HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_08-09-2018
1 of 8
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, AUGUST 9, 2018
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 – Vice Chair Weigand
III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Peter Zak, Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Bill
Dunlap, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Kory Kramer (arrived at 6:33 p.m.),
Commissioner Lee Lowrey
ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres,
Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Chelsea Crager, Assistant Planner David Lee,
Administrative Support Technician Patrick Achis
[The Commission heard Item Numbers 2-9 prior to Item Number 1.]
IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
ITEM NO. 1 NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS
Summary:
The Planning Commission’s adopted rules require the election of officers. Officers include the
Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary, and they would serve for a one-year term.
Recommended Actions:
1. Find this action not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant
to 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3;
2. Nominate Planning Commission officers consisting of Chair, Vice Chair, and
Secretary; and
3. Appoint the officers by majority approval of a motion.
Commissioner Kramer noted the longstanding tradition of nominating officers based on seniority and
mistakenly nominated Commissioner Kleiman rather than Commissioner Dunlap for Secretary at the July
19th meeting.
Motion made by Commissioner Kleiman and seconded by Commissioner Kramer to approve
Commissioner Zak as Chair, Commissioner Weigand as Vice Chair, and Commissioner Dunlap as
Secretary.
AYES: Zak, Weigand, Kleiman, Dunlap, Koetting, Kramer, Lowrey
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
VI. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2018
2 of 8
VII. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF JULY 19, 2018
Recommended Action:
1. Approve and file
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Koetting to approve the draft
minutes of the July 19, 2018 meeting as presented.
AYES: Zak, Weigand, Kleiman, Dunlap, Koetting
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Lowrey
ABSENT: Kramer
VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
ITEM NO. 3 HINTON AND MALONEY RESIDENCE (PA2017-208)
Site Location: 3200 Ocean Boulevard
Summary:
A request for a coastal development permit to allow the construction of a new 7,421-square-foot,
single-family residence and a 694-square-foot three car garage. The application also includes a
request for a variance to allow the residence to encroach 5 feet into the required 10-foot rear
setback and exceed the maximum floor area limit.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15303, Article 19, of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3, (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential
to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2018-023 approving Coastal Development Permit No.
CD2017-091 and Variance No. VA2017-002.
Assistant Planner David Lee reported that the project proposes to demolish an existing single-family
residence and construct a new single-family residence. The existing home was constructed in 1948.
Required setbacks are 24 feet at the front, 4 feet at the sides, and 10 feet at the rear. The existing
structure encroaches into the side and rear setbacks. The proposed residence will encroach 5 feet
into the rear setback and exceed the maximum floor area limit. The square footage of the basement
is not included in the proposed home's total floor area. The subject lot in Corona del Mar is unique in
that it does not abut an alley. The rear setback acts as a s ide setback, for which 3 or 4 feet would
otherwise be required, because the lot abuts an adjacent residential property. The distance between
the proposed residence and the adjacent residence to the rear will be 10 feet, 10 inches. Prior to 1948,
Lots 7 and 8 were oriented to face Ocean Boulevard; whereas, the current lots are oriented to face
Larkspur Avenue. The current orientation of the lots creates disproportionate setbacks for the subject
lot, and decreases the buildable area, the maximum floor area, and the floor area ratio (FAR) of the
lot. If Lots 7 and 8 were still oriented to Ocean Boulevard, the buildable area would be 67 percent for
Lot 8 and 65 percent for Lot 7. The maximum floor area would be 5,335 square feet with an FAR of
1.009 for Lot 8 and 4,247 square feet with an FAR of 0.96 for Lot 7. In the current orientation, the
buildable area decreases to 52 percent for 3200 Ocean Boulevard and 47 percent for 210 Larkspur
Avenue; the maximum floor area decreases to 4,234 square feet with an FAR of 0.777 for 3200 Ocean
and 2,993 square feet with an FAR of 0.708 for 210 Larkspur. Most lots in the area have FAR values
greater than 1.0. The proposed project has an FAR of 0.958. Thirteen of 376 lots are oriented similar
to the subject lot, and 11 of the 13 lots deviate from required setbacks and floor area or have
nonconforming structures. The current orientation of the lots deprives the subject property of privileges
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2018
3 of 8
enjoyed by other properties. Granting a variance would not be a special privilege because the
proposed FAR and 5-foot setback will be consistent with surrounding lots and will not be detrimental
to the surrounding area. The proposed structure will provide better private views for 210 Larkspur than
a Code-compliant structure. To protect the private view for 210 Larkspur, staff has included a condition
of approval for 204 square feet of open space at the northwesterly corner of the subject lot. Because
the proposed structure exceeds the maximum floor area and the lot is located within the coastal zone,
the project requires a coastal development permit. The project does not impact public views and
neither provides nor inhibits coastal access. Staff requests two additional conditions of approval for
removal of all trees located within the side setback abutting Larkspur Avenue and the front setback
and for no trees to be planted in the planter area near the intersection of Larkspur Avenue and Ocean
Boulevard. Staff recommends the Commission approve the application.
In response to Commissioners' questions, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo explained the how the floor
area is calculated, the 4,528 square feet. Under authority granted to him, Community Development
Director Jurjis utilized the variance procedure stated in the Zoning Code as the Local Coastal Plan
(LCP) does not contain a variance procedure. Staff is awaiting a California Coastal Commission
hearing on the City's amendment to include a variance procedure in the LCP. A Commission decision
to approve the project may be appealed to the City Council or the Coastal Commission. An appeal of
the Commission's decision regarding the Ginsberg project, based on the lack of a variance procedure
in the LCP, is scheduled for August 10, 2018, before the Coastal Commission.
Commissioners Kleiman, Dunlap, Lowrey, and Weigand reported meetings with the applicant and the
consultant. Commissioners Kramer, Koetting, and Zak reported no ex parte communications.
Chair Zak opened the public hearing.
John Ramirez, consultant for Nicholson Construction, advised that the applicant requests a coastal
development permit and a variance for a 4,500-square-foot home with a three-car garage and a
subterranean basement. No trees or large shrubs are proposed in the setback areas. The basement
includes a storage area for vehicles. The first floor is comprised of a great room, kitchen, office, and
powder room. Bedrooms are located on the second floor . The proposed roof deck will be confined
within the architecture of the existing structure. No parts of the structure will exceed the height limit.
The facades facing Larkspur and Ocean will be a combination of smooth stucco and stone with many
windows. Over the last several months, project representatives have met with the community and staff
to modify and improve the design of the home. The size of the home has been reduced since the first
submission. In response to comments, the architect incorporated retractable glass to open up the
interior and exterior of the building as well as the view corridor along Larkspur. By not building the
house to the setback and not planting trees or large shrubs in the setback along Larkspur, 210 Larkspur
will have a nice view corridor. The proposed home design is compatible with the neighborhood and
responsive to community feedback.
In reply to Commission inquiries, Mr. Ramirez indicated lifts will move vehicles into the basement.
Once a vehicle has been moved into the basement, a lid will cover the space between the basement
and garage so that another vehicle can park in the garage.
Jim Mosher believed the City did not have the authority to grant variances in the coastal zone. Beyond
that, the findings for granting a variance could not be made. A property owner had no right to the same
FAR as neighboring properties and no right to exceed the 1.5 floor area limit.
Ken Alber, the adjacent property owner of 210 Larkspur, remarked that he worked with staff and the
applicant to address his concerns and now supports the project.
Brant Dahlfors, 211 Larkspur, wished to ensure the large shrubs and trees on the subject property do
not recur in the future.
Chair Zak closed the public hearing.
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2018
4 of 8
In answer to Commissioners' queries, Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that the Coastal
Commission will determine whether a substantial issue exists in the Ginsberg project. Staff informs
applicants of the risks of seeking a variance that is subject to a coastal development permit. The
issues before the Coastal Commission on August 10 are public access, view protection, and variance
procedures in the Ginsberg project. Coastal Commission staff is recommending a substantial issue
for the Ginsberg project. The Code does not contain a requirement for ventilation of a subterranean
garage, and staff does not anticipate any noise issues because the subterranean garage will be built
of concrete. An applicant's representative explained that a hydraulic system will operate the garage
lift and cover, and the system should not be a noise issue.
Chair Zak felt a continuance of the project would be prudent in light of the Coastal Commission's review
of the Ginsberg project the following day. Commissioner Kleiman concurred. The Commission did not
have clear legal authority to grant a coastal development permit with a variance.
In response to Commissioner Dunlap's question, Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres recommended
the Commission continue the project rather than make its approval contingent upon a Coastal Commission
determination.
Commissioner Koetting remarked that each applicant faces a risk of the Commission's decision being
appealed. The Commission has sufficient information to approve or deny the project. In response to
Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Senior Planner Murillo clarified that a building permit would not be
issued during the 14-day appeal period.
Chair Zak reiterated the need to continue the project as the Ginsberg appeal is based on the variance
procedure.
The applicant's representative anticipated the appeal before the Coastal Commission would require
some time to reach a conclusion. The applicant is aware of the risks of proceeding with the project
and requests the Planning Commission approve or deny the project at the current time.
Commissioner Kleiman commented that the City did not have the authority under the existing LCP to
grant a variance. While the Coastal Commission could provide some information the following day,
she suspected that would not happen.
Commissioner Dunlap understood Commissioners' concern regarding the Ginsberg appeal; however,
the applicant submitted its application almost a year prior. In addition, the applicant accepts the risks
of an appeal.
Vice Chair Weigand suggested a second appeal of the same issue to the Coastal Commission could
inspire the Coastal Commission to move more quickly.
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to find the project exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction
or Conversion of Small Structures); and adopt Resolution No. PC2018-023 approving Coastal
Development Permit No. CD2017-091 and Variance No. VA2017-002 with the additional conditions of
approval recommended by staff.
AYES: Weigand, Dunlap, Kramer, Lowrey, Koetting
NOES: Zak, Kleiman
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
IX. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 4 DEAN RESIDENCE (PA2017-167)
Site Location: 16 Bay Island
Summary:
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2018
5 of 8
A coastal development permit to allow the construction of a new 4,379-square-foot, single-family
residence and adjust the off-street parking requirements with a parking management plan. In
addition, the applicant requests an an increase in the allowed building height to 28 feet for flat
roofs and 33 feet for sloped roofs pursuant to the provisions of Use Permit No. UP3618. The
design includes hardscape, drainage facilities, and approximately 194 square feet of landscaping.
With approval of the height allowance, the project complies with all applicable development
standards.
Recommended Action:
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. PC2018-024 approving Coastal Development Permit No.
CD2018-054, including an adjustment to off-street parking requirements, and allow for
an increased height limit.
Associate Planner Chelsea Crager reported the applicant requests approval of a coastal development
permit with a height increase for a single-family residence. The Zoning Administrator has approved a
coastal development permit to allow the demolition of the existing home on the si te. Bay Island is
accessible by a gated pedestrian bridge. Golf carts are the only vehicles permitted on Bay Island. Bay
Island is regulated by a Planned Residential Development Overlay, which was adopted by a use
permit. The use permit is intended to create development standards that maintain the unique
characteristics of Bay Island. Building sites on Bay Island are located within the multiunit residential
zoning district. The use permit allows a maximum height of 33 feet with Planning Commission
approval. The use permit was not incorporated into the Local Coastal Program (LCP); therefore, Title
21 development standards apply to this project. The Commission must find that the proposed structure
is consistent with the height and scale of surrounding dwellings. Prior to 1972, the R-3 zoning district
allowed a maximum height of 35 feet; therefore, many dwellings on Bay Island exceed the height limit
set in the use permit. Bay Island is a single property with multiple zoning districts. Title 21 development
standards are analyzed on an entire island scale. The proposed residence complies with standards
for setback and floor area. The use permit requires two parking spaces per residence be located in
an offsite parking structure; however, Title 21 requires three onsite parking spaces. The applicant
proposes a parking management plan of two parking spaces located in an offsite structure and one
onsite parking space for a golf cart. The offsite parking structure provides 49 spaces for 23 homes on
Bay Island and is located approximately 600 feet from the pedestrian bridge. The proposed dwelling
complies with Title 21 building envelopment requirements and with development standards for height,
setback, floor area, and bulk. The proposed residence will not significantly change views. There is no
public access to Bay Island, and the applicant does not propose any changes to access. Staff
recommends the Planning Commission approve the application.
Commissioner Koetting reported he met with the applicant. All other Commissioners reported no ex
parte communications.
Chair Zak opened the public hearing.
Ian Harrison, project architect, advised that the applicants accept the conditions of approval.
In response to Commissioner Koetting's query, Mr. Harrison explained the method for removing
demolition debris from the site.
Wade Cable, 10 Bay Island and Bay Island Club President, indicated the Bay Island Club found the
project to be consistent with its guidelines and the use permit. The Bay Island Club received no public
comment in opposition to the project. Demolition debris will be removed via the pedestrian bridge.
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2018
6 of 8
Jim Mosher noted Drawings A-4 and A-5 depict a porch extending to the property line, which does not
comply with the use permit requirement for porches not to encroach more than 5 feet into the front
yard/water side setback.
Mr. Harrison clarified that setbacks on Bay Island are measured from the water, and the project
complies with the setback requirement and with Bay Island Club requirements.
Chair Zak closed the public hearing.
Motion made by Commissioner Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Koetting to find the project
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and adopt Resolution No. PC2018-024 approving
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2018-054, including an adjustment to off-street parking
requirements and allow for an increased height limit.
AYES: Zak, Weigand, Kleiman, Dunlap, Koetting, Kramer, Lowrey
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ITEM NO. 5 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE (PA2018-099)
Site Location: Residential Zones Citywide
Summary:
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 amended and effective on January 1, 2018. Specifically, the amendment would
establish regulations permitting the development of accessory dwelling units in conjunction
with single-family residences in all residential zoning districts.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that the
adoption of an ordinance regarding second units to implement the provisions of
Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code are exempt from the
requirements of CEQA;
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2018-025 recommending the City Council approve Zoning
Code Amendment No. CA2018-003 modifying regulations pertaining to accessory
dwelling units; and
4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2018-026 recommending the City Council authorize staff to
submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2018-002 to the California Coastal
Commission.
Senior Planner Jaime Murillo reported that staff proposes changes to the Zoning Code pertaining to
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) in response to changes in state law that became effective in 2018. Both
state law and City regulations treat new construction of and conversion to an ADU separately. For
conversions the existing ordinance requires approval of an ADU located within any existing single-family
dwelling or within an accessory structure on a single-family-zoned lot. The City cannot regulate unit size
or require additional parking. The City can ensure the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety.
With respect to new construction, the City requires ADUs to be constructed in single-family zoning districts
only, to be constructed on lots containing a minimum of 5,000 square feet, to contain no more than 750
square feet, and designed to match the principal structure. In addition, detached ADUs are limited to one
story with a maximum height of 14 feet. One parking space per bedroom with a maximum of two parking
spaces is required for new construction of ADUs, and the spaces may be uncovered, tandem, or utilize
mechanical lifts. The City cannot require additional parking if an ADU is located within one-half mile of a
transit stop or within a block of a carshare program. Under the latest revisions to state regulations, a
maximum of one parking space per ADU, regardless of the bedroom count, is required in new construction.
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2018
7 of 8
Conversion of existing space to an ADU is allowed within any existing single-family dwelling located in a
single-family or multifamily zoning district. Staff also proposes a revision to allow new construction of an
ADU on a multifamily-zoned lot. New construction would be limited to lots containing a minimum of 5,000
square feet and one single-family residence, to 750 square feet in size, and to requiring one parking space.
Requirements for owner occupancy of one of the dwelling units and prohibitions against short-term rental
of ADUs would remain in effect. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
adoption of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code and submission of a Local Coastal Program
(LCP) amendment to the California Coastal Commission. With City Council approval of the amendments,
staff will submit them to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Staff
has communicated with HCD staff regarding the proposed amendments and does not anticipate HCD
commenting on the amendments.
In reply to Commissioners' queries, Senior Planner Murillo clarified that in new construction the combined
floor area of the main living structure and the ADU must comply with the maximum floor area allowance
for the site. Section 3(C) of the Planning Commission Resolution addresses ADU conformance to all other
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. ADUs may be rented for periods longer than 30 days. ADUs
may contain less than 750 square feet. An ADU must have facilities for food preparation, sanitation, and
sleeping. There are no Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for ADUs. If a planned
community allows single-family development, ADUs would be allowed per the City's regulations.
However, many planned communities have existing Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and
homeowner associations that prohibit second dwelling units; however, state law does not supersede
CC&Rs.
Chair Zak opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher remarked that staff proposes amending the LCP, which is still pending before the California
Coastal Commission. Perhaps the proposed amendment should be substituted for the pending
amendment.
Chair Zak closed the public hearing.
Motion made by Commissioner Kramer and seconded by Vice Chair Weigand to find the project exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15282(h); adopt Resolution
No. PC2018-025 recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2018-003
modifying regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units; and adopt Resolution No. PC2018-026
recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No.
LC2018-002 to the California Coastal Commission.
AYES: Zak, Weigand, Kleiman, Dunlap, Kramer, Lowrey, Koetting
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
In reply to Commissioner Koetting's request for additional information, Senior Planner Murillo advised that
three applications for new construction of ADUs and five applications for conversion to ADUs have been
submitted since adoption of the ordinance.
X. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
None
ITEM NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Summary:
Update on Planning Commission or City Council Items
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2018
8 of 8
Community Development Director Jurjis reported staff will present the Planning Commission's
recommendations for Council "L" Policies to the City Council on August 14. The August 23 Planning
Commission meeting will be canceled. The Harbor Point Senior Living project is scheduled for the
September 6th meeting as a study session item. He will provide an update of the August 10 Coastal
Commission hearing to the Commission.
In answer to Vice Chair Weigand's question, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that the
applicant requested a study session to obtain Commission and community feedback regarding revisions
made following the prior presentation to the Commission.
ITEM NO. 8 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION,
ACTION, OR REPORT
None
ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
Commissioners Koetting, Dunlap, and Kramer advised that they would not be available for the
September 6, 2018 meeting of the Commission.
XI. ADJOURNMENT – 8:06 p.m.
The agenda for the August 9, 2018, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday,
August 3, 2018, at 3:49 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, August 3, 2018, at 3:20 p.m.
_______________________________
Peter Zak, Chairman
_______________________________
Bill Dunlap, Secretary
From:Jim Mosher
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Corrections to PC minutes
Date:Wednesday, September 12, 2018 4:10:33 PM
Attachments:2018Sep13_PC_AgendaItem_1_Comments_JimMosher.pdf
Please find attached some suggested corrections to the draft August 9, 2018,
Newport Beach Planning Commission meeting minutes, which are scheduled to be
presented for approval as Item 1 at the September 13 meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Mosher
Planning Commission - September 13, 2018
Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received
Draft Minutes of August 9, 2018
September 13, 2018, Planning Commission Item 1 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 1. MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2018
Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in strikeout underline format.
Page 3: paragraph 2, first sentence: “In response to Commissioners' questions, Senior Planner
Jaime Murillo explained the how the floor area is calculated, and the 4,528 square feet.” [The
last part is confusing since “4,528 square feet" is not previously mentioned in the minutes. From
the staff report, it was the proposed amount of above-ground construction, excluding the
garage.]
Page 3: paragraph 2 from end: “Brant Dahlfors, 211 Larkspur, wished to ensure the large
shrubs and trees at 3128 Ocean Blvd. on the subject property do not recur in the future on
the subject property.” [Mr. Dahlfors was grateful the approval was conditioned on the removal
of existing trees and shrubs along the Larkspur side of 3200 Ocean Blvd., but hoped a condition
could added preventing future plantings at 3200 from growing and impacting views as the City
had allowed on the opposite side of the street.]
Page 4: paragraph 2, sentence 2: “Commissioner Secretary Kleiman concurred.” [Since the
vote on Item 1 (“Appointment of Officers” came after this, Commissioner Kleiman served as
Secretary at the August 9 and July 19 meetings.]
Page 4: paragraph 7: “Commissioner Secretary Kleiman commented that the City did not
have the authority under the existing LCP to grant a variance.”
Page 5: paragraph 1, sentence 2: “In addition, the applicant requests an an increase in the
allowed building height to 28 feet for flat roofs and 33 feet for sloped roofs pursuant to the
provisions of Use Permit No. UP3618.” [note: This is part of what is normally a copy of the item
as noticed on the agenda. In this case, the agenda as posted read in pertinent part: “…
requests to increase the allowed building height to 28 feet …” The typo is part of changes that
were made to that more concise phrasing for unknown reasons.]
Page 5: long paragraph, sentence 3 from end: “The proposed dwelling complies with Title 21
building envelopment envelope requirements and with development standards for height,
setback, floor area, and bulk.” [This is what was said, but the building envelope and
development standards seem pretty much the same to me.]
Page 7: paragraph 2, last sentence: “However, many planned communities have existing
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and homeowner associations that prohibit
second dwelling units; however, state. State law does not supersede CC&Rs.”
Planning Commission - September 13, 2018
Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received
Draft Minutes of August 9, 2018