HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-2023 - Planning Commission
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2023 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– Secretary Klaustermeier III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Curtis Ellmore, Vice Chair Mark Rosene, Secretary Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Tristan Harris, Commissioner Lee Lowrey
ABSENT: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Brad Sommers, Principal Planner Ben Zdeba, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner David Lee, Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner Joselyn Perez, and Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2023 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Secretary Klaustermeier and seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the minutes of the January 19, 2023, meeting with Mr. Mosher’s edits.
AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 THOMAS RESIDENCE (PA2022-0172) Site Location: 700 West Ocean Front Summary:
A coastal development permit to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new 2,748-square-foot three (3)-story single-family residence with an attached 532-square-foot two (2)-car garage.
Additionally, the applicant requests a variance to deviate from the following development standards of the Newport Beach Municipal Code:
1. Rear Setback: Request for the first and second floor to encroach six (6) feet into the required 10-foot rear setback and for the third-floor open deck and mechanical well to encroach 3 feet, 9
inches into the rear setback;
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2023
Page 2 of 10
2. Third-Floor Stepback: Request to encroach six (6) feet into the required 15-foot third-floor stepback, which is measured from the required 10-foot rear setback line; and 3. Floor Area: Request to increase the allowed gross floor area to 3,280, where the maximum floor
area limit is 3,128 square feet. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project 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 and the exceptions to the class 3 exemption do not apply; and
3. Adopt Resolution PC2023-008 approving PA2022-0172 for a variance and coastal development
permit to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence.
Assistant Planner Lee used a presentation to review the vicinity map in a R-1 Zone, project location, project request, proposed project rendering and development features, variance request, lot re-orientation, neighborhood
comparison and compatibility photos, adequate separation, third floor stepback drawing, coastal development permit, Coastal Land Use Plan, 7th Street and boardwalk views and accesses, building articulation rendering, conforming parking, summary of findings, and recommended action. Commissioners reported no ex parte communications.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing. Amy Creager of Brion Jeanette Architecture, accepted the conditions of approval and, in response to Commissioner Harris’ question, stated that the applicant has an agreement with 704 West Ocean Front to disconnect the utilities under their house and relocate them into the side yard and the documents will be completed before the building permit is pulled.
Jim Mosher referenced handwritten page 26 and thought that the variance is not justified for the reason that the third-floor design is noncompliant with Title 20.
Assistant Planner Lee stated that the staircase is repeating up multiple floors and would cause a shift and is considered a fact. Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing. In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s comment, Assistant Planner Lee noted a memo sent out two days ago to
correct the floor area in the resolution. Motion made by Vice Chair Rosene and seconded by Chair Ellmore to approve the item as recommended.
AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 3 SIT MEANS SIT FOR DOGS COMMERCIAL KENNEL (PA2022-132) Site Location: 1662 Orchard Drive Summary:
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2023
Page 3 of 10
A conditional use permit to establish an accessory commercial kennel operation in conjunction with an existing single-family residence. The project includes construction of a new 1,000-square-foot garage and storage structure; an approximately 833-square-foot kennel structure including 16 kennels, exterior grass
training area, grooming space, food preparation area, and restroom; and a new parking area with three uncovered parking spaces including one accessible space. The project includes a lot merger of two contiguous lots, 1662 Orchard Drive and the unaddressed adjacent parcel (APN 439 251 10). Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and Section
15315 under Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution PC2023-009 approving PA2022-132 for a conditional use permit and lot merger to establish a residential kennel.
Assistant Planner Whelan reviewed the property location, aerial map, proposal drawing, RK District and surrounding uses map, noise analysis and mitigation efforts, operational characteristics, conditional use permit
(CUP) findings, project comparison with previous City approvals, lot merger findings, complaints and code-related investigations for Riverside Drive, and recommended action.
Secretary Klaustermeier expressed concern for noise and, in response to her question, Assistant Planner Whelan
identified the proposed block wall on the site plan slide, noted the rear neighboring property on the RK District and surrounding uses slide, and relayed that the kennels have rear doors that can be closed at night and individual
outdoor areas with noise barriers that block the adjacent residential neighbor, limited outdoor dog hours, and the lot merger in the grass training area, ownership by the same property owner, and the reason for merging.
Vice Chair Rosene noted an easement encroachment on the site plan and thought that the Condition of Approval
31 is meant to pick this up when building permits are issued.
In response to Commissioner Harris’ question, Assistant Planner Whelan noted three properties with CUPs issued from the City and no history of demonstrated complaints.
Commissioners reported no ex parte communications.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Cindy Hunt, owner, used a presentation to provide a background of Sit Means Sit Dog Training, business focus
and model, photos of the parcel at purchase, staff, core values, a previously aggressive dog having gone through their training, programming, and a training video and noted having incorporated neighbor feedback into the
planning. Furthermore, she agreed to the recommended conditions of approval. In response to Secretary Klaustermeier’s question, Ms. Hunt shared feedback received from the neighbors and how it was incorporated into the business design.
In response to Commissioner Harris’ inquiries, Ms. Hunt relayed that the dogs at the Newport Beach facility will
stay at that location, the facility is staffed 24 hours a day to address concerns, and her direct phone number was shared with neighbors. Mike Way, neighbor, noted neighborhood dog walking and the impact to the environment, driving, and parking,
asked to keep the property as residential and replace a current kennel instead of adding one, expressed concern for parking capacity, and suggested a parking feasibility analysis with the current kennels. Jim Mosher questioned the use and intention of “should” versus “shall” in Condition of Approval 11.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2023
Page 4 of 10
Susan Doan relayed her experience living next to kennels and questioned the reality of Ms. Hunt’s plan, her past attendance at Planning Commission meetings to reject the kennels and complain, 16 kennels in the residential
zone, dog droppings, traffic, parking issues, mail being stolen, and yard uses. Heidi Dill noted that the Huntington Beach location is in a commercial zone and suggested environmental impacts from noise, smell, dog donations, daily traffic, and emissions, questioned if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed, suggested studying emissions and dog donations, and expressed concern for property value changes.
Ms. Hunt noted their pickup and drop off model, noise reduction training, and dog walking limited to the property. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated that staff recommends approval of the item and
would like to change the word “should” to “shall” in Condition of Approval 11 and noted the applicant’s approach to traffic and noise control lead staff to recommend approval of this application.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Lowrey’s question, Assistant Planner Whelan was unaware of the land use history.
In reply to Commissioner Harris’ inquiries, Assistant Whelan noted that all the kennels not City permitted have
active kennel permits and are subject to inspections every two years by Animal Control, the City has no control over the amount of dogs allowed, Animal Control responds to complaints, and new permits would be required if
remodeling thresholds are exceeded. Community Development Director Jurjis noted that residents are encouraged to reach out to the City’s code enforcement with complaints by filing a complaint online or by phone.
Motion made by Commissioner Lowrey and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the item as
recommended.
AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 4 FLETCHER JONES AIRPORT SHUTTLE AND CAR WASH (PA2022-128) Site Location: 2172, 2192, and 2222 South Bristol Street Summary: A conditional use permit and lot merger to renovate the existing Fletcher Jones Motorcars airport shuttle facility and carwash facility. The project would replace an existing open car wash with a 4,293-square-foot enclosed car wash with outdoor detailing bays and other site modifications. The project also requires the approval of a lot merger to combine three parcels into a single building site. If approved and implemented, Planning Director’s Use Permit No. UP2005-009 (PA2005-037) would be superseded. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities), Section 15302 Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction), and Section 15315 Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution PC2023-010 approving PA2022-128 approving the Lot Merger and Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2023
Page 5 of 10
Assistant Planner Perez used a presentation to show a vicinity map, General Plan Land Use designation, Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP-7) Land Use Map, existing site conditions with photos, the proposed project and site plan, required entitlements for the project, compatibility findings for the CUP, required findings for the lot
merger, conditions of approval, and recommendation. Furthermore, staff revised Condition of Approval 41 by adding that repairs to damaged or broken curb or gutter will be at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Austin Hahn, applicant, stated he reviewed the conditions of approval and agreed to them along with the modifications.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
In response to Commissioner Harris’ question, Assistant Planner Perez identified a nonconforming residential use property in the business park land use designation and a residentially zoned property behind the project site developed with a tennis court and private garage.
In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified the last incoming and first incoming flight times at John Wayne Airport and thought a 10:00 p.m. closing time is
appropriate given the surrounding and existing zoning and surrounding uses. Vice Chair Rosene offered a suggestion to allow for a later closing time to accommodate for later flights and if the owner would like to take
advantage of it.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing.
Taylor Coleman, architect, agreed to pass along the closing time option to Fletcher Jones, stated that the applicant would like to keep the car wash hours contained, and was amenable to the option of extended business hours.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
Motion made by Vice Chair Rosene and seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the item with an
amendment with the option to close at 10:00 p.m. instead of 9:00 p.m.
AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 5 BALBOA VILLAGE PARKING MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT PLAN (PM-1) IMPLEMENTATION (PA2017-046) Site Location: Balboa Village, generally between Adams Street and A Street on the Balboa Peninsula Summary: A coastal development permit to implement the City’s Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District Plan (PM-1), which was approved by the California Coastal Commission on September 9, 2020, and subsequently adopted by City Council on February 9, 2021. If approved, the PM-1 would primarily preserve existing off-street parking, eliminate required off-street parking for most commercial uses, allow parking reductions with a shared parking arrangement, and provide guidance for efficient use of the existing parking supply within Balboa Village. Recommended Action:
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2023
Page 6 of 10
1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) and statutorily exempt under Sections 15262 and 15265 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has not potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution PC2023-011 approving the Coastal Development Permit filed as PA2017-046.
Principal Planner Zdeba used a presentation to review the Balboa Village Parking Management District Plan background, purpose, implementing components, coastal consistency, and recommendation. Commissioners Rosene and Klaustermeier reported no ex parte communications and Commissioner Harris
and Lowrey reported having spoken with area property owners.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing. Jim Pertrulli asked if the parking on Adams Street will change and if his duplex spaces are included in the 161 spaces that will be more public.
Jim Mosher noted a spillover parking analysis not included for consideration of an anticipated problem, typo on
handwritten page 31 referring to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) approval when it is the Planning Commission’s approval, missing implementation specifics, Municipal Code, and incomplete pieces.
Principal Planner Zdeba stated that no changes are planned for parking on Adams Street and residential parking
garages are not included in the off-street parking pool that represents private commercial parking. Furthermore, he relayed that Mr. Mosher was referencing a residential parking permit program, which was not supported by the
residents nor the CCC and thus not carried forward. He added that spillover parking impacts could happen if the Village is successful and that they can be reviewed in the required two-year review period.
Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing.
In response to Commissioner Harris’ questions, Principal Planner Zdeba indicated that the code does not speak
to potential private parking being utilized to offset residential parking and would not be consistent with the program intent. He noted that the plan has flexibility built-in to make changes and the Employee Parking Permit program is
intended to help divert the spillover. Motion made by Commissioner Harris and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to approve the item as recommended. AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 FRACTIONAL HOMEOWNERSHIP (PA2022-0202) Summary: A discussion of potential regulation of fractional homeownership. Recommended Action:
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2023
Page 7 of 10
Receive a presentation of the Planning Commission ad-hoc committee on fractional homeownership and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Community Development Director Jurjis explained that the City Council has passed this item to the Planning Commission to work on, an Ad-Hoc Committee with Commissioner Lowrey and Vice Chair Rosene was formed, the staff has spent an enormous amount of time on the item, the recommendation is the Ad-Hoc Committee’s idea of how to address fractional ownership, and the subject is difficult and not perfect. He asked that the Planning Commission provide feedback which will be provided to the City Council on March 14 for further review.
Principal Planner Murillo used a presentation to review what is fractional ownership, how it works, operations, complaints/concerns, background of past City Council direction, the Planning Commission study session with staff and Ad-Hoc Committee formation, and Ad Hoc Committee considerations. He shared the recommendations of the
Ad-Hoc Committee which included a regulatory process, location restrictions and maximum caps, parking requirements, noise restrictions, management plan, prohibition of subletting and guest use, Good Neighbor Policy,
owner acknowledgments, and grandfathering provisions. Principal Planner Murillo stated the recommendation requested and displayed a summary of the recommendations of the Ad-Hoc Committee for discussion purposes. Chair Ellmore provided an opportunity for public comment.
Carmen Rawson thought that timeshares cannot be regulated like Short-Term Lodging (STL), questioned how
regulations will be enforceable, asked for an update on what other cities are doing, noted the impacts, thought the City’s goal should be to have more residents, questioned removal of separation requirements, and noted the
challenge of regulating subletting.
Jim Mosher noted the difference in stay times between fractional ownership homes and co-owned homes, concern for regulating ownership, the applicability of the timeshare definition to fractional ownership, and differences in
ordinances enacted in Park City, UT that prohibit fractional ownership in most residential areas except for where timeshares are allowed and Carmel where timeshares are banned in all residential areas, and sale advertisements
will be prohibited.
Maureen Cotton, President of Central Newport Beach Community Association, referenced Mr. Mosher’s letter to the Planning Commission dated yesterday as having clarified all the City needs to know, noted ordinances already
placed by the City, asked for timeshares and fractional ownership to be called the same, described stay lengths, programming, and STL permit rules, asked the Planning Commission to review the letter from Mr. Mosher and
her, thought the fractional ownerships are acting like timeshares and should be limited to where they are allowed in the City, and relayed the burden to City services.
Denys Oberman asked for the presentation to be made available to the public and a reasonable opportunity to
provide input, provided background information on fractional ownership companies and thought the corporate setup is not comparable to families forming a LLC for trust reasons, strongly opposed permitting commercial
entities engaged in the business of fractional ownership and timeshare activity in residential neighborhoods, questioned if fractional ownership falls in the purview of timeshare ordinances and legal framework, believed that
fractional ownership structures are not STL, noted impacts to the community, and suggested fractional ownership is a fundamental change in land use plans. Max H. Johnson requested the clarification and specification of the agenda item be available before the meeting, seconded that fractional ownership is a timeshare and not allowed in the City of Newport, noted the urgency to ban or enaction of a moratorium on fractional ownership in other cities with no legal repercussions, urged the Planning Commission to consider placing a moratorium or ban and using a buffer/pause until a decision is made, and relayed the quality of life in the Peninsula Point. Nancy Scarbrough noted her frustration for not having information in advance of the meeting, supported comments by Jim Mosher and Carmen Rawson, noted a 30 percent Pacaso staff reduction in the fourth quarter and 100 employees fired recently, stated that fractional ownership homes are permanently out of the residential housing stock and overvalued, and thought the focus of the discussion should be on what is best for the residents,
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2023
Page 8 of 10
stepping back, enacting a moratorium, conducting a thorough study of other cities, and seeking a second legal opinion.
Ken Rawson inquired about why the Ad-Hoc Committee is recommending regulating fractional ownership and expressed concern for regulation details and limits to the number of fractional ownership homes. Purvi Doshi, Senior Public Affairs Manager for Pacaso, thanked the staff and Planning Commission subcommittee, expressed gratitude for working collaboratively, and expressed hope to move forward with policies that address the City’s concerns and enrich lives, noted a regulations draft prepared by Pacaso that addresses concerns,
supported the recommendations presented, recommended a cap of about 500 fractional ownership homes City-wide, relayed the differences of a Pacaso home versus a timeshare, and described the characteristics of a fractional owner.
Gina Cruz supported the other speakers and expressed her astonishment at the proposed 500 fractional ownership cap.
Chair Ellmore ended the opportunity for public comment. Chair Ellmore recapped what is being requested of the Planning Commission.
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill suggested a permit suspension penalty to address enforcement issues and
using the co-owner permit and acknowledgements to verify who is on the property and address subletting issues.
In response to Chair Ellmore’s inquires, Principal Planner Murillo indicated that there is no data on police department complaints at Pacaso properties, Community Development Director Jurjis shared one complaint to
code enforcement that was quickly resolved. Chair Ellmore stated that a party atmosphere does not seem to be apparent with 12 fractional ownership properties and one complaint.
Vice Chair Rosene suggested to the public that the opportunity still exists to reach out to the new Council to
recommend broadening the definition of timeshares and include fractional ownership under it. He stated this action is not in the purview of this body and supported the inclusion of a public hearing process by the Zoning
Administrator (ZA) for complete transparency, adding a management permit, prohibiting fractional ownership in a R-1 zone, and meeting the guidelines of the City codes.
Commissioner Lowrey thanked staff for their help, recapped what is being asked of the Planning Commission and
the goal of creating regulations that a lot of people could agree on. He noted his issues of ownership and contract law, legal challenges in the State, and a fair recommendation to forward to the City Council as a starting point that
could return to the Planning Commission for a full resolution. Community Development Director Jurjis indicated that the current recommendation of a regulatory framework would be included in the business license side so
it will not come back to the Planning Commission, but will depend on how the Council looks at it.
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill relayed that the St. Helena case is pending, and the trial date has been pushed out to January 2024.
Vice Chair Rosene relayed that the recommendation is an attempt to come up with practical regulation and provide visibility to what ‘s happening in the neighborhoods and does not mean it is the only option. He noted the option to broaden the timeshare definition with the City Council.
Secretary Klaustermeier thought fractional ownership sounds like a timeshare framed differently, is a business
model that commercializes residential neighborhoods with a profit taken through sales and operates like STL which is capped in the City. She concurred with Vice Chair Rosene regarding the opportunity for the City Council to revise the way timeshare is defined and preferred not permitting this use and legally find a way to make that happen. In response to Commissioner Harris’ inquires, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated that Carmel by the Sea tweaked and expanded their timeshare definition to capture fractional ownership, which is the equivalent to a ban, the ordinance is just now taking effect, she is not aware of a lawsuit on the case, and they prohibited the
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2023
Page 9 of 10
advertisement by realtors of the units. Furthermore, she is aware of cease-and-desist instances, but does not know the enforcement efforts in the jurisdictions.
Commissioner Harris was curious about the process with homeowners and companies and buffer zones, did not know how the City could enforce permit suspension restrictions and regulations, thought punitive or financial consequences made sense, and inquired about possible restricted areas and a cap number. Commissioner Lowrey explained that the Committee chose a cap method because it would be difficult to enforce spacing and a cap limit was more appropriate. He predicted a slowdown in sales with the rates changes over the
last six to seven months. In response to Commissioner Harris’ question, Community Development Director Jurjis stated that the recommendation is a starting point of what enforcement could look like, consists of parts taken from the STL policy,
and plans for enforcement like STL.
Vice Chair Rosene restated his recommendations: 1- Consider the option to broaden the definition of timeshare. 2- Transparency for neighbors is needed with a regulatory process and permitted through the public ZA process for the property and co-owner permit. (A management company must be maintained)
3- Prohibit fractional ownership in the R-1 Zone. 4- Add practical regulations that create a good neighbor atmosphere.
5- Add language that suspends a permit after a certain number of complaints. 6- Explore an advertisement prohibition.
Vice Chair Rosene thanked staff.
Chair Ellmore proceeded with establishing a consensus of the Planning Commission for a recommendation. He
confirmed the Planning Commission can recommend that the City Councill broaden the definition of timeshare.
In response to Chair Ellmore, Vice Chair Rosene thought permit suspensions should be placed in the recommendation and discretion should be given to staff for review .
In response to Commissioner Lowrey’s question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill thought transparency can be
created through a regulatory permit but is not sure if it would be through the ZA if the direction provided is to use a regulatory permit. The Commission agreed not using the ZA, but recommended some transparency be provided
to the neighbors through the permit process.
Chair Ellmore recommended the the Council further evaluate the idea of not allowing fractional ownership in the R-1 Zone.
The Commission discussed a reasonable cap limit and agreed to forward it to the City Council to address.
In response to Commissioner Lowrey’s question, Chair Ellmore clarified that the recommendation includes
reviewing the timeshare definition to see if by broadening it, fractional ownership can be incorporated. ITEM NO. 7 APPEAL FEE DISCUSSION Summary:
A discussion of planning application appeal fees and a recommendation to the Finance Committee and City Council. Recommended Action: 1. Find any recommendation to the City Council regarding planning application appeal fees is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2)
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
February 23, 2023
(the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment) and 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, because it has no potential
for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
2. Recommend the City Council modify the Chapter 3.36 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to
refund appeal fees for successful planning application appeals.
Chari Ellmore asked for feedback from the Planning Commission on the item and none was received.
Motion made by Vice Chair Rosene and seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the item as
recommended.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Ellmore, Harris, Klaustermeier, Lowrey, and Rosene
None
None
None
IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 8
None
ITEM NO. 9
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MA TIERS
WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE
AGENDA
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell announced the Planning Commission next meeting on
March 9 and four items scheduled.
ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
Commissioner Harris requested an excused absence on March 9 and Chair Ellmore on a date to be determined
pending the birth of a child .
X. ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
The agenda for the February 23, 2023, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday,
February 16, 2023, at 04:45 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the
vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City's website on Thursday,
February 16, 2023, at 04:40 p.m.
Page 10 of 10