Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_05-17-2018IV V VI. 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 Judis, 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. 1 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 Summary: A minor use permit to allow the establishment of a tattoo studio (Personal Services, Restricted Land Use), in conjunction with an artist's studio, within an existing commercial tenant space. This item was continued from the April 5, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. Recommended Actions: 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. PC2018-016 approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2017-031. Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland described the proposed operation of a tattoo use in conjunction with an artist studio. The Planning Commission heard the project on April 5, 2018, and continued it to allow 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 is another artistic medium that the subject artist would utilize within the space. The artist studio component of the use is permitted by right. Only the tattoo use requires 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 an ancillary use. This condition applies to future operators who occupy the space. In addition, staff has revised conditions to limit the parking need during peak hours, when the parking demand in the area is highest. Condition Number 5 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 at one time and during nighttime hours between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., only two tattoo artists could operate at one time. The site plan shows three chairs; however, that is because artists do not share chairs. There would never be three 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. A small fitness studio such as a yoga studio, beauty parlor, barber shop, clothing store, or potentially a smoke shop could operate with just a business license. Atake-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 be accepted after 8:00 p.m. Staff determined that the existing sign on the roof for the Timree Art Studio was unpermitted and shall be removed prior to operation. Any second -floor signage requires the approval of a sign program. Staff updated several addresses at the subject site and corrected known errors. Staff recommends approval of the project. In reply to Chair Koetting's questions, Assistant Planner Westmoreland advised that roof signage is prohibited. One entity owns two buildings on the parcel, and a different entity owns the third building. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions about enforcement of conditions, Assistant Planner Westmoreland indicated a code enforcement officer would visit the site to observe the operations. If the officer observed issues or received a complaint, he would investigate. Community Development Director Jurjis added that code enforcement officers conduct routine inspections of properties with use permits 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 is very much a tattoo parlor, and the area is saturated 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 of the medias he uses. He does not plan to work from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily, even though those are the hours of operation. He currently does 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 in the building. As necessary, he can park his vehicle near the shop and 2 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 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 5/17/2018 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 require 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 hf 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. Deandra 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 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: Take public comment; 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 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. 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, 7 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION IK4 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 1►1ma- ITEM i - 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 5/17/2018 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. Peter Koetting, Chairman Erik Weigand, Secretary 9of9 Planning Commission - June 21 , 2018 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of May 17, 2018 June 21, 2018, Planning Commission Item 1 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( limmosher(a)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2018 Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in striker-, underline format. Page 2: last paragraph: "Jacob Mello, applicant, clarified that he is an artist by trade, and skin is one of the medias media he uses." [or: "mediums"] Page 3: last paragraph before second (failed) Motion: "Commissioner Kleiman's concern is the saturation of tattoo parlors in the peninsulaAvest PeninsulaANest Newport area." Page 4: paragraph 3 from end, last sentence: "With a certified Local Coastal Program, the City now has the authority to grant a coastal development permit that is also require required for the installation." Page 6: paragraph 2: "9eandia Sandra Ayres opposed the idea that impacts to a protected view are insubstantial simply because it is a view from a road." Page 6: paragraph 3 from end: "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." [note: I think this is a bit misleading. Newport Beach Fire and Police use an 880 MHz system separate from the commercial network, but they also use standard cell phones. I believe the recent agreement was for commercial Verizon small cell installations in areas where the Police Department had sometimes experienced poor reception on their commercial phones.] Page 7: paragraph 1: "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." [note: This is what was said, but I believe the last statement is a bit broad. NBMC Sec. 20.62.020.B.5 says "The failure of any person or entity to receive notice given in compliance with this section shall not invalidate the actions of the applicable review authority." I read that as meaning it's OK if a person fails to see the City's notice. I don't think that can be used to excuse a failure of the City to provide notice for people to see, including keeping it posted and visible at the site for the full 10 days. In this case, and as Chair Koetting noted in the next paragraph, there appears to have been no notice for interested parties to even be able to see at the site for several days preceding the hearing.]