HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes of April 20, 2023Page 1 of 9
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 2023 REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – 6:30 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Barto III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Vice Chair Mark Rosene, Secretary Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Brady Barto, Commissioner Tristan Harris, Commissioner Jonathan Langford, and Commissioner Lee Lowrey
ABSENT: Chair Curtis Ellmore
Staff Present: Community Development Director Simone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Brad Sommers, Principal Planner Ben Zdeba, Assistant Planner Jenny Tran, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Police Investigator Wendy Joe, and Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2023 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Secretary Klaustermeier and seconded by Commissioner Langford to approve the minutes of the March 23, 2023 meeting with Mr. Mosher’s edits.
AYES: Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Barto ABSENT: Ellmore
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 KALAVERAS RESTAURANT (PA2022-0263) Site Location: 900 North Bristol Street Summary:
A request for a conditional use permit to make up to 940 square feet of the temporary outdoor dining patio
permanent. The applicant also requests to expand the licensed premises of the existing Type 47 (On-Sale General – Eating Place) Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) License to include the outdoor dining patio and
to increase the hours of operation to between 10 a.m. to 2 a.m., daily. No live entertainment or dancing is requested. If approved, this Conditional Use Permit would supersede Use Permit No. UP1789 and Minor
Use Permit No. UP2017-009.
Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 2023
Page 2 of 9
Recommended Action:
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) and 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
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-016 approving Planning Activity PA2022-0263 for a Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing eating and drinking establishment.
Assistant Planner Tran utilized a presentation to review the vicinity map, surrounding General Plan, existing restaurant approvals, outdoor dining patio, applicant’s conditional use permit request, operational
characteristics existing and proposed, parking, findings, comments received, approved floor plan and additional parking space requirements, conditions of approval, additional condition of approval to modify the outdoor dining hours of operation to end at midnight and parking boundaries, and recommended actions.
In response to Commissioner Langford’s inquiry, Assistant Tran explained the restaurant parking rate change proposal, the current code parking range, and that, if the as-built changes remain, the parking will be 57 rather
than 70 with the current code.
In response to Commissioner Barto’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained the next steps for the parking rate change and are dependent on the outcome of the Council decision.
Vice Chair Rosene clarified, and Deputy Community Development Director Campbell concurred, that next
steps will be identified during the plan check and handled by staff.
In response to Secretary Klaustermeier’s question, Assistant Planner Tran confirmed that 63 parking spaces are required under the current code without the as-built changes.
Commissioner Harris clarified, and Deputy Community Development Director Campbell concurred, that the
additional seating on the floor plan increased the parking requirement to 70 spaces under the current code, but a surplus of six could be created dependent on the Planning Commission’s decision.
In response to Commissioner Harris’ question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated that
the applicant will be noncompliant if the item moves forward, and applicant continues to seat patrons before Council addresses and resolves the matter and would be asked by staff to refrain from doing so. Furthermore,
Community Development Director Jurjis relayed that staff would like to move forward with the item and address the parking later.
Except for Secretary Klaustermeier, Commissioners Barto, Rosene, Harris, Lowrey, and Langford disclosed
ex parte communication with the applicant representative. Vice Chair Rosene opened the public hearing.
Victor Sanchez, applicant, thanked and commended staff, provided a brief history of the entity, and agreed to the recommended and amended conditions of approval, refraining from using the area until the code changes
are made, no bar or nightclub activity, and indoor and outdoor hours of operations. Lastly, he noted that the applicant did not make any physical alterations to the net public space area. In response to Commissioner Harris’ inquiry, the applicant indicated that there is no traffic impact currently
experienced during lunch and early evening hours. In response to Secretary Klaustermeier’s question, the applicant indicated that signs will be posted, and their staff will be trained on the parking requirements.
Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 2023
Page 3 of 9
In response to Commissioner Langford’s question, the applicant confirmed that the facility has sprinklers and meets fire code requirements.
In response to Commissioner Harris’ question, Community Development Director Jurjis confirmed that 63 parking spaces satisfies the current floor area. Kimberly Woloson, Plaza Newport owner, noted more seating at the restaurant than allowed and challenges related to parking and the hours of operation and asked an approval to be postposed to gather more
information, conduct an analysis, and determine accommodations. Kai MacDonald, representing the property owner, reported no parking issues and noted parking spill over from the adjacent lot, lighting upgrades to parking lots, and no surrounding residential properties.
Mr. Sanchez relayed that the applicant is open to collaborating with the adjacent neighbor to find a parking
solution. Community Development Director Jurjis stated that occupant load and parking standards are separate matters and noted the enforcement steps for occupancy compliance.
Vice Chair Rosene closed the public hearing.
In response to Commissioner Harris’ inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis noted that the City visited
the property to verify an occupancy complaint, emphasized staff’s concern for parking, and deferred the seating count to the Fire Marshal.
In response to Commissioner Barto’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated
that last call is typically before the closing hour at which time patrons are sent home, employees clean up after closing hours, and the hours for selling alcohol are consistent with State law.
In response to Commissioner Lowrey’s question, Community Development Director Jurjis confirmed that
parking is in the purview of Planning Commission and occupancy is in purview of the Fire Marshal. Commissioner Lowrey noted changes in that part of Newport Beach and supported the item.
Commissioner Langford urged the applicant and neighboring parcel owner to work out a reciprocal parking
agreement. Motion made by Commissioner Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the item as recommended and with the amended conditions of approval. AYES: Barto, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Ellmore ITEM NO. 3 FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP CODE AND LCP AMENDMENT (PA2022-0202) Site Locations: Citywide Summary: Amendments to Sections 20.48.220 (Time Share Facilities) and 20.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), and to Sections 21.48.025 (Visitor Accommodations) and 21.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. The proposed amendments would modify the definition of time shares to clearly include fractional homeownership units. As a time share use, fractional ownership would be prohibited in all
Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 2023
Page 4 of 9
residential zoning districts and only allowed in certain commercial and mixed-use zoning districts subject to existing time share regulations. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it would not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-017 recommending the City Council adoption of a Code Amendment thereby to Section 20.48.220 (Time Share Facilities) and Section 20.70.020
(Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code related to time shares (PA2022-0202); and
4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-018 recommending the City Council authorize submittal of a Local Plan Amendment to the California Coastal Commission requesting to amend Sections 21.28.025 (Visitor Accommodations) and 21.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code related to time shares (PA2022-0202).
Principal Planner Murillo utilized a presentation to facilitate the Planning Commission’s formal review and recommendation of a Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment related to the time share
regulations in Newport Beach. The presentation includes an overview and background of the topic, previous directionand dialogues, City Council direction on March 14, 2023, locations of 12 fractional ownershipunits in City,
proposed amendment to modify all time share related definitions (Title 20 and 21), current definition of “time share project,” proposed definition update, proposed amendment to modify the time share regulations in Title 20 and
visitor accommodations regulations in Title 21, and recommended action.
In response to Commissioner Lowrey’s question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill stated that code violations are subject to civil and criminal penalties and suspected entities would have an interest in maintaining compliance
with applicable laws for licensing.
In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s question, Principal Planner Murillo indicated that fractional ownership properties existing prior to an ordinance adoption will be allowed to remain as existing legal nonconforming
properties, which include the 12 fractional ownership properties listed.
Commissioners Barto and Harris reported ex parte communications with a Pacaso representative, and all other Commissioners reported none.
Vice Chair Rosene opened the public hearing.
Denys Oberman thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their effort on this matter and requested adding
an explicit provision that prohibits the advertising, marketing, and sale of time share and fractional ownership interests. Karen Carlson thanked the Planning Commission for resolving this matter and inquired about a moratorium on
fractional ownership sales until the ordinance is finalized and timing out existing fractional ownership properties.
Paul Watkins supported the recommended action by staff and asked the Planning Commission to support it. Jim Mosher supported the recommendation to include banning the advertisement of fractional ownership sales, questioned the effective date of changes to Title 20, and suggested that the modified definitions align with the
wording in part two of the zoning code that describes the planning district uses and simplified wording be considered.
Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 2023
Page 5 of 9
Purvi Doshi, Senior Public Affairs Manager for Pacaso, shared background on the company, collaboration efforts with the City, and co-ownership practices, statistics, and property rights, suggested the City consider the consequences of imposing limitations on housing stock, disagreed with the City’s approach to the issue,
noted potential consequences to banning or eliminating fractional ownership, suggested thoughtful consideration and collaborative solutions, and asked the Planning Commission to defer the item to a later date to find solutions together. Maureen Cotton, Central Newport Beach Community Association, thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their effort and expressed appreciation for the direction of this matter.
Gina Cruz thanked Principal Planner Murillo for his hard work, expressed a distrust for Pacaso, and suggested the City proceed with caution.
Community Development Director Jurjis noted that the City Council considered a moratorium twice and could not make the findings, the Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council language banning
advertising, no enforcement inside the Coastal Zone can take place until Title 21 is approved by the Coastal Commission, Title 20 is enforceable outside the Coastal Zone upon Council adoption, and staff is comfortable with the code language recommended.
Vice Chair Rosene closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lowrey expressed concern for current fractional ownership structures in residential areas, and in response to his questions, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated that agreements require a contract
between parties and the triggers and criteria for the timeshare definition. Commissioner Lowrey expressed concern about not defining time share to exclude family and friends and current ownership structures and
suspected future problems and lawsuits.
In response to Commissioner Langford’s question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill stated that if one of the owners has the exclusive right to exclude others for less than a year then it would be captured by this
amendment.
Vice Chair Rosene recommended staff explore adding language to ban fractional ownership advertising, shared Commissioner Lowrey’s concerns, and entrusted staff with word smithing.
Commissioner Lowrey recommended a 30-day review of the recommended language and offered to be part
of an effort to explore more specific language.
In response to Secretary Klaustermeier’s question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated that the item can be approved with a recommendation to modify the language.
Commissioner Lowrey stated that he cannot support this item because it does not protect current private
property ownership.
In response to Commissioner Barto’s question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated that the Planning Commission does not need to provide specific language in the recommendation to Council and can include a recommendation for an exception within the definition.
Commissioner Lowrey emphasized his long-standing concern for protecting ownership structures.
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill clarified that staff understands that the time share definition is to be modified to reflect a potential exception to ensure there are no unintended consequences for those who are not using the property for an “exclusive use.”
Commissioner Barto shared Commissioner Lowrey’s concern, noted families effected with a multi-generational house, suggested greater clarity of what is not intended in the time share plan, and in response to his question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill clarified that the ban on fractional ownership advertising applies to prospective sales.
Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 2023
Page 6 of 9
Commissioner Langford thought there are City and State laws for advertising for illegal uses, did not want to hold up the process, and noted code violations for advertising can be added later.
Motion made by Secretary Klaustermeier and seconded by Commissioner Barto to approve the item with direction to staff to carefully study the language used to define timeshare and exclude multi-generational housing or tenants in common.
AYES: Barto, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Ellmore ITEM NO. 4 NONRESIDENTIAL PARKING CODE AMENDMENTS (PA2021-104) Site Locations: Citywide Summary: Consistent with the City Council’s initiation on January 26, 2021, the proposed amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) serve to simplify and modernize some of the City’s parking regulations. The proposed changes include the following:
• Allowing the Community Development Director to reduce off-street parking requirements by up to 20 percent when acceptable evidence is provided;
• Allowing a reduction in off-street parking requirements when bicycle parking is provided in areas with a demonstrated demand;
• Allowing a reduction in off-street parking requirements when a designated ride-share (e.g., Uber and Lyft) space is provided;
• Altering the food service, eating and drinking establishment parking requirements to remove the consideration of “net public area”; and
• Replacing the “take-out service, limited” land use definition with “take-out service—fast-casual” allowing up to 20 seats. Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this action is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 20165 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines). Further find this action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-019 recommending the City Council approve the Zoning Code Amendment modifying regulations pertaining to nonresidential parking; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-020 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit the Local Coastal Program Amendment to the California Coastal Commission. Principal Planner Zdeba used a presentation to review the timeline and background, two-phased approach, and phase one for this amendment including bicycle-based reductions, shared-mobility reductions, a revised restaurant parking ratio, creation of a “fast-casual” use, administrative parking waiver by the Director, limit on combining reductions and waivers, staff’s recommendation, next steps, and a summary chart.
Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 2023
Page 7 of 9
In response to Commissioner Langford’s question, Neslon/Nygaard noted Class 1 bike parking for is short-term use and Class 2 bike parking is for long-term use.
Vice Chair Rosene opened the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Langford’s question, Principal Planner Zdeba noted that the prohibition on alcohol sales and service for take-out service—fast-casual uses is intended to ensure the restaurants are quicker turnover. He added that additional consideration is warranted when alcohol is being proposed for fast-casual dining that would require review under a use permit to evaluate parking and proximity to a residential
zoning district. Commissioner Harris noted a different parking ratio would apply in this case. Jim Mosher questioned the parking waiver process and analysis for reducing parking at the Director’s discretion, limits to the Planning Commission waiver from the standards, and off-street parking requirements
for fast food and fast-casual restaurants.
Steve Fischer, property owner of 360 East Coast Highway, explained leasing challenges related to the parking requirements and questioned the rational and suggested parking requirements be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Jim Batlle, representative for 326 Old Newport Boulevard, noted the changing real estate landscape and parking demands and asked the Planning Commission to consider a condition use permit waiver with a more
flexible percentage.
Principal Planner Zdeba noted the language in the staff report and the proposed amendment is not identical, reviewed the parking demand analysis, indicated the intention of “shall be accepted as valid” is to say that the
methodology and data must be accepted by the City Engineer as a valid representation of what is happening in the field, stated the amendment intent to provide more flexibility for the Director to review certain projects
that request a waiver of up to twenty percent, and relayed the discretion of the Planning Commission to adjust that percentage.
Vice Chair Rosene closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Harris was mostly in support of the amendment and suggested capping the total number of
spaces to be waived before coming to the Planning Commission. He used bicycle parking as an example of unintended consequences and also suggested including retail and maybe medical but not office in the
rideshare carpool, and capping the actual number of spaces to be waived for bigger projects. Principal Planner Zdeba confirmed the carpooling and vanpooling components were left out of the proposed amendments related
to rideshare. Motion made by Commissioner Harris and seconded by Commissioner Barto to approve the item as recommended. AYES: Barto, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ellmore ITEM NO. 5 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, NOISE-RELATED AMENDMENTS (PA2022-0201) Site Locations: Various sites in the Newport Beach Airport Area bounded by Campus Drive, Jamboree Road, and Route 73, including portions of the Newport Beach Gold Course on Irvine Avenue, the YMCA on University Drive, and several sites in the Santa Ana Heights area. Summary:
Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 2023
Page 8 of 9
Amendments to Newport Beach General Plan Land Use and Noise Elements, Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards (PC-11), and the Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development
Plan (PC-60) to allow residential units identified by the certified 2021-2029 6th Cycle Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element to be located within the 65 dBA to 70 dBA CNEL noise contour areas specified by the 2008 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan, and as illustrated in the attached Noise Contours and Housing Opportunity Sites Map. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find the proposed amendments exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15262 feasibility and planning studies and 15061(b)(3) common sense exemption because they would not result in physical environment impacts; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-015 recommending approval of the Airport Area Noise Amendment to the City Council (PA2022-0201).
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated that there are conflicts that will not allow the item to go forward, and the presence of the full Planning Commission body is required to draw straws to bring one additional
person in and asked there be a motion, a second, and an approval for the sole purpose of continuing the item to the May 4, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. Motion made by Commissioner Barto and seconded by Secretary Klaustermeier to continue the item to May
4, 2023 due to a lack of quorum.
AYES: Barto, Harris, Klaustermeier, Langford, Lowrey, and Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Ellmore VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 7 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA Deputy Community Development Director Campbell confirmed by a raise of hands that all members of the Planning Commission will attend the May 4 Planning Commission meeting at which time two public hearings are scheduled and the Noise Element item. He also noted a future agenda to consider changing the Planning Commission meeting start time to 6 p.m. ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES IX. ADJOURNMENT – With no further business, Vice Chair Rosene adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 2023
Page 9 of 9
The agenda for the April 20, 2023, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, April 13, 2023, at 2:53 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, April 13, 2023, at 2:53 p.m. _______________________________ Curtis Ellmore, Chair _______________________________ Sarah Klaustermeier, Secretary
May 4, 2023, 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 APRIL 20, 2023
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with corrections suggested in strikeout
underline format.
Page 2 of 9, full paragraph 3: “In response to Commissioner Barto’s question, Deputy
Community Development Director Campbell explained the next steps for the parking rate
change and are dependent on the outcome of the Council decision.”
Page 3 of 9, paragraph 10: “In response to Commissioner Lowrey’s question, Community
Development Director Jurjis confirmed that parking is in the purview of the Planning
Commission and occupancy is in purview of the Fire Marshal. Commissioner Lowrey noted
changes in that part of Newport Beach and supported the item.”
Page 4 of 9, full paragraph 1, sentence 2: “The presentation includes included an overview
and background of the topic, previous directionand direction and dialogues, City Council
direction on March 14, 2023, locations of 12 fractional ownershipunits ownership units in
City, ...”
Page 4 of 9, last paragraph: “Jim Mosher supported the recommendation to include banning
the advertisement of fractional ownership sales, questioned the effective date of changes to
Title 20, and suggested that the modified definitions align with the wording in part two Part 2
of the zoning code that describes the planning district uses and simplified wording be
considered.” [note: Title 20 consists of Part 1 through Part 9]
Page 5 of 9, paragraph 8: “Vice Chair Rosene recommended staff explore adding language
to ban fractional ownership advertising, shared Commissioner Lowrey’s concerns, and
entrusted staff with word smithing wordsmithing.”
Page 5 of 9, last paragraph: “Commissioner Barto shared Commissioner Lowrey’s concern,
noted families effected affected with a multi-generational house, suggested greater clarity of
what is not intended in the time share plan, and in response to his question, Assistant City
Attorney Summerhill clarified that the ban on fractional ownership advertising applies to
prospective sales.”
Page 7 of 9, paragraph 1: “In response to Commissioner Langford’s question,
Neslon/Nygaard noted Class 1 bike parking for is is for short-term use and Class 2 bike
parking is for long-term use.”
Page 7 of 9, paragraph 5: “Steve Fischer, property owner of 360 East Coast Highway,
explained leasing challenges related to the parking requirements and questioned the
rational rationale and suggested parking requirements be determined on a case-by-case
basis.”
Page 7 of 9, paragraph 6: “Jim Batlle, representative for 326 Old Newport Boulevard, noted
the changing real estate landscape and parking demands and asked the Planning
Commission to consider a condition conditional use permit waiver with a more flexible
percentage.”
Planning Commission - May 4, 2023 Item No. 1a - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of April 20, 2023