HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Draft Minutes of January 4, 2024
Page 1 of 5
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 2024 REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – 6:00 P.M. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Barto III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Curtis Ellmore, Vice Chair Mark Rosene, Secretary Tristan Harris, Commissioner Brady Barto, Commissioner Jonathan Langford, Commissioner Lee Lowrey, and Commissioner David Salene
ABSENT: None Staff Present: Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Jurjis, Acting Deputy Community Development Director Jaime Murillo, Deputy City Attorney Jeremy Jung, Animal Control Supervisor Nick Ott, Assistant Planner Jenny Tran, Senior Planner Liz Westmoreland, and Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Mosher suggested the Planning Commission be granted the authority to initiate changes to the appeal review table, making the zoning code internally consistent, and correcting the conditions for reasonable accommodations to reflect the role of the Planning Commission. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 CAMPBELL ANIMAL KEEPING APPEAL (PA2022-098) Site Location: 1691 Orchard Drive
Summary: An appeal of the Hearing Officer’s July 13, 2023, decision to approve a reasonable
accommodation to provide relief from Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 7.12.010 (Keeping of Livestock) to allow three chickens on a single-unit residential property within a single-unit residential neighborhood for an individual with a disability. The appellant is requesting
to allow 10 chickens on a single-unit residential property where the keeping of chickens is prohibited. Recommended Actions: 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, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 4, 2024
Page 2 of 5
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2024-001 denying the appeal and upholding the action of
the Hearing Officer and approving Reasonable Accommodation PA2022-098. Assistant Planner Tran used a presentation to review the property location, City zoning districts, photos of the property conditions, timeline of events, applicant’s request for a reasonable accommodation, hearing officer decision, appeal, justification for three chickens, relevant conditions, modifications to resolution, and recommended action. In response to Commissioner Langford’s question, Assistant City Manager Jurjis stated that the policy on maintaining chickens in the residential area before Santa Ana Heights was annexed is unknown. In response to Commissioner Lowrey’s question, Officer Ott noted an initial complaint in 2021 and a period with no chickens on the property. Assistant Planner Tran relayed that 10 chickens are currently on the property.
In response to Commissioner Salene’s questions, Officer Ott indicated that there have been complaints on the property since the number of chickens has been reduced and thought the vermin
activity is consistent with the chicken activity. In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s question, Officer Ott noted no effort by the applicant to clean up the rear yard. In response to Secretary Harris’ question, Officer Ott stated that he has not observed compliance with conditions set forth by the Hearing Officer for the coop location and roaming area, but he has not been to the property in a few months. No ex parte communications were disclosed.
Chair Ellmore opened the public hearing. Mary Campbell, applicant, shared the animal history in her neighborhood since she moved in,
changes to her property, her disability, the job of the chickens, vegetation maintenance on the property, fencing, kennel locations, flock reduction, hedge buffer for John Wayne Airport, nature of accommodation request, reason for appeal, the nature of the service provided by the chickens,
letters by doctors, comparative yard pictures relative to chicken and yard maintenance, neighborhood impact, dog kennel pictures and Orchard Drive nursery, nuisance complaints, and conclusion. In response to Commission Langford’s question, Mrs. Campbell thought the complaints started in 2021 from the Wilken’s family and could only guess the reason why. She noted that neighbors that are calling were not living in the neighborhood before 2021 and shared that while she has been a patient of one doctor for 18 years, the other doctors are newer as her condition evolves. In response to Secretary Harris’ question, Mrs. Campbell indicated that she had about 40 chickens when the complaints started in 2021 and then reduced them down to 10 and changed their
location.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 4, 2024
Page 3 of 5
In response to Vice Chair Rosene’s question, Mrs. Campbell indicated that she was not aware that the annexation would change her ability to keep chickens on the property and became aware of it
when she got cited in 2021 with a notice of violation. In response to Secretary Harris’ question, Senior Planner Westmoreland stated that a provision was included for the amortization of any type of livestock or other prohibited animal keeping in the area when the City originally annexed the area, but was unsure of the notice provided to area during the annexation, and confirmed a one-year grace period for rectifying areas out of compliance. In response to Chair Ellmore’s inquiry, Ms. Campbell stated that she is not in agreement with the totality of the recommended number of chickens but agreed with some conditions of approval. Susan Doan, 1624 Orchard Drive, opposed chickens, dog kennels, and halfway houses in Santa Ana Heights. She cited concerns regarding chicken feces.
Kyle Bernard opposed chickens in the neighborhood and suggested the Planning Commission enforce the rule for no chickens. He cited concerns regarding vermin, odors, noise, and mosquitos.
Jim Mosher expressed concern that the July 13 Hearing Officer meeting was closed to the public and for a lack of institutional knowledge of the one-year abatement period and nonconforming uses for single family residence areas (RSF) in Santa Ana Heights. Gary Devine thought that allowing for three chickens is generous and 10 chickens is not what the neighborhood is intended for, expressed concern for the property maintenance and asked the 10-chicken request to be denied. John McGregor stated that the neighborhood was rogue before the annex, hoped for compassion towards Mrs. Campbell, indicated no notice was provided to the residents of the changed regulations during annexation, and noted that noise is not an issue for the neighborhood with
consideration for the airport proximity. Michelle Wilkens, next door neighbor to Mrs. Campbell, expressed concern for the noise and odors
from the chicken. Louise Lee, next door neighbor to Mrs. Campbell, expressed concern for the noise and smells from
the chickens, dead rats, mosquitos, and the chicken accommodations. She asked that no chickens be allowed as per the law. Jeremy Wilkens opposed three chickens, noted Mrs. Campbell’s disregard for the conditions of approval, especially condition number seven and eight, expressed concern for his health and the property maintenance and biohazards, and supported zero chickens. Mark Chase questioned how neighbors can see into Mrs. Campbell’s backyard, noted that the area was previously rural, and supported Mrs. Campbell’s efforts to keep chickens. Gerard Rothfus testified for Mrs. Campbell’s love for the chickens, noted overgrowth on the
property, and observed an improved property landscape quality from the chickens.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 4, 2024
Page 4 of 5
Assistant City Manager Jurjis noted for the record that the Hearing Officer meeting was a closed-door reasonable accommodation hearing with the staff’s information redacted to protect Mrs.
Campbell’s medical privacy. Chair Ellmore closed the public hearing. Chair Ellmore reviewed the purview of the Planning Commission, noted that the residence is somewhat a public nuisance, uninhabitable, and a public health and safety issue, struggled with the zoning, thought the residence should have zero chickens and get cleaned up to be habitable and a healthy environment, and recommended the Planning Commission follow the rules of the code. Vice Chair Rosene concurred and thought the appeal should be denied and the property should be cleaned up to an appropriate standard. In response to Commissioner Barto’s question, Assistant City Manager Jurjis outlined the motion
options and amendment process. Commissioner Lowrey relayed not finding accommodations in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan
and expressed concern for setting a precedent if an exception is made for this matter. He supported zero chickens. Secretary Harris expressed empathy for Mrs. Campbell, noted unaddressed neighbor concerns, and supported zero chickens. Commissioner Langford supported zero chickens. Motion made by Chair Ellmore and seconded by Vice Chair Rosene to deny the appeal and modify the recommendation from three chickens to zero chickens based on zoning inconsistency, habitability, health, safety, and public nuisances such as noise, vermin, and toxicity. AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Lowrey, Langford, Harris, Rosene, and Salene NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 3 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA
Assistant City Manager Jurjis relayed a presentation to the Airport Land Use Committee planned for January 18 on the Intracorp and Picerne Group residential projects and one Planning Commission meeting item on January 18 regarding the OC Sanitation District Pump Station Expansion. He indicated that no items are scheduled at this time for February.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 4, 2024
Page 5 of 5
ITEM NO. 4 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
None VIII. ADJOURNMENT - With no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Chair Ellmore at 7:23 p.m. The agenda for the January 4, 2024, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, December 21, 2023, at 8:49 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 Thursday, December 21, 2023, at 8:42 p.m. _______________________________
Curtis Ellmore, Chair _______________________________ Tristan Harris, Secretary
January 18, 2024, Planning Commission Item 2 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. 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2024
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with corrections suggested in strikeout
underline format
Page 1 of 5, Staff Present: “Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Seimone
Jurjis, …”
Page 1 of 5, Item IV: “Jim Mosher suggested the Planning Commission be granted the use its
authority to initiate changes to the appeal review table, making the zoning code internally
consistent, and correcting the conditions for reasonable accommodations to reflect the role of
the Planning Commission.”
Page 2 of 5, paragraph 2 from end, sentence 1: “In response to Commission Langford’s
question, Mrs. Campbell thought the complaints started in 2021 from the Wilken’s Wilkens
family and could only guess the reason why.”
Page 3 of 5, paragraph 6: “Jim Mosher expressed concern that the July 13 Hearing Officer
meeting was closed to the public and for a lack of institutional knowledge and misreading of
the one-year abatement period and for nonconforming uses for single family residence areas
(RSF) in Santa Ana Heights.”
Page 3 of 5, paragraph 8: “John McGregor stated that the neighborhood was rogue before the
annex annexation, …” [or “… was rogue before the annex being annexed, …]
Comment
Although not reflected in the minutes, I am pleased to hear that since the action reported in
them on Item 1 from January 4 was quite different from that recommended in the draft resolution
presented for consideration by the Commission, it will not be regarded as final until an
appealable revised resolution has been brought back for confirmation at a later meeting.
Planning Commission - January 18, 2024 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of January 4, 2024