HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes of February 17, 2021
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2022 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 – Commissioner Ellmore III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Lee Lowrey, Vice Chair Lauren Kleiman, Secretary Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Erik Weigand, Commission Peter Koetting, and Commissioner Mark Rosene ABSENT: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Principal Planner Ros Ung, Associate Planner David Lee, Associate Planner Chelsea Crager, and Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2021 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Koetting to approve the minutes of the December 9, 2021, meeting with Mr. Mosher's proposed edits. AYES: Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Weigand, and Ellmore NOES: None ABSTAIN: Lowrey and Rosene ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 2. KOCIUBA ENCROACHMENT (PA2022-021)
Site Location: 407 Fullerton Avenue
Summary:
A request to waive City Council Policy L-6 to install private improvements consisting of a white picket fence and
one (1) inward swinging gate with a maximum height of thirty-six (36) inches that encroach up to 6 feet within
the 60-foot-wide Fullerton Avenue public right-of-way. The Fullerton Avenue parkway within the public right-of-
way is approximately 12 feet from face of curb to the property line. City Council Policy L-6 (“Policy”) prohibits
the proposed fence and gate since structures are limited to a 1-foot projection into the right-of-way, and the
Owner is requesting a waiver of the Policy to install these improvements.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 17, 2022
2 of 8
Recommended Action:
1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), because it has no significant effect on the environment; 2. Waive City Council Policy L-6, Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way, to install non-compliant private improvements consisting of a fence and inward swinging gate that encroach into the Fullerton Avenue public right-of-way, contingent upon all conditions of the Encroachment Permit process being met (Attachment No. PC 1); and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2022-021 waiving the City Council Policy L-6 and approving Encroachment Permit NO. N2021-0604 (Attachment No. PC 2). Chair Lowrey asked for any public comments. Jim Mosher commented on how the fencing along the Fullerton Avenue curb gave the street a private appearance. Commissioner Koetting commented on the location and impact of the fencing.
Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to approve the staff recommendation. AYES: Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting, Ellmore, Rosene, Klaustermeier, and Weigand NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 3 BEARD RESIDENCE (PA2021-130)
Site Location: 3625 Ocean Boulevard
Summary:
A request for a Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing single-unit residence and construct a new
5,413-square-foot, single-unit residence with an attached 522-square-foot two-car garage. The applicant
requests a variance to deviate from maximum building height, front setback, and parking development
standards. Additionally, a request to waive City Council Policy L-6 to construct private improvements with an
Encroachment Permit within the Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way consisting of site walls, stairs on-grade,
bio-retention planter, sump-pumps, railings, and a decorative concrete driveway that encroach up to 47-feet
into the 110-foot-wide Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this activity exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 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; 3. Waive City Council Policy L-6, Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way, to retain existing non-
compliant private improvements within the Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way consisting of site walls, stairs on-grade, bio-retention planter, sump-pumps, railings, and a decorative concrete
driveway that encroaches in excess of 1 foot into the 110-foot-wide Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way, contingent upon all conditions of the Encroachment Permit process being met (Attachment
No. PC 1); and
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 17, 2022
3 of 8
4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2022-002 waiving City Council Policy L-6 and approving Variance No. VA2022-002, Coastal Development Permit No. CD2021-025 and Encroachment Permit No. N2022-0040 (Attachment No. PC 1).
Deputy Director Jim Campbell noted proposed improvements to the Beard Residence are consistent with local Coastal Program. Portions of the proposed building are lower than the existing building and as a result, public views to the ocean will be improved and this fact was an important consideration supporting staff’s recommendation for project approval. Associate Planner David Lee utilized a presentation to review the request for demolition and rebuilding of a single-
unit residence, Variance, Coastal Development Permit (CDP), Encroachment Permit, map and photos of the project site, history of approved Variances and Modification Permits, proposed plan drawings and elevations, development standards, aerial topography view, height and set-back deviations along the bluff, photos of the existing home, plan views of the existing and proposed home, and recommendations by staff.
Vice Chair Kleiman disclosed conversations with the public. Commissioner Weigand disclosed conversations with
the architectural consultant and staff, as well as representatives and neighbors of the opposition. Chair Lowrey and Commissioners Ellmore, Koetting, Klaustermeier, and Rosene disclosed no ex-parte communications. Chair Lowrey opened the public hearing.
Ryan McDaniel, applicant and Principal Architect of Brandon Architects, utilized a presentation to review the existing
residence and approved variance, existing front perspective, proposed residence front design, the street
perspective of the existing and proposed residence, Inspiration Point perspective of the existing and proposed
residence, existing and proposed maximum roof height, and City Standards for maximum driveway slope.
Ron Beard, homeowner, recounted his time in Newport Beach, neighboring construction, work with City staff and
architects, and hopes that the City will support the project and agreed to the Conditions of Approval.
Marcia Beard, homeowner, reported neighbors and a signed petition in favor of the project and read a letter from a neighbor in support of the project which she then submitted to City staff. In response to Commissioner Koetting’s questions, Mr. McDaniel explained the challenge and strategy related to a vehicle exiting the garage and entering the street, as well as driveway uses within the footprint. In reply to Commissioner Weigand’s inquiries, Mr. McDaniel detailed the challenges and obstacles related to zoning and building code requirements and the grade plane and design strategies and options. In answer to Vice Chair Kleiman’s queries, Mr. McDaniel indicated the infeasibility of redeveloping the property without a variance request and an alternate plan to remodel the interior while maintaining the current building envelope if the request is unapproved. Staff confirmed that the applicant could simply remodel the existing nonconforming house and consistent with current codes and there would be no improvement of public views. In response to Commissioner Rosene’s questions, Mr. McDaniel clarified the maximum roof elevation of 103.39 and agreed to investigate inconsistencies in the plan. He further described that the driveway plan will accommodate slope and an eight-foot sidewalk and confirmed the mean Top of Curb of 103.39. Deputy Director Campbell indicated that the City is working with a group of residents to improve the pedestrian experience along Ocean Boulevard and provide a future plant palate. He further confirmed the average Top of Curb of 103.39 and noted the enhanced view and reduced mass by lowering the westerly part of the house below the Top of Curb by 3 feet. Jim Mosher noted that Findings are required to grant a variance and questioned whether Findings could be established for this variance as it pertains to the curb height requirements, unique circumstances, special privileges, consistency with the intent of the local Coastal Program, and plan alternatives. Additionally, he referenced circumstances for neighboring properties who sought variances.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 17, 2022
4 of 8
Shannon Aikman opposed building at a height in excess of the City building standards, referenced neighboring properties and the City Local Coastal Program, asked for the Planning Commission to consider the view and support the City Building Code, and extended thanks to the City.
Steven Jones questioned the color and picture representations of the residence in the presentation, noted photos included in the Newport Beach app, and referenced changes made to neighboring properties. Erin McDonald noted the view and nature enjoyed by residents, Building Code, wants versus needs in the plan, prioritizing protecting the view, and plan alternatives and supported preserving coastal views and upholding the local Building Code.
Lawrence Tabak supported the project, noted the proposed plan and improvements to the view, and questioned the alternatives and commonalities with neighboring properties.
David Greenburg reported no issues with a Porsche using the driveway and opposed granting the variance.
Mary Greenburg opposed granting the variance and offered alternative driveway plans. Kenneth Pratt opposed granting the four requested variances, recounted meetings, and proposed compromises with the Beard family, requested a continuance to allow the Beard family time to revisit the plans, and offered plan
alternatives.
Mr. McDaniel thanked speakers, asked traffic engineers to validate claims, noted driveway challenges with the topography, indicated no options to lower the house by three feet, justified the garage height, elaborated on improved
views with the proposed plan, and suggested that an alternate plan could create more obstructive views.
In answer to Commissioner Koetting’s question, Mr. McDaniel clarified the driveway variation percentages along the width, explained the overlay to clarify changes, and confirmed that the proposed plan reflects current Building Code
and meets City Standards.
Deputy Director Campbell explained the height certification requirement for building plans and enforcement practices.
In response to Commissioner Koetting’s question, Deputy Director Campbell confirmed that the height of the existing
garage is the same as in the proposed plan and the structure on the west side terraces down.
Chair Lowrey closed the public hearing.
In reply to Commissioner Klaustermeier’s inquiries, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported on the Feasibility Study and setback grade percentages to lower the garage by three feet.
In response to Commissioner Koetting’s question, City Traffic Engineer Brine confirmed that the 19 percent grade
in the proposed plan will work.
In response to Vice Chair Kleiman’s questions, Associate Planner Lee indicated that staff evaluated alternative plans with the architects and found that 19.1 percent is a slope that works and it is necessary keep the house no higher than the existing house, continuous livable area is not possible without exceeding the flat height, and a front setback is necessary to gain the necessary square footage with no alternatives to get additional livable area towards
the back without exceeding height limits. Associate Planner Lee highlighted exhibits in the presentation to show the subject property and the unique topography and transitions. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill noted the unique
bluff and curvature of Ocean Boulevard. In response to Commissioner Rosene’s comment, Deputy Director Campbell clarified that although many homes have gone through the variance process, there’s no evidence to indicate that all homes along this edge will need a
variance to redevelop property, coming into the setback helps minimize the alternation of the bluff considering the house is already eight feet into the 10-foot setback, the potential for lowering the house if the garage is pushed further away from the bluff, and suggested additional review of the slope driveway and compliant garage noted in
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 17, 2022
5 of 8
the plans. He further noted that the proposed plan is a compromise after staff evaluated many ways to minimize variances, considered different garage plans, the applicant’s right to remodel the home within the footprint, and possible alternatives to further improve the view beyond the current design proposal. Staff supports the proposed plan.
Commissioner Rosene commented if a larger top floor setback could be utilized, with a maximum driveway slope, it would push the building down slightly while keeping the lower sections in the setback as drawn. Commission Koetting indicated that by moving the garage towards the ocean, maintaining the height, and lowering the driveway grade, the same viewpoint exists.
Commissioner Rosene remarked that the house is shown completely outside the front setback in the applicant’s Feasibility Study as opposed to a truer representation of it within a setback.
Commissioner Weigand shared a pragmatic opinion, recognized the field expertise involved in this project, past controversial variances, the opportunity for the Beard family to work with the community, potential compromises
and appeals, and the role of the Commission, City Council and California Coastal Commission (CCC) in the process. He further suggested taking a step back, his opposition to impacting the coastal view, the neighbors’ displeasure with coming up on the encroachment and how it appeals from the LCP standpoint, and a better house that stands up to CCC or an appeal versus just doing the remodel. He questioned if a continuance would help working together
with the community.
Commissioner Ellmore clarified the responsibilities of the Planning Commission, his perspective of the lot and applicant’s effort to minimize impacts to the view, and past approved variances and his support of the project based on
a special hardship.
Commissioner Koetting clarified the responsibility of the Planning Commission, referenced past properties evaluated by the Planning Commission, and his support for the project.
Chair Lowrey asked staff to display the presentation slide showing the previous variances along Ocean Boulevard,
referenced variance Findings, noted that the proposed project replaces like height with like height, includes less volume, and offers a more beautiful building, acknowledged the oddity of the lots making it hard to build, and his support for the
project. Motion made by Chair Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to approve the project per staff’s recommendation.
Substitute motion made by Commissioner Weigand to continue Item 3 and allow residents and the applicant an
opportunity seek a compromise design that might prevent an appeal that will go to CCC or the City Council. The substitute motion did not receive a second.
Commissioner Koetting remarked that obstructions to the view are created by the existing planting that should be
trimmed to improve views.
AYES: Lowrey, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Rosene, Ellmore, and Koetting NOES: Weigand RECUSED: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 4 RESIDENCES AT 1300 BRISTOL (PA2021-161) Site Location: 1300 North Bristol Street
Summary:
The Residences at 1300 Bristol Street Project (“Project”) would result in the construction of 193 apartment
units atop a 346-space parking structure. The 1.97-acre project site is within the Residential Overlay of
Newport Place Planned Community General Commercial Site 4, and is located at the northeast corner of
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 17, 2022
6 of 8
North Bristol Street and Spruce Street in the Airport Area. The project inclues 24 units that will be made
available to lower-income households. Project consideration also includes the transfer of 77 units from the
the Uptown Newport Planned Community. Implementation of the proposed project would require demolition
of the existing 33,292-square-foot office building and surface parking. The project requires the approval of
a traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find that potential environmental impacts have been previously mitigated through the implementation of the policies of the General Plan as evaluated in Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2006 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2006011119), and the City of Newport Beach Housing Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration (collectively, he PEIR); therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an addendum to the previously adopted PEIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the project; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2022-003 (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the City Council adoption of Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. ER2022-001, and approval of Major Site Development Review No. SD2021-003, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2022.001, Traffic Study No. TS2022.001, and Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2022-001 for Residences at 1300 Bristol Street Project located at 1300 Bristol Street (PA2021-161).
Commissioner Ellmore recused himself from Item No. 4 due to a real property conflict.
Associate Planner Chelsea Crager utilized a presentation to review the project details, vicinity map, Airport Area – Mixed Use Horizontal (MU-H2) land use designation, the breakdown of 193 units, ground level floor plan, resident amenities, required applications, major site development review, the Transfer of Development Rights from the Uptown Newport Planning Community Phase I, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP), Development Standard Waiver requests, Incentive requests by the applicant, traffic study in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), CEQA review, proposed changes to the Conditions of Approval, the project consistency with the
General Plan, City’s Zoning, and State Laws, and recommended action and next steps. In response to Chair Lowrey’s question, Associate Planner Crager indicated that no additional Project parcel map will be provided to the Planning Commission as the project is apartments not condominiums.
In answer to Commissioner Koetting’s inquiries, Associate Planner Crager indicated that guest parking is not
individually identified on the floor plan, rent is adjusted annually by the County of Orange, the project shares the same developer as one of the Uptown Newport Planned Community projects, and 77 transferred units came from potential density at sites in Phase I of the Uptown Newport Planned Community.
In response to Commission Koetting’s questions, Deputy Director Campbell indicated that the Planning Commission will not have an opportunity to review where the 77-unit reduction came from. The units are supplied from Phase 1
of the Uptown Newport Planned Community where the projects are administratively approved.
Commissioner Rosene noted a discrepancy between the parking space minimum in the Conditions of Approval and the proposed number.
Commissioner Klaustermeier disclosed text correspondence with the applicant. Commissioner Weigand and Chair Lowrey disclosed speaking with the applicant. Vice Chair Kleiman, and Commissioners Ellmore, Koetting, and Rosene disclosed no ex-parte communications.
Chair Lowrey opened the public hearing.
Ken Picerne, President and CEO of The Picerne Group, introduced the consultants for the Project and described
the Project objective to create a mixed-income plan, combining the high standards of luxury with Affordable Housing.
Amanda Tropiano, Principal of De Novo Planning Group, utilized a presentation to introduce the Project team, Project Sponsor, the commitment of the Picerne Group’ to the City of Newport Beach, Picerne Group’s professional
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 17, 2022
7 of 8
history and photos of One Uptown Newport, overview of the Project including a vicinity map, existing conditions, and Project context. Irwin Yau, Principal of TCA Architects, showed a powerpoint presentation to share the site plan, architectural
strategy, and design features, clarify 34 guest parking spaces designated by the letter G, resident parking, 346 total parking spaces, more than the 233-parking space requirement. He additionally shared the Project perspective from Bristol Street and Spruce Street, elevations, building sections, and materials. Matt Jackson, Vice President of MJS Landscape Architecture, utilized a presentation to share the design process, lifestyle imagery, composite landscape plan, ground level, podium level, and roof deck amenities, example amenity
imagery from One Uptown Newport, and plant imagery. Ms. Tropiano utilized a presentation to share letters of support the applicant received from nearby businesses, property owners, and stakeholders, acknowledged the applicant’s work to understand and accommodate the needs
and concerns in the community, and summarize community benefits that address housing needs, support local business, and respect the community.
In reply to Commissioner Koetting’s question, Mr. Yau clarified that Studio units do not have balconies, One- bedroom units have balconies, and Affordable Housing is offered in Studio, One-bedroom, and Two-bedroom units, the trash collection process, and ground level entry points and agreed to evaluate the doorway size in the Loading
Zone and Trash Staging Area before describing the move-in elevator features.
In response to Commissioner Koetting’s question, Traffic Engineer Brine clarified the purpose and function of the Spruce Street pull-off area, no parking signage, and no need for a traffic signal at Spruce Street.
In answer to Commissioner Weigand’s question, Mr. Yau indicated that resident parking will be assigned, and the
Project is in compliance with electric vehicle parking availability.
Jim Mosher noted the misuse of the word “imagery” and “maximum” as it relates to the building heights on handwritten page 34 fact number 3 and discrepancies with the very Low-Income Housing Density Bonus and Project
Relief, Municipal Code, and Development Right Transfer Findings.
Cort Ensign noted setbacks, landscaping accommodations to hide big structures, future developers seeking the same project type, and future plans for Newport Beach.
The applicant agreed to the Conditions of Approval found within the Resolution.
In response to Commissioner Koetting’s question, Deputy Director Campbell clarified that the Newport Place
Planned Community Affordable Housing requirement is satisfied through the Density Bonus and facts exist to support the Findings for the Transfer of Development Rights and that, although the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance
is out of date, the action is compliant with State Density Bonus Law. In reply to Commissioner Rosene’s inquiries, Associate Planner Crager clarified that the applicant’s proposal includes more parking spaces than what is required by the Density Bonus per State Law in the Conditions of Approval and Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted that the substantial conformance condition is satisfactory. In response to Commissioner Koetting’s question, Mr. Yau indicated that a 20/30 plaster finish is included in the proposal. Chair Lowrey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Weigand noted the view opposite the Project, listed neighboring amenities within walking distance, and supported the Project. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to approve the staff
recommendation.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 17, 2022
8 of 8
AYES: Lowrey, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Rosene, Weigand, and Koetting NOES: None RECUSED: Ellmore
ABSENT: None VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
None ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
Deputy Director Campbell reported that on February 8, 2022, the City Council approved the Housing Element and it was submitted to the State of California. The Junior Lifeguard Facility will be heard by the California Coastal
Commission on March 9th, and the next Planning Commission meeting will be on March 17th. He further indicated that the Newport Crossing project has been plan checked and is awaiting permit issuance and 4400 Von Karman project is pending but is stalled due to an unresolved lawsuit, and, upon resolution, the project is expected to move forward quickly.
ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
None lX. ADJOURNMENT – 9:11 p.m.
The agenda for the February 17, 2022, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday,
February 11, 2022, at 12:25 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, February 11, 2022, at 12:14 p.m.
_______________________________
Lee Lowrey, Chairman
_______________________________
Curtis Ellmore, Secretary
March 17, 2022, 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 FEBRUARY 17, 2022
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with corrections suggested in strikeout
underline format.
Page 1, Item 3: “PRESENT: Chair Lee Lowrey, Vice Chair Lauren Kleiman, Secretary Curtis
Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Erik Weigand, Commission
Commissioner Peter Koetting, and Commissioner Mark Rosene”
Page 1, Item 3: “Staff Present: …, Principal Planner Ros Ung, …” [? I do not recall Ms.Ung
being present and aside from this listing she is not mentioned in the minutes.]
Page 3, paragraph 1, sentence 1: “Deputy Director Jim Campbell noted the proposed
improvements to the Beard Residence are consistent with the local Coastal Program.”
Page 3, paragraph 3, sentence 2: “Chair Lowrey, Secretary Ellmore and Commissioners
Ellmore, Koetting, Klaustermeier, and Rosene disclosed no ex-parte communications.”
Page 3, paragraph 11, sentence 2: “Staff confirmed that the applicant could simply remodel the
existing nonconforming house and consistent with current codes and there would be no
improvement of public views.”
Page 3, paragraph 13, sentence 1: “Deputy Director Campbell indicated that the City is working
with a group of residents to improve the pedestrian experience along Ocean Boulevard and
provide a future plant palate palette.”
Page 4, paragraph 2 from end, sentence 1: “In response to Vice Chair Kleiman’s questions,
Associate Planner Lee indicated that staff evaluated alternative plans with the architects and
found that 19.1 percent is a slope that works and it is necessary keep the house no higher than
the existing house, continuous livable area is not possible without exceeding the flat roof height
limit, and a front setback is necessary to gain the necessary square footage with no alternatives
to get additional livable area towards the back without exceeding height limits”
Page 4, paragraph 5: “David Greenburg Greenberg reported no issues with a Porsche using
the driveway and opposed granting the variance.” [see Additional Materials]
Page 4, paragraph 6: “Mary Greenburg Greenberg opposed granting the variance and offered
alternative driveway plans.”
Page 4, last line: “…, and suggested additional review of the slope sloped driveway and
compliant garage noted in the plans.”
Planning Commission - March 17, 2022 Item 1a - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of February 17, 2022
March 17, 2022, PC agenda Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Page 5, full paragraph 5: “Commissioner Secretary Ellmore clarified the responsibilities of the
Planning Commission, …”
Page 5, full paragraph 8: “Motion made by Chair Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner
Secretary Ellmore to approve the project per staff’s recommendation.”
Page 6, paragraph 1 after Recommended Action: “Commissioner Secretary Ellmore recused
himself from Item No. 4 due to a real property conflict.”
Page 6, paragraph 2 after Recommended Action, sentence 1: “Associate Planner Chelsea
Crager utilized a presentation to review …, the Transfer of Development Rights from the
Uptown Newport Planning Planned Community Phase I, …”
Page 6, paragraph 4 after Recommended Action, sentence 1: “In answer to Commissioner
Koetting’s inquiries, Associate Planner Crager indicated that guest parking is not individually
identified on the floor plan, rent is adjusted annually by based on the County of Orange median
income, …” [?]
Page 6, paragraph 7 after Recommended Action: “Commissioner Klaustermeier disclosed text
correspondence with the applicant. Commissioner Weigand and Chair Lowrey disclosed
speaking with the applicant. Vice Chair Kleiman, and Commissioners Ellmore, Koetting, and
Rosene disclosed no ex-parte communications.” [A previous paragraph indicated Secretary
Ellmore recused himself from this item.]
Page 6, last line: “…, the commitment of the Picerne Group’ to the City of Newport Beach,…”
[delete extraneous apostrophe]
Page 7, full paragraph 1, sentence 1: “Irwin Yau, Principal of TCA Architects, showed a
powerpoint PowerPoint presentation to share the site plan, …”
Page 7, last paragraph: “Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by
Commissioner Vice Chair Kleiman to approve the staff recommendation.”
Planning Commission - March 17, 2022 Item 1a - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of February 17, 2022