the assembly area with required aisle widths. Details of the shuttle service have not been finalized, and the parking management plan is subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. In reality, street parking in the neighborhood would be available because most businesses are closed on Sunday. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's question regarding fixed seating, Assistant Planner Whelan advised that the applicant addressed the Building Department's concerns regarding seats with the proposed full-height wall, which would limit the assembly area. The applicant would be required to obtain building permits for construction of the wall and all of the improvements to the tenant space. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Assistant Planner Whelan explained that the wall would section off the assembly area and prevent people from spilling into other areas. Commissioners reported no ex parte communication with the applicant. Tim Palmquist, applicant, reported the church's maximum use time would be Sunday morning. He identified 20 parking spaces on-site and 75 parking spaces off-site and applied for a maximum seating of 144 people. On-site parking of 11 spaces would adequately serve all weekday uses. The assembly area would be 744 square feet with fixed chairs. The proposed wall is designed to prevent spillover. An aisle of 5 feet would enclose seating. He summarized plans for exits. Carpeting would be placed in the assembly area to define the space. In answer to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Mr. Palmquist stated the church employed five full-time and one part-time staff who would utilize on-site parking. The church's largest meeting, other than Sunday services, occurred on Wednesday mornings during the,fall. Staff would be instructed not to report for work until Wednesday afternoon so that parking would be available for meeting participants. Staff who attended the meeting would be available to unlock doors for the meeting. He had met with the adjacent tenant who employed eight people and utilized the parking stalls in the rear. In addition he had met with an adjacent property owner who would allow the church to use his parking spaces if his tenants indicated parking spaces were available. Mr. Palmquist informally surveyed most of the adjacent tenants who reported parking spaces would be available evenings and weekends. The church has a reciprocal easement with the adjacent owner for the common drive, but the easement needed to be expanded by a few feet. He did not anticipate any problems amending the easement. In reply to Commissioner Weigand's question, Mr. Palmquist explained that the church has held Good Friday services on the beach in the past. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. James Dobson, attorney for the adjacent tenant, reported the adjacent tenant is allocated ten parking spaces at the rear of the building. According to the Code, off-street parking should be located within 200 feet of the premises it served. The church's proposed off-site parking is located much further away. Assembly meeting facilities are required to provide 1 parking space per 3 seats or 35 square feet of assembly space. The applicant does not meet that requirement. The adjacent tenant's eight employees worked seven days a week, night and day. The adjacent tenant's business is growing, and it could have 12-15 employees in the next year. Parking spaces allocated by the lease are not available for church use at any time. The adjacent tenant is concerned about noise. Revival events could be noisy and create a nuisance. On behalf of his client, he objected to issuance of the use permit. 4of9 In answer to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Dobson clarified that parking issues rather than violations have not been remedied. Kathleen Voorhees, building owner, was not aware of the current tenant being unhappy about the church becoming a tenant. She has owned and occupied the space for 20 years and has never had parking or noise issues. Parking in the area has become congested in the last few years. She is not offering the adjacent tenant's parking spaces to the church. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Ms. Voorhees stated the proposed wall would be drywall. She did not know if there would be sound attenuation. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Ms. Voorhees advised that the parking spaces in the rear are for the adjacent tenant. The tenant had voiced concerns about churchgoers using those spaces, but she did not believe there would be a problem because most people parked in the front. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Weigand inquired about striking the handwritten amendment that parking for Good Friday services would be arranged with Griswold Industries. Chair Kramer advised that the applicant said they have held Good Friday services on the beach in the past. Mr. Palmquist calculated 46 parking spaces would be needed for a seating of 144 people. The church has secured 75 spaces off-site and 11 spaces on-site. In his communications with the adjacent tenant, the tenant is very positive with no mention of any concerns. He is confident the church could meet all conditions of the City. Commissioner Weigand reiterated his request for information about Good Friday services. Mr. Palmquist stated in the past the church met on the beach. The church could find alternate locations for Good Friday services or hold multiple services on-site with a limit of 32 attendees for each service. The van used as a shuttle will not be stored on-site. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Chair Kramer to adopt Resolution No. 2037 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-039 with amendments to the conditions to more accurately reflect seating and deleting Condition Number 9':" In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question,Assistant Planner Whelan explained that the condition stating seating of 100 people has been changed to seating of 144 people. In answer to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Deputy Director Wisneski reported Condition Number 9 regarding parking spaces at the rear could be eliminated based on testimony that those spaces are not available. Commissioner Weigand felt the applicant was agreeable to striking the provision for off-site parking on Good Friday,which would prevent parking issues with businesses near the off-site parking location. Substitute motion made by Commissioner Weigand to strike Good Friday from the parking management plan. Chair Kramer stated the substitute motion failed for lack of a second. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak ITEM NO.4 OLEA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(PA2016-142) Site Location: 2001 Westcliff Drive, Suite 100 Assistant Planner Crager reported the property is located in the commercial general zoning district and is surrounded by commercial uses and the Coronado Apartments. The commercial center development was approved in June 2014 with 382 parking spaces and constructed with 406 parking spaces. Parking was designed to accommodate up to 52 spaces for a restaurant use. The applicant requested a Conditional Use 5of9 Permit to establish a restaurant at the property with late hours, alcohol, and an outdoor dining patio. The applicant proposed a closing time of midnight every day but no live entertainment, dancing, or parking waiver. When complete, the commercial center project would consist of four commercial buildings and 406 parking spaces including a parking structure. The restaurant floor plan contained 1,783 square feet of interior net public area, and the outdoor dining patio contained 489 square feet. The indoor space included 99 seats in the dining area and 21 seats at a bar. The outdoor dining area is shown with 30 seats. The original draft resolution includes a condition of approval recommended by the Police Department that the outdoor patio close at 10:00 p.m. and the restaurant at midnight. The applicant requested an extension of outdoor patio hours. After discussion with the Police Department, staff recommended the outdoor patio close at midnight on Fridays and Saturdays and at 11:00 p.m. all other days of the week. The applicant requested a closing time of midnight for Thursday as well. An operator's license is required. Commissioners reported no communication with the applicant. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Assistant Planner Crager explained that the name was changed from Ironwood to Olea. Christopher Wadleigh, representative for the applicant, advised that the restaurant would be full-service fine dining with specialty menus. The applicant owned two other restaprants, where wine accounted for 60% of alcohol sales. The applicant provided letters from landlords of the,ger two locations, showing good operations with no issues, no violations and no concerns. He requeste '' applicant be allowed to provide low-level ambient music on the patio. In answer to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Mr. Wadleigh explained the music would be played in the background to set the ambience. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Mr. Wadleigh indicated the midnight closing time on Thursday would apply to both interior and patio dining. The applicant requested a closing time of midnight seven days a week for interior dining. Russ Bendel, owner, advised that last call would occur at 11:30 if closing was set at midnight. Reservations were taken as late as 11:00. A diner would not be served alcohol after last call. Requests for and service of alcohol after last call had not been a problem in the other two locations. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Angela Cortright shared her knowledge of the owner, Russ Bendel, and his businesses. Any concerns regarding noise, rowdiness, and parties or dancing could be dissuaded. Mr. Bendel's business would add value to the community. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. In reply to Commissioner Weigand's inquiries, Assistant Planner Crager clarified that staff recommended the patio close at midnight on Friday and Saturday, but the applicant requested the patio close at midnight on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. The patio would close at 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday. The Police Department concurred with the recommendation. Commissioner Hillgren liked the location in a commercial area and the parking structure between the restaurant and residential uses. He was comfortable with extended hours for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday and outdoor music subject to City Code requirements. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2038 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-038 with amendments to the conditions to allow extended hours for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday and outdoor music subject to City noise standards. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Hillgren, Lawler NOES: Weigand, Dunlap ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak 6of9 Commissioner Dunlap hoped the restaurant would be successful. He voted no because serving alcohol after 11:00 p.m. generally was a neighborhood concern and taxed police resources. ITEM NO.5 LIDO MARINA VILLAGE OFFSITE PARKING(PA2014.002) Site Location: 3600-3700 Newport Boulevard, 3400-3444 Via Lido, and 3400-3505 Via Oporto,540 Superior Avenue Principal Planner Campbell reported Condition Number 4 of the previously approved Conditional Use Permit required review of proposed off-site parking. The Commission reviewed and approved Lido Marina Village revitalization in 2014. The 2014 approval included off-site parking if it was necessary; however, since the location was not known at that time, review by the Planning Commission was required. Off-site parking is proposed to be located at Hoag Health Center, 540 Superior Avenue and would serve employees. This location will provide 100 parking spaces through November 30, 2016, and 200 spaces after November 30, 2016. A shuttle will transport employees to and from the site and he reviewed the shuttle travel route. The shuttle would run three times an hour during peak hours. Staff recommended a condition to change the rates for parking passes, because staff felt the proposed monthly parking would be a disincentive for employees to utilize the program. He corrected a statement in the staff report regarding employees potentially parking in Finley tract or other areas in that employee parking in these areas would not be desirable or encouraged. The intent of the program is to move employee parking from streets to designated lots. He explained changes to Condition of Approval Numbers 2, 4, and 8 and the addition of Numbers 10 and 11. The applicant has agreed to these changes and additions. Staff recommends approval with the changes noted. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Principal Planner Campbell could not recall anything like this program in his 16 years with City. Irvine Company voluntarily utilized shuttles for its employees at times. In answer to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Principal Planner Campbell explained that City staff would monitor parking by visiting the parking areas and by reacting to complaints. Utilizing the proposed parking sticker would help staff identify people parking where they shouldn't. Chair Kramer and Commissioner Dunlap reported ex parte communications with the applicant. Lindsey Parton, owner of Lido Marina Village, thanked staff for working to make the parking agreement tenable. He supported the conditions and modifications. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Nancy Gardner believed the employee sticker would be useful in enforcing parking. Jim Mosher questioned whether the shuttle would park in or near the arrival/departure zone shown as a star on the slide. He understood the area by the Elks Lodge has been dedicated for a previous shuttle service. Principal Planner Campbell explained that the area has a red curb, and the shuttle would not block access to parking spaces.The shuttle would not park in the spot for any significant length of time, only enough time to pick up and drop off passengers. Staff does not believe the shuttle would be a hazard or nuisance. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to adopt Resolution No. 2039 approving off-site parking consistent with NBMC Section 20.40.100 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014- 014, with the corrections noted in the hearing. Commissioner Dunlap had visited the area recently. New retail stores are great. He hoped they are successful. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak 7of9 VIII. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO.6 NEWPORT BEACH SUSTAINABILITY PLAN (PA2016-120) Site Location: Citywide Planning Program Manager Alford reported the Sustainability Plan was prepared by a citizens committee. The Sustainability Plan is a unified plan to make the City more sustainable. It would integrate sustainability practices in all City functions, and the City would promote sustainability practices in the private sector. The Building and Development element would be the main focus for the Planning Commission. Programs and procedures within each element include incentives, promotion and advocacy, partnerships, City infrastructure and services, data collection and analysis, and land use and development. The Plan proposed incentives for waiving or modifying fees for sustainable projects; fast-tracking permit processing; awards for and recognition of sustainable projects; and more flexible regulations. Promotion and advocacy included use of brochures, the City's website, social media, presentations to groups, and staff training and accreditation. Partnerships called for working with utilities, educational institutions, and nonprofit agencies. City infrastructure and services proposed LEED-qualified buildings, retrofitting existing City buildings, continuing water quality control and conservation measures, and waste and disposal reductions. Data collection and analysis would require annual reports from all City departments and periodic energy audits. The City's Commissions and Committees would be required to submit progress reports on their efforts to promote elements of the Plan. Land use and development emphasized alternative means of transportation, sustainable landscape practices, a balance of jobs and housing, alternative energy, and urban design features. Open space and natural area called for protecting existing areas and enhancing them where appropriate. He suggested topics for the Commission to consider in its discussion. Other committees and commissions generally had not taken action on the Sustainability Plan, but expressed comments of individual members. Staff would convey any comments from the Commission to the City Council. Chair Kramer requested Ms. Gardner provide background information and context. Nancy Gardener advised that the effort began with two workshops, which provided a basic Plan. The philosophy is incentives rather than penalties. The Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce approved the Plan and supported it before the Council. Utilizing the Plan would increase efficiency, give the City credit for its actions, and provide economic benefits. Having a Sustainability Plan is now part of grant applications. People from many sectors contributed knowledge and energy to the Plan. Vice Chair Koetting noted the Sustainability Plan provided organization for sustainability efforts. He had notes he would provide staff. Chair Kramer suggested placing the Sustainability Plan on a future agenda for the Commission to provide comments or insights to staff. The Plan deserved thoughtful consideration and thorough comments. Commissioner Dunlap felt the Sustainability Plan was a job well done. He would comment in writing. He did not find a mention of solar water in the Plan. Chair Kramer announced the item would be placed on a future agenda for discussion and requested Ms. Gardner return at that time for further discussion. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO.7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO. 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Director Wisneski indicated staff is finalizing the last steps of the Local Coastal Program. The Airport Land Use Committee approved the Museum House project. The project will be presented to the City Council for a first hearing on November 29th. On November 22nd,the Council would hear the 191 Riverside project and the Newport Coast Development Agreement. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for December 8th and would include the Sustainability Plan. The December 22nd and January 5th meetings would be canceled. If a meeting is held on January 12th, it would include an item for a use permit at the View Newport 8of9 project. The next Mariners' Mile public workshop is scheduled for January 26, 2017. She requested comments regarding format for the January 26th meeting. Chair Kramer inquired about consolidating the January 12 and 19 meetings into one on either January 12 or 19. Deputy Director Wisneski shared concerns regarding a meeting consisting of only one item. She would monitor the View Newport project for readiness for a hearing. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated the Harbor Commission wanted to share its mission for the harbor, interests in marine-dependent uses, and ideas about Mariners' Mile. The City had approved legislation for the Back Bay Landing project, but a formal application has not been submitted. ITEM NO. 9 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT None. ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Hillgren would not be available for a January 12 meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT—8:29 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, November 10, 2016,at 2:39 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 Thursday, November 10, 2016, at 2:45 p.m. Kory;Kramer, Chair er Zak, Secretary 9of9 Planning Commission - December 8, 2016 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of November 17, 2016 Dec. 8, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( limmosher(d),yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 2016 Changes to the draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in str+kenut underline format. Page 1, first paragraph of Item 2: "Deputy Director Wisneski reported the project would include demolition of three existing units and construction 7 of seven units. The property is located at the boundary of the City, in an area annexed into the City in 2008. Land use in the area is multifamily. Surrounding Near the project site is land within the jurisdiction of Costa Mesa and County of Orange, including a golf course across the street. Uses within on the unincorporated County land to the south are single-family and multifamily, while the uses in Costa Mesa are duplex." Page 1, same paragraph, sentence 6: "The applicant proposes demolishing the existing three units and constructing seven new units." [This is a repeat of the information stated in sentence 1, above. That sentence could be shortened to: "Deputy Director Wisneski reported the property is located at ...] Pages 1-2, first/last lines: "Each unit would be two stories over a two car garage with guest parking located in the rear of the lot. The architecture was described as somewhat eclectic, leaning more toward a Spanish style." [The visual indicated the guest parking was in a common area at the rear of the shared lot, not at the rear of each unit.] Page 3, line 2 from end: "The project include el includes converting one tenant space of 5,000 square feet into a church use with offices, restrooms, reception area, and assembly area." Page 4, paragraph 4 from end, sentence 2: "The church's largest meeting, other than Sunday services, ossurreel occurs on Wednesday mornings during the fall." Page 5, before vote: insert "The main motion passed by the following vote." [?] Page 7, Item 5, first sentence: "Principal Planner Campbell reported Condition Number 4 of the previously approved Conditional Use Permit for Lido Marina Village required review of proposed off-site parking." [to distinguish from CUP of Item 4 (previous to this item)] Page 7, Item 5, middle of same paragraph: "Staff recommended a condition to change the rates for parking passes, because staff felt the proposed monthly parking fee would be a disincentive for employees to utilize the program. He corrected a statement in the staff report regarding employees potentially parking in the Finley tract or other areas in that employee parking in these areas would not be desirable or encouraged." Page 8, last line: "If a meeting is held on January 12th, it would include an item for a use permit at the view Vue Newport project." Page 9, paragraph 2, last sentence: "She would monitor the 14e.4 Vue Newport project for readiness for a hearing"