HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Powerhouse Vehicle Sales_PA2018-166_Staff PowerPointNovember 8, 2018, Planning Commission Item 3 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. 3. POWERHOUSE VEHICLE SALES CUP (PA2018-166)
1.In the last paragraph at the end of staff report page 2, the reference to Attachment No. PC 5
should be to PC 6.
2.Regarding the City’s Local Coastal Program (staff report page 3), its Implementation Plan
(NBMC Title 21) requires Coastal Development Permits for “development” within the Coastal
Zone. Essentially quoting the Coastal Act’s definition, Title 21 defines “development” as
including, among other things, a “change in the density or intensity of use of land.”
a.In the present case, page 3 of the staff report dismisses the need for a CDP by
quoting the definition of “Change in the intensity of use of land” from Title 21. It does
so by emphasizing there will be no increased impact.
b.The staff report ignores the fact the definition places equal emphasis on changes of
use that result in a decreased impact.
c.I am not sure why a decreased impact should require a CDP, but the sharp reduction
in ADT predicted on page 3 clearly makes this proposal fit the definition of
“development.”
3.With regard to the connection between this request and the larger Newport Village
application (PA2017-253), the October 18, 2018, staff report (end of its handwritten page 5)
acknowledged the existence of that plan and said “the proposed use permit will run with the
land and will be rescinded if a redevelopment of the property is authorized in the future.”
a.That could have been read to imply the present permit would be automatically
rescinded if the larger project Newport Village were approved.
b.The new staff report says the present permit will be rescinded only if this particular
parcel is redeveloped, and that if this parcel is not redeveloped the remaining
development will have to be designed around it.
4.Regarding the updated proposed resolution of approval (Attachment PC 1) [it would have
been helpful to highlight what has been updated]:
a.Section 1.1: See my comment from October 18 (present Attachment No. PC 5). The
legal description continues to contain errors:
i.In line 3, this parcel is the northwesterly 100.78 feet of a larger lot, not the
northeasterly part.
b.Section 1.4: The conclusion regarding the absence of need for a CDP appears to be
based on erroneous logic (see my comment 2, above): a decrease in intensity is a
“change” as much as an increase is.
Planning Commission - November 8, 2018
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Powerhouse Vehicle Sales CUP (PA2018-166)
November 8, 2018, PC agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
c. Section 3.B.5: The claim that “The proposed use and project design is consistent
with the Mariner’s Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework” is questionable.
i. The strategic vision calls for auto-related uses to the confined to the east and
west ends of the Mariner’s Mile corridor.
ii. This proposal represents an expansion of auto sales into an area outside the
area where they were planned.
5. I continue to be puzzled why the resolution is for 15 vehicles when the application
(Attachment No. PC 7) and plan (Attachment No. PC 9) is for 12.
Planning Commission - November 8, 2018
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Powerhouse Vehicle Sales CUP (PA2018-166)