Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_05-04-2017 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS— 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2017 REGULAR MEETING—6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER—The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Peter Zak (Arrived at 6:32 p.m.), Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: Commissioner Raymond Lawler Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Deputy City Attorney Andrew Maiorano; Planning Manager Patrick Alford; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Senior Planner Jaime Murillo; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 20,2017 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to approve the minutes of April 20, 2017. AYES: Koetting, Dunlap,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Kramer, Hillgren ABSENT: Zak, Lawler VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE (PA2017-069) Site Location: Citywide Senior Planner Jaime Murillo reported the proposed ordinances would amend the City's Zoning Code for properties citywide and the City's Local Coastal Program(LCP)for properties within the coastal zone. The revisions respond to two bills that change the State's Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU) law. An accessory dwelling unit is a complete secondary unit with independent living facilities for one or more persons. The two types of ADUs are new construction, either attached or detached, and conversion of existing floor area within the principal dwelling. The State law does not restrict homeowner association (HOA) powers or limit the prohibition of ADUs and CC&Rs. State law revisions only apply to local agencies in the state. The City currently prohibits ADUs,which was allowed under previous versions of the State law. The City has allowed granny units or senior ADUs through a minor use permit process and has limited occupancy to persons 55 years of age or older. The new State law essentially eliminates cities'ability to prohibit second units. Any existing ordinance not consistent with State law is considered null and void. The State has established some very basic and minimal development standards for ADUs. ADUs must be approved ministerially, meaning without a public hearing, in all single-unit and multi-unit residential zones where only a single-family home is present. Through the adoption of a new ordinance consistent with State law, 1 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/01/2017 the City can apply additional regulations pertaining to location, lot size, parking, and aesthetics provided that the regulations are not arbitrary,excessive, burdensome,and do not unreasonably restrict the creation of ADUs. State standards allow new construction ADUs in any single-family or multifamily residentially zoned lot. There is no minimum lot size standard. Staff proposes modifying State standards to allow ADUs in only single-family residentially zoned lots that provide a minimum of 5,000 square feet, which is the City's minimum conforming lot size. Staff proposes a minimum lot size because many areas in the City have a high concentration of substandard lot sizes and are already impacted by on-street parking. Zoning areas that currently allow R-2 and multifamily development, with the exception of large apartment complexes, are also in impacted neighborhoods with substandard lots. Staff believes redevelopment in those areas should occur in conformance with current parking regulations to ensure neighborhood compatibility and preservation of on-street parking for existing residents and visitors. State standards limit the maximum size of detached ADUs to 1,200 square feet. Attached ADUs are limited to 50 percent of the existing living area and up to a maximum of 1,200 square feet. Staff proposes to modify that standard to 750 square feet maximum or 50 percent of the existing area, whichever is less. In this manner, ADUs would remain subordinate to the principal dwelling and retain the character of single-family neighborhoods. The City's past Granny Unit Ordinance allowed a maximum size of 650 square feet. The City cannot require more than one parking space per bedroom or unit. The spaces can be provided through covered parking, uncovered parking, tandem parking on a driveway or the use of mechanical lifts. No parking shall be required for ADUs located within a half mile of a public transit stop, one block of a car-share program, a historic district, or an area where on-street parking permits are required and not offered to occupants of the ADU. Proposed regulations would adopt State parking standards except they would continue to prohibit parking in rear alley setbacks and define a public transit stop as a route that provides intervals of 15 minutes or better during peak periods. Car share programs would be defined as an established program in a fixed location and available to the public, such as Zipcar, but not car-share app programs. State standards make no provisions for aesthetics. To preserve the single-family character of neighborhoods, to minimize the appearance of multiple lots on the property, and to ensure ADUs remain subordinate, staff proposes height standards. Detached units would be one story and no more than 14 feet in height. Attached ADUs or ADUs located above a garage would be subject to the City's standard zoning requirements, which is usually 24 feet for single-family homes. With respect to design, staff proposes ADUs be designed similar to the principal dwelling on the lot with respect to architectural style, roof pitch, color, and materials to ensure the design is compatible with the existing home and doesn't appear as a separate unit. State standards require no setbacks for existing garage conversions and a setback of no more than 5 feet from a side or rear lot line for an ADU constructed above a garage. The City standard would require compliance with standard zoning requirements except as modified by State standards. Senior Planner Murillo reviewed the State standards that cannot be modified. To prevent someone from purposely building a 2,000-square-foot accessory structure and then immediately converting it to an ADU to skirt the unit size and parking requirements, staff proposes a provision stating a dwelling or structure to be converted must have legally been permitted and existing for a minimum period of three years. The City can prohibit the use of ADUs for short-term lodging; can require owner occupancy of either the principal or accessory unit; and require deed restrictions be recorded on a property to notify future owners of restrictions. If a Coastal Development Permit is required, no public hearing can be required. Coastal Commission staff has suggested the City add a Coastal Land Use Plan policy to provide a framework for Implementation Plan regulations. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Senior Planner Murillo advised that staff has reviewed the actions and proposed actions of many cities. Two cities in Orange County have adopted an ordinance. Staff proposed a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet because 5,450 square feet is the minimum lot size for granny units and 5,000 square feet for most single-family zoned lots. Commissioner Dunlap commented that current Municipal Code requires a new home of 5,000 square feet or more to have fire sprinklers. He questioned if someone could build a single-family home of less than 5,000 square feet and add 750 square feet as an ADU without installing fire sprinklers. Senior Planner Murillo responded that under State law, the City cannot require fire sprinklers for the ADU if sprinklers are not required for the principal unit. At a recent webinar regarding the new State law, many cities expressed concerns about this provision. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Senior Planner Murillo indicated the State law does not mention HOAs or Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The new law only affects local agencies and their ordinances. An HOA's denial of a proposed ADU is consistent with the State law as written. The new State law does not override existing CC&Rs; in fact, it does not mention CC&Rs at all. Staff received correspondence from a local HOA objecting to adoption of the ordinances. The City's proposed ordinance would not affect an HOAs existing power and ability to regulate ADUs through CC&Rs. Under current State standards, people can apply for a permit to build an ADU without Planning Commission review. Under State standards, staff would ministerially Page 2 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/01/2017 approve a permit for an ADU consistent with basic development standards on any size lot and up to 1,200 square feet for new construction. A property owner who converts a garage to an ADU would have to replace the parking if it was required parking. State law allows replacement parking to be uncovered, tandem, or on a driveway. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiries, Senior Planner Murillo stated parking is not required for an ADU if the conditions listed in Item 9C of staffs memorandum exist. If the existing dwelling unit is required to have two spaces, then the existing unit and an ADU would still be required to have two spaces total if it is located within a half mile of a transit stop. An ADU combined with the principal residence would have to comply with the overall Floor Area Ratios (FAR) and lot coverage requirements for the property as a whole. The State law includes a CEQA exemption for cities to adopt an ordinance in compliance with the State law and states ADUs are not to be considered an increase in density for the purposes of the General Plan or any other city implementation document. Deputy Director Wisneski clarified that State law allows the City to preclude short-term lodging. The Municipal Code defines short-term lodging as 30 days or less. Senior Planner Murillo explained that anyone could apply for a variance for any deviation from the Code; however, making the findings to support a variance would be difficult in the case of an ADU. Deputy Director Wisneski advised that protection of private views is a subjective matter that staff probably would not want to consider at an administrative level. The Code allows consideration of the fact that any development occurring is consistent with development standards of a single-family home. Where the ADU structure would be established is where the principal home could be established. This is not increasing the possibility of infringing upon privacy. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Senior Planner Murillo reported the nonconforming chapter of the Code allows a lot of flexibility for the development of nonconforming structures;however,the Code limits alterations to nonconforming accessory structures. An existing garage that encroaches into the current setbacks could not be converted to an ADU. The Code would not allow the garage to be converted to an ADU unless it was relocated outside the setback. Deputy City Attorney Maiorano reiterated that the State law is silent on CC&Rs. The State might choose to legislate the issue of CC&Rs later. An HOA taking action on its CC&Rs would not violate the terms of the State law because there is no mention of them in State law. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher remarked regarding the six-week period prior to final action, grammatical errors, and confusing language. Library staff was not aware that they had draft copies of amendments. The CEQA determination on page 2 of 9 is more elaborate than it needs to be. The Coastal Land Use Plan should include a definition of ADU. The Local Coastal Plan does not contain a Table 3-10 or a Section 21-41-40. Senior Planner Murillo could clarify citations to the California Code of Regulations. He personally handed copies of the amendments to the Central Library for distribution. The City does not intend to take any final action prior to six weeks from the date it released the Notice of Availability. The tentative City Council date is the first meeting in June, which would be six weeks from the date the notice was released. The City will submit formal amendments to the Coastal Commission after it takes final action. The CEQA exemption provides a clear rationale for the exemption. Staff will correct grammatical errors in the final versions presented to the City Council. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Chair Kramer questioned whether the proposed minimum lot size and unit size regulations are discriminatory. Staffs proposal for aesthetics is good because having no standard is not helpful. Setbacks have to conform with the Zoning Code. The prohibition against parking in rear alley setbacks makes sense. In response to Chair Kramer's questions, Senior Planner Murillo indicated the City has the ability to implement the State standards of no minimum lot size and a maximum unit size up to 1,200 square feet. Staff proposed modifications in an effort to preserve the character of single-family neighborhoods and to address the issue of parking in neighborhoods consisting of substandard lots. The 5,000 square foot minimum lot size would preclude new construction in all of Newport Shores, a majority of homes in Bayshores, and many homes on the Peninsula. The policy would encourage development of ADUs on larger lots that can more easily accommodate them. The State law allows the City to establish a minimum lot size different from the one contained in the State law. Staff proposed a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, but the Planning Commission can change that. Staff proposed 5,000 square feet because they found that most zoning districts comply with the standard minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The exceptions were zoning districts located in the older parts of town,such as the Peninsula and Corona del Mar, where many lots are about 2,500 square feet. Page 3 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/01/2017 In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Senior Planner Murillo explained the graph found on page 59. Yellow lots are conventional zoning for single-family. Purple lots are the single-family equivalent within planned community neighborhoods. Approximately 60 percent of single-family lots with conventional zoning would comply with the 5,000 square foot lot standard, and 85 percent of lots in planned communities would comply with that standard. In response to Chair Kramer's question, Senior Planner Murillo stated the difference between maps on pages 55 and 59 is Newport Shores, Eastbluff, Bayshores, and some lots on Lido Isle and the Peninsula Page 55 has a map of properties eligible for conversion. If the minimum lot size requirement is removed,then all those properties would be eligible for construction of new ADUs. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's question regarding current requests, Senior Planner Murillo reported staff talked with four individuals about ADUs. One property owner is working on plans for an ADU, and her property would comply with the proposed regulations. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry regarding urgency, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated there is no urgency for the Planning Commission to act. The City has been complying with the State law since January 1. Staff has not received any applications for ADUs and the one potential application is in compliance with the proposed regulations. Staff can return to the Planning Commission with any additional information it requests. Commissioner Hillgren noted the City's previous policy against ADUs. The City is attempting to impose reasonable restrictions that follow the State's intentions and also preserve the City's intentions. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Senior Planner Murillo advised that staff sent public hearing notices to all HOAs on file with the City at least ten days prior to the hearing. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to continue the item. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler Commissioner Dunlap expressed concern about the few public comments given the potential effects on many residences. He questioned whether staff could make a broader public announcement. There should have been a workshop on the topic. ITEM NO. 3 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENTS(PA2017-047, PA2017-046& PA2013-057) Site Location: Citywide Deputy Director Wisneski reported the amendment for the Oceanfront Encroachment Program was presented to the Planning Commission in midcycle of the Implementation Plan (IP). The Balboa Village program was part of the IP originally approved by the City, but the Coastal Commission removed it from the approved program. The Planning Commission took action on the Oceanfront Encroachment Program in 2015. The City Council amended the regulations in June 2016. The amendment concerns an area of the Peninsula from G Street down to Channel Road where properties have encroached beyond their property lines. Property owners have received violations from the Coastal Commission because of encroachments into the public right-of-way. Staff proposes to create an encroachment program similar to that in West Newport. The public right-of-way allows the City to implement a 15- foot encroachment program so that property owners can purchase annual encroachment permits for minimal improvements. Because the area is only 15 feet, public access would be maintained. The proposed amendment would include Zoning Code regulations in the Implementation Plan. In response to Chair Kramer's questions, Deputy Director Wisneski advised that the fee would depend on how far the property owner encroached and the market rate of the property. Staff conducted a market analysis in 2016, which would be reevaluated when the program is adopted. The permit cost would be the amount of square footage of the encroachment multiplied by a fixed number. Page 4 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/01/2017 In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated the maximum distance a property owner can encroach is 15 feet beyond his property. Principal Planner Jim Campbell reported the City adopted the Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District in early 2015 as an offshoot of the Balboa Village Master Plan Revitalization Plan. There was extensive public outreach leading up to adoption of the Balboa Village Master Plan and adoption of ordinances. The area covered is Adams Street to A Street. The proposed district would affect the regulation of parking inside that area for commercial uses only. Residential uses would be required to provide parking, but most commercial uses would not. Some commercial uses that generate a significant amount of parking are excluded from the program and could create an impact to public access. The program maintains off-street parking facilities and allows shared use of parking. Staff received a comment letter from an attorney on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) suggesting that the program is not consistent with the Coastal Act because it does not allow marine services uses to have the same benefit that other commercial uses might have. Staff believes this program is consistent with the Coastal Act in that it helps remove some barriers and helps support visitor-serving uses in the area. Marine service uses,commercial recreation and entertainment,cultural institutions,schools,visitor accommodations,and meeting/assembly facilities could generate parking that would impact public access, which staff wants to control and evaluate on a case-by-case basis. The proposed amendment does not prohibit those uses, but it requires them to provide parking. In reply to Secretary Zak's question, Principal Planner Campbell advised that the Zoning Code does not require commercial uses in Balboa Village to secure off-street parking. Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford stated that the City had to prioritize amendments to the IP, because there were limited to three applications to Coastal Commission each year. He added that it was anticipated that a set of clean-up amendments would be needed. He noted that the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission indicated that this was a common occurrence following certification. Staff proposes restoring the exceptions to the shoreline height limit; provisions for modifications and variances;waiving the public hearing requirement for minor development; adding the Lido Village Planned Community to the Implementation Plan; including a landscape maintenance exception during water shortages; and allowing increases of floor area for nonconforming structures from 50 percent to 75 percent. He provided details on each of these items in a PowerPoint presentation. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Planning Manager Alford defined a minor development as a project that is consistent with the certified LCP, requires no other discretionary approvals, and has no impact to either coastal access or coastal resources. The definition of development under the Coastal Act and the City's LCP is very broad and covers the removal of vegetation, the erection of minor structures, such as a fence, and even the posting of signs, in some cases. Items not categorically excluded or not exempt under the LCP would require a Coastal Development Permit. Basically,the process would remain the same as for any other coastal development permit, but there would be no requirement for a public hearing. In response to Secretary Zak's questions, Planning Manager Alford advised that the City Council and the Coastal Commission would need to approve the amendments. Staff sent the Coastal Commission a notice of availability outlining in detail the proposed amendments. City staff and Coastal Commission staff have worked out a fairly reasonable program to present information in small portions to facilitate Coastal Commission review. There are three types of coastal amendments: correction of minor errors, minor amendments not involving any change in land use intensity, and major amendments potentially allowing more intense development. Staff is trying to minimize modifications to the document. However, a number of modifications are necessary. Staff believes they can provide language acceptable to the Coastal Commission. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Planning Manager Alford stated amendments pertaining to the Lido House are clean-up items and will be submitted under a separate amendment. The City is limited to three sets of amendments per year and has already submitted one set. It is important to break out minor amendments because there is no limit on those. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. David Marin requested clarification of his property at 1319 East Balboa being excluded from the encroachment program. The property at 1317 East Balboa is also excluded and listed as tidelands property, but it was given an encroachment permit in 1991. Page 5 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/01/2017 Deputy Director Wisneski reported staff reviewed the issue extensively. The area beyond the City's right-of-way and private property is public tidelands. The City does not have the ability to implement an encroachment program in that area because the area is precluded from any type of private improvements. The encroachment zone changes at 1317 East Balboa which allows an encroachment of that property. Unfortunately,the properties without the right-of-way in front of them do not have the benefit of participating in the encroachment permit program. Planning and City Attorney staff reviewed maps, past deed restrictions, and settlements that have established these zones and property boundaries. Chair Kramer suggested Mr. Marin consult with staff outside of the meeting to obtain further clarification. Jim Mosher commented that the Planning Commission should continue the item as the amendments were not ready for review. The City's webpage for the Local Coastal Program is confusing and out of date. The shoreline height limit is completely inconsistent with the Local Coastal Plan. There is no Coastal Land Use Policy 3.13; perhaps it should be Section 3.1.3. Staff is proposing policies that will allow things in conflict with the Coastal Land Use Plan. All the provisions for a policy exemption for the new Lido House Hotel are crossed out. There is no exception in the Coastal Land Use Plan to govern the Implementation Plan. If the City adopts this in connection with the encroachment plan and in connection with the height plan, then it is creating an Implementation Plan inconsistent with the Land Use Plan. W. R. Dildine remarked that the public right-of-way needs to be maintained. The walkways need to be wider. Alan Beek, on behalf of SPON, advised that SPON objects because the amendments provide backdoor methods of repealing earlier ordinances and laws on which SPON relies and which SPON thinks are appropriate. The City should repeal laws and reenact them in the appropriate way. Robert Lerner stated his property at 1412 East Ocean Front should be included in the encroachment program. Extending a planter 15 feet would divert people from walking through and damaging the berm in front of his property. Anne Marin remarked that her property is not encroaching illegally, but other properties are. This is inconsistent enforcement and an inconsistent resolution. She is not receiving parity with neighbors. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Deputy Director Wisneski explained that the tracts were developed through a series of settlement agreements that created the boundaries of those eight or nine properties. The City does not have the ability to establish an encroachment program on public tidelands. The public tidelands were created by legislation. The City has jurisdiction as a steward of the tidelands. The right-of-way in front of the other parcels is unique and is not necessarily a right of those properties. Encroachment permits will be reconsidered annually. The Coastal Commission is very concerned about this program. The program is a compromise in that some of these properties have encroached in this area for decades. Any unpermitted development beyond that 15-foot area would have to be removed. In response to Secretary Zak's inquiries, Deputy Director Wisneski understood the City did not have the ability to request implementation of an encroachment program for public tidelands. Property owners could pursue such a program, but Deputy Director Wisneski was not aware of a State Lands Commission process for that. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's request, Planning Manager Alford suggested that SPON believes the amendment would allow the City to circumvent the shoreline height limitation zone. Since 2010,the Zoning Code has allowed the maximum height limit to be exceeded through the adoption of a planned community development plan. The proposed amendment would carry over that same provision into the Local Coastal Program. If SPON's concern was about not properly repealing an ordinance, in essence,they would be doing that. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Deputy City Attorney Maiorano replied that staff has drafted the amendments in a manner consistent with the contents of the current Zoning Code and with their understanding of the contents of the current Zoning Code. In terms of the intricacies of the interplay between the Local Coastal Program and the Zoning Code, he deferred to Planning staff. Staff can make clarifications where needed. Page 6 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/01/2017 Planning Manager Alford clarified that the Lido House exception contained in Policy 4.4.2-1 is being eliminated because it is already contained in the LCP Implementation Plan and has been certified by the Coastal Commission. The certified LCP also contains specialized zoning for Lido House. The intent is to return the LCP to a generalized policy document that recognizes the 35-foot height limit and that allows exceptions under existing regulations. An updated LCP webpage is ready for release. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren (1) to find the amendments related to the LCP Cleanup and the East Oceanfront Encroachment Program are statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to Section 15265(a)(1)of the California Code of Regulations,Title 14, and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act; (2) to find the Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District amendment categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and 15303 (New Construction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and (3) to adopt Resolution No. _recommending to the City Council approval of LC2017-002, LC2017-001 and LC2013-002. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren NOES: Weigand ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lawler In response to Chair Kramer's question, Planning Manager Alford reported the City Council will determine the best way to package the various proposals for submission to the Coastal Commission. Communications between City and Coastal Commission staff will determine when amendments are presented to the Council. VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO.4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on City Council Items Deputy Director Wisneski reported a discussion of the Mariners' Mile Revitalization Plan was tentatively planned for May 18, but staff recommends cancellation of the May 18 meeting. Items for the June 8 meeting include the ADU resolution and annual review of the Dunes use permit. Chair Kramer announced the cancellation of the May 18 meeting and noted no items had been planned for the June 22 and July 6 meetings. ITEM NO. 6 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION,ACTION, OR REPORT None. ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Hillgren will be absent on June 22. Vice Chair Koetting will be absent on June 8. IX. ADJOURNMENT—8:20 p.m. Page 7 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/01/2017 The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, April 28, 2017, at 1:35 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 Friday, April 28, 2017, at 1:28 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary Page 8 of 8 Planning Commission - June 8, 2017 Item No. 1 a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of May 4, 2017 June 8, 2017, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher(jimmosher(cDyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2017 Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in S d kU OW L1ndV d Md0 format. Page 1, Item 2, end of line 6 (sentence 5): "The State law does not restrict homeowner association (HOA) powers or limit the prohibition of ADUs and through CC&Rs." [note: In addition to changing "and' to "through" (or "in" ?) the definition "Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs),"found in the last paragraph on page 2, really belongs here, rather than there.] Page 3, paragraph 5, last sentence: "The Local Coastal Plan does not contain a Table 3-10 or a Section 21-41-4 21.41.40." Page 4, paragraph 2: period missing in line 2 between "Peninsula" and "Page 55". Page 5, paragraph 4, sentence 1: "Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford stated that the City had to prioritize amendments to the IP, because there it is limited to three applications to the Coastal Commission each year." Page 5, paragraph 4, sentence 4: "Staff proposes restoring the exceptions to the shoreline height limit;provisions for modifications and variances; waiving the public hearing requirement for minor development; adding the Lido V411age Villas Planned Community to the Implementation Plan; including a landscape maintenance exception during water shortages; and allowing increases of floor area for nonconforming structures from 50 percent to 75 percent." Page 6, paragraph 5: "A-la-n Allan Beek, on behalf of SPON, advised that SPON objects because the amendments provide backdoor methods of repealing earlier ordinances and laws on which SPON relies and which SPON thinks are appropriate." Page 6, paragraph 6: "Robert Lerner Larner stated his property at 1412 East Ocean Front should be included in the encroachment program."