HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes of February 22, 2024Page 1 of 5
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 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:Vice Chair Mark Rosene, Commissioner Brady Barto, Commissioner Jonathan Langford, and
Commissioner David Salene
ABSENT: Chair Curtis Ellmore, Secretary Tristan Harris, Commissioner Lee Lowrey
Staff Present: Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Jurjis, Acting Deputy Community
Development Director Jaime Murillo, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic
Engineer Brad Sommers, Associate Planner Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner Jenny Tran,
Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez, and Department Assistant Jasmine Leon
IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mark thanked the Planning Commission and staff for the work they do for the City of Newport Beach.
V.REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None
VI.CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2024
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Motion made by Commissioner Langford and seconded by Commissioner Salene to approve the minutes of
January 18, 2024, including Mr. Mosher’s edits.
AYES: Barto, Langford, Rosene, and Salene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Ellmore, Harris, Lowrey
ITEM NO. 2 APPEAL OF CAMPBELL ANIMAL KEEPING (PA2022-098)
Site Location: 1691 Orchard Drive
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. PC2024-001 denying the appeal and modifying the
Hearing Officer’s Determination for a Reasonable Accommodation with the attached Findings (Attachment
No. PC 1).
Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill stated that this item is a resolution to support the decisions made
at the January 4 public hearing.
Vice Chair Rosene opened public comment.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 22, 2024
Page 2 of 5
Mary Alice Campbell asked that the City recognize the request for reasonable accommodations to a disabled
person and cited doctor’s notes in support and requested the Planning Commission review the pages prepared
by Mr. Mosher and former and new information provided.
Jim Mosher thought the appeal for reasonable accommodations was misdirected to the Planning Commission
by a clerical error and noted that, according to Chapter 20.60, Section 20.60.020 and 20.60.030 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) regarding administrative responsibilities, the Planning Commission cannot
hear appeals from the Hearing Officer and should be directed to the City Council. Additionally, he thought
misinformation was provided to the Planning Commission about the expired rules of Santa Heights and the
new findings created by staff have not been debated or publicly rebutted. For these reasons, Mr. Mosher
opposed the Planning Commission acting tonight or at all.
In response to Commissioner Salene’s question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill relayed that an appeal to
the City Council is available. Assistant City Manager Jurjis concurred.
Motion made by Commissioner Salene and seconded by Commissioner Barto to approve the item as
recommended.
AYES: Barto, Langford, Rosene, and Salene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Ellmore, Harris, Lowrey
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 3 2607 Ocean Blvd, LLC Residence (PA2023-0064)
Site Location: 2607 Ocean Boulevard
Summary:
The Applicant requests a coastal development permit (CDP) to allow for a 1,490-square-foot addition and
remodel of an existing, nonconforming, three-story, single-unit dwelling. The total gross floor area of the
residence after the addition will be 3,969 square feet, including attached garage parking for three cars.
The project also includes landscape, hardscape, an in-ground spa, drainage improvements, site walls,
and removal of unpermitted encroachments within the public right-of-way on the slope adjacent to Ocean
Boulevard and within Way Lane. The request also includes a variance from Title 20 (Planning and Zoning)
and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC)
to allow the proposed development to:
a) Exceed the gross floor area limit by approximately 1,104 square feet;
b) Encroach 1-foot, 8 inches into the 10-foot front setback along Ocean Boulevard;
c) Encroach 9-feet, 4 inches into the 10-foot rear setback along Way Lane;
d) Exceed the 24-foot flat roof height limit of the R-1 Zoning District by 3 feet; and
e) Exceed the 29-foot sloped roof height limit of the R-1 Zoning District by 11 inches.
Recommended Actions:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) 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
February 22, 2024
Page 3 of 5
3.Adopt Resolution No. PC2024-003 approving the Coastal Development Permit and Variance
filed as PA2023-0064 (Attachment No. PC 1).
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill relayed that Chair Ellmore recused himself due to real property interests.
Associate Planner Perez used a presentation to review the vicinity map, project location, existing
development, existing encroachments within the Ocean Boulevard and Way Lane public right-of-way,
provided a brief background of the project site, presented the proposed project, reviewed zoning compliance
and the required approvals and necessary findings. She then provided an overview of the requested
variances by reviewing the proposed floor area, FAR comparison to adjacent properties, pattern of
development within the neighborhood, setback encroachments, and the proposed height. Her presentation
also included the required findings for the Coastal Development Permit including protection of public views
from Ocean Boulevard, China Cove ramp, and West Jetty View Park, nearby public access to the coast, and
nonconforming structure considerations. She concluded with a discussion of the correspondence received on
the project, staff’s recommendation, and next steps.
In response to Commission Langford’s question, Associate Planner Perez stated that the project and
planting palette were reviewed by the Public Works Department, and the plantings with potential to block
views are intended to be limited to 60-inches by the conditions of approval. The proposed Queen Palms
would not be limited to the 60 inches as they are unlikely to create a solid wall, like a hedge, and block views.
Furthermore, she stated that as part of the review by Public Works, the path was identified as an unpermitted
encroachment beyond the property line and flagged for removal and the applicant has agreed to restore the
slope. In response to a question regarding the addressing, Acting Deputy Community Development Director
Murillo noted that the historic address of the property is Ocean Boulevard and there is no need to change the
address. Commissioner Langford thought the address preference should be left to the property owner’s
discretion.
Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications.
Vice Chair Rosene opened the public hearing.
Daniel Martinez, architect, used a presentation to review the project and provided a comparison to the
previous project at this location. He discussed the potential variance impacts related to height and setbacks,
view preservation of the bluff top from West Jetty View Park, and lack of impact to views of the Pacific Ocean
from Ocean Boulevard. He agreed to the conditions of approval.
In response to Commissioner Salene’s question, Mr. Martinez clarified that there will be no access to the
property from Ocean Boulevard.
In response to Commissioner Langford’s inquiry, Mr. Martinez stated he could not confirm what the palm
trees would look like at maturity; however, he offered to eliminate the palm trees from the planting palette if
they are concerning.
The Commissioners and staff discussed the existing and proposed palm trees. Acting Deputy Community
Development Director Murillo added that the proposed Queen Palms are similar to the existing palm trees
located just outside of the project site, and should be cohesive. He added that ultimately the City has the
purview to determine if the palm trees that are within the public right of way are allowed to remain.
Laura Cordovano expressed concern for the runoff due to the slope of the site, lack of support for the third
level cantilever, and noted the potential impact to the surrounding community by the construction.
Jim Mosher noted the difference between the past and the current proposal for the property, provided a
perspective on implementing the nonconforming structures section of the City’s Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan, and suggested changes to the retaining wall along the front property line to improve
visual enjoyment of the area.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 22, 2024
Page 4 of 5
Nancy Portale, 2502 Seaview Avenue, questioned areas of the project that exceed the height allowance.
Karen Carlson, 2616 Cove Street, suggested changing the property address.
Richard Martinez, property owner, expressed willingness to use either an Ocean Boulevard or a Way Lane
address and was amenable to eliminating the proposed palm trees. He noted the architectural changes
within Corona del Mar over the years, highlighted discussions and outreach with the neighbors, and his
interest in updating the property from its current state of disrepair.
In response to public comment, Daniel Martinez described the incorporation of bio-retention basins to contain
all stormwater onsite, explained the approach to the cantilever design, and clarified that the proposed
elevator is within the height requirements of the zoning code.
Richard Martinez indicated that decorative hedging can be added to screen the white wall along the front
property line.
Vice Chair Rosene closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Langford requested Condition of Approval No. 42 be updated from landscaping “within the
Ocean Boulevard setback” to “all landscaping is limited to 60 inches” to prevent big palm trees from
obstructing the views from Ocean Boulevard. Vice Chair Rosene clarified the intent of the revision is to
restrict the height of all landscaping, existing and proposed, across the property. Commissioner Langford
requested giving the applicant flexibility to choose the address of Ocean Boulevard or Way Lane.
Motion made by Commissioner Langford and seconded by Commissioner Salene to approve the item as
amended with a change to Condition of Approval No. 42 to read “landscaping is limited to a maximum height
of 60 inches to preserve views from Ocean Boulevard.”
AYES: Barto, Langford, Rosene, and Salene
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Ellmore, Harris, Lowrey
VIII.STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
None
ITEM NO. 5 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR
MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED
ON A FUTURE AGENDA
Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo relayed that the next Planning Commission meeting will
be held on March 7 and will include the General Plan Annual Progress Report and a review of the appeal of the
Genesis Auto Dealership. Additionally, he announced a recent Study Session with the City Council and public
comments due by March 28 on the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) related to the Housing Element
implementation.
ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
None
IX.ADJOURNMENT – With no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Vice Chair Rosene at 7:14 p.m.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 22, 2024
Page 5 of 5
The agenda for the February 22, 2024, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday,
February 15, 2024, at 6:32 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 15, 2024, at 6:21 p.m.
_______________________________
Curtis Ellmore, Chair
_______________________________
Tristan Harris, Secretary
March 7, 2024, 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 22, 2024
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with corrections suggested in strikeout
underline format.
Page 3 of 5, paragraph 3 from end, sentence 2: “Acting Deputy Community Development
Director Murillo added that the proposed Queen Palms are similar to the existing palm trees, but
located just outside of the project site, and should be cohesive.” [The proposed trees would be
inside the project area. The comparison was to existing trees outside the project area.]
Page 3 of 5, last paragraph: “Jim Mosher noted the difference between the past and the current
proposal for the property, provided a perspective on implementing the nonconforming structures
section of the City’s Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, and suggested changes to the
retaining wall along the front property line to improve visional visual enjoyment of the area.”
Page 4 of 5, paragraph 2: “Karen Carlson, 2616 Cove Road Street, suggested changing the
property address”
Page 4 of 5, paragraph 4: “In response to public comment,Mr. Daniel Martinez described the
incorporation of bio-retention basins to contain all stormwater onsite, explained the approach to
the cantilever design, and clarified that the proposed elevator is within the height requirements
of the zoning code.” [At this point, there were two “Mr. Martinez” participating, making the
minutes ambiguous unless identified by first name.]
Planning Commission - March 7, 2024 Item No. 1a - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of February 22, 2024