Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/2007"Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06120/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren: II Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Special Counsel Polly Marshall, Esquire of Goldfarb and Lipman, LLP Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 14, 2007. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of August 23, 2007 continued from ITEM NO. 1 September 6, 2007. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Col to approve the minutes as corrected. Chairman Hawkins asked for comments on the minutes; there were none. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: liNone SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 6, 2007. ITEM NO.2 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Cole Approved to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: None OBJECT: Code Amendment 2007 -005 (PA2007 -112) 'ITEM NO.3 Page 1 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06120/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 2 of 22 PA2007 -112 amendment to Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to ise definitions, land use classifications, and regulations relating to group :upancies; land use regulations for public assembly and office uses in the Nport Shores (SP -4), Cannery Village /McFadden Square (SP -6), and Central Recommended boa (SP -8) Specific Plan Districts; procedures for use permits in residential for approval ricts; and the amortization for nonconforming uses in residential districts. ck Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report and marized the changes from the last hearing. ay Zone - identifies residential areas that contain small lots, minimal setbac narrow alleys; areas identified were West Newport, Lido Isle, Balb isula, Bay Island, Balboa Island and Old Corona del Mar. Any use permit areas would require a separation of 300 feet. iitions and land use classifications - language has been tightened an( ied. The land use category known as vacation home rental is proposed to bE ed as a separate land use classification and will be removed from the various use schedules in the Zoning Code. These will be addressed as short tern Is in Chapter 5.95 of the Municipal Code in a separate Code Amendment. nges have been made to the non - conforming section dealing with uses :tunes. The property owner will provide sufficient documentation for I blishment rather than the City having to provide the evidence. for two- family and multi - family uses have been made in abatement schedule. notification requirement for abatement proceedings was expanded to pants as well as property owners within 300 feet. Code dealing with uses deemed non - conforming due to the lack of iit was changed. They will be required to submit a complete application year of the approval of the non - conforming use inventory. )tification of use permit and variance hearings to occupants and property required to be given within 300 feet. revision grants the Planning Commission review authority for applications rsonable accommodation. The Planning Commission must consider aracter of the neighborhood, parking, traffic, etc when making findings olications for reasonable accommodations. revision requires additional documentation for applications for reason stant City Manager Dave Kiff noted the City Council will take action tember 25th to hire another special counsel. The Council sub - committee viewed two firms. That special counsel will report directly to the City Coy will be available to the Planning Commission as needed. ian Hawkins thanked Ms. Marshall for her excellent representation to the Planning Commission during this process. Polly Marshall of Goldfarb Lipman noted the diligence of staff and "hftp: / /www. city. newport-beach.ca. us /PI nAgend as /2007 /mnO9- 20 -07. htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 3 of 22 during the deliberations. Hillgren asked about the issue of facial discrimination. Marshall stated nothing has been added from the last time. It is not faci ftinatory because the special treatment and separation applies to litional uses. In the latest version of the ordinance, there is a separation of between any two conditional uses in any residential district. Where there :ial lot size areas, that has been expanded to 300 feet and applies to litional uses. Therefore, it is not facially discriminatory. ie removal of the short-term lodging from the Zone Code as a land use cate es not change the facial discrimination issue because it has removed tegory. This was recommended by the City Attorney and will need to be bro the attention of the new special counsel. Discussion continued. Harp added that the new General Plan has changed the designation for s mercial properties to make them residential, which will fall under ortization scheme. irman Hawkins asked about the requirement for a use permit for a non `orming use and the application process within a year. Alford answered the timing is within a year of the adoption of the inventory i are non - conforming solely because they do not have a use permit. :ussion continued on "by right issue ". Hawkins presented the following from August 23, 2007 meeting and completeness: ng issue - concerned about the moratorium timing; racing - there was a Planning Commission majority for 1,000 -foot distance iration and there was support for a 300 foot distancing as presented by st clay zone - affects all conditional uses in a residential area; ew of accommodation determination - Commission will be the arbiter; :ement of illegal uses - direction given to be an administrative process by ning Director and is a mandatory duty; Ira[ facilities - leave with residential only and do not extend into mercial; ng of abatement for non - conforming uses - two years; II unlicensed facilities - allowed in R -1.5 and R -2. to be addressed: val of the small unlicensed from R -1, R -1.5 and R -2 and move to MFR; Lion for residential care, small or general requires 31 days or over for a stay; of short term rental or vacation or short term lodging needs to be addressed; tial problem of two residential care facilities adjacent to one another and ar ization provision within the 300 foot zone; i assembly in special zones or districts within the overlay. airman Hawkins asked for any other items to be discussed. Eaton added: "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnO9- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 of optional or mandatory enforcement of the illegal uses. Section 20.62. 2 of Exhibit 7, subparagraph E the word 'may' should be shall; of converted commercial properties to residential and the need r. Alford added that it was identified in the last staff report that commercial us Rhin residential districts is the major category of uses that will have to entified in the inventory and the amortization period establishing abatement. T eneral Plan changed a number of properties on the Peninsula from commerc nd use designation to residential; if those changes are approved by the Coas ommission, they will eventually be rezoned to residential districts and subject e abatement procedures. That issue will remain un- resolved until action by t oastal Commission on the proposed changes and the adoption of a new Zoni ode, which would reclassify these properties. comment was opened. ri Shapiro, local resident, presented an advertisement from a local paper .d her opposition to the over - concentration of group homes as h cceptable. Continuing, she noted a reasonable amount would be accepts of notification of these homes coming into the community, and the resid against this over - concentration. :Ily Dobkins, local resident noted the change to allow short term residential ce lities every 1,000 or 300 feet is about every 330 yards. How long does it take ,e before you encounter each of these facilities ?_ The R -1 is set up for hom W I not for the intrusion of commercial enterprises. hat is being proposed is b the community, the City and our reputation. We need to have these faciliti( not in residential areas. Commercial enterprises should not intrude into t idential zones. bert Hawley of Wasserman Real Estate noted the 3355 Via Lido office buildis proposed to be renovated. It appears that due to this complex situation tl )ject is on hold. We cannot finance, build or lease now unless there is flexibili the language of the resolution. The designation is 20 units per acre and with tl )posed renovation as an office, we are looking for a long -time use as an office. Alford noted that this is in an area that has been changed to residential and has an amendment pending before the Coastal Commission that ws nge the Coastal Land Use Plan to make that residential. If it is approved, ing will follow and would be subject to the non - conforming provisions of Hawley noted the abatement issue is a concern. in Kuhlmann, local resident, noted the over saturation occurs on the Peninsula. ere are over 100 of these facilities on the Peninsula, and there are about 4,50( aident owners who live on the Peninsula; we are the ones who are in a bind. ve four of them on my street and that is enough. This is not the right area foi iab people to be in as it is an area that has rentals where there is drinking coking and raising the ruckus. It is the worst place to put people who are tryinc rehabilitate themselves. Servais, local resident noted his opposition. He noted the many pi ing around outside the stores who ride on their bicycles. His wife is Page 4 of 22 "http: //www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnO9- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/2012007 ned when she sees this. He noted his concern of the emergency to respond in these close areas. The residents are concerned for Hawkins asked Ms. Taber how many minutes she would need to speak. lene Taber attorney and certified planner with the law firm of Jackson DeM; idus Petersen Peckenpaugh representing many local residents, noted she wr eed about 15 to 29 minutes and that she represents many local residents on eninsula. Chairman Hawkins indicated she could have 10 minutes. midents are very concerned about the over - concentration of residential r rcilities. This is not an issue of the residents opposed to having the care facil i the community, what is the issue is the over - concentration of them in cei reas in the community. She then distributed a hand -out referenced during iscussion: proposed ordinance falls short and does not sufficiently address the it ass licenses /registration - City needs information to regulate the uses; antial care facility definition - Integral facility both commercial and res ier- concentration - is the business appropriate and compatible with surroundi mmunity? This area has over 110 alcohol and drug rehab facilities in 1.5 mil an area of unique characteristics; sabled persons should be in non - institutional setting; /erlay zone should be designated to these areas with a 1,000 foot disper: quirement for new and existing residential care facilities (RCF); > unlicensed or large (7 or more) RCF's (including integrated) in R -1, R -1.5 a 2. Only the small licensed facilities are required by State Law to be treated al a single family residence. rirman Hawkins clarified that all the other uses, by State and Federal law, required to be treated as a single - family use. Taber answered that alcohol and rehab facilities are treated as single - family. unlicensed facilities have no requirements. The facilities that have 7 or more not required by State Law to be considered akin to a single - family residence. Is. Taber noted that permit provisions should include criteria for strong e mely enforcement if revocation is necessary as well as public involveml Trough noticing. Reasonable accommodation is akin to a variance and spe( enefit, whether there has been a legitimate hardship. Current criteria :asonable accommodation will not allow for those types of decisions on the pplications. Transition and abatement process involves an inventory of the onconforming uses. Decision will have to be made whether or not they wr :gaily established. Appeal process and hearings need to have time frar pecific schedule needs to be placed in the ordinance identifying when the rings will happen. The problem is residential care facilities and we urge you dopt an ordinance and get the process moving so the City Council can consir ris matter. iirman Hawkins noted you are targeting residential care facilities and those ones you want regulated. The other uses that may be caught up should Taber answered everyone here does and it has been said that the focus ordinance is to deal with residential care facilities. We hate to see unintenc seauences. Page 5 of 22 "http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.usIPInAgendas /2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 airman Hawkins asked about the overlay zone. Taber answered it doesn't deal with existing facilities which are the or ing the over - concentration. Discussion continued on the areas covered. Ir asked and agreed to provide a large scale copy of her map so that it could Jared with the City's map. Hawkins asked for the rationale of their 1,000 -foot separation proposal. Taber answered the 1,000 -foot separation would provide several blc Ben each of the residential care facilities; 75 or 300 feet separation is still >sion continued on the rational of this regulation to alleviate the impacts uses; over - concentration both existing and future; institutionalization for I =ad and the residents; regulations and what the law allows. Eaton asked for her opinion, which she gave, on the airman Hawkins noted those criteria are included in the Concerned Citi; )posal. He read from the list regarding the use permit findings noting it app be targeting all residential care facilities but this list does not help to sepa as for the purpose of amortization and the decision as to which one goes ich one stays. Taber answered perhaps additional items need to be added. rdy Kohler, local resident, noted she chose to move to Newport Beach f -ious reasons including walking, biking to the beach and market, and ea! :ess to shopping. We knew when we moved in that the music we heard on tl ekends was only a minor inconvenience; that was then. She stated now th to the violence and harassment from the group homes, she now drives inlay do her shopping nor is she able to enjoy her outdoor patio. She noted tl -assment such as car vandalism and other incidents. She noted she has take tures proving the impacts and given this information to the City. The residen ie worked in good faith and yet there are more homes than ever on tt ninsula dealing with rehab. She noted her frustration with the process ar nation. She then noted for the record that when she attended the IRC etings, she was told by an ADP representative that the group homes have ow all local code and zoning and that there were no minutes of that anywhere. ike Crosley, local resident, noted his agreement with the previous speaker. 3ted these group homes do not pay fees for short term rentals, etc. He noted irking is an issue. These drug and rehab people are being placed in a sere drugs and alcohol are easily accessible. He noted that he has race reats as well when he tries to settle down people during the early morning. ited this area has become a nightmare and asked for the larger dispersal foo 1,000 and to put a limit on the amount of these uses in the City. A lot of me being made here. He asked for help from the Planning Commission. nys Oberman, local resident, noted these ordinances are insulting to the public I do not address the over - concentration issue. There is nothing in the law the (s the City cannot govern or regulate these uses. The public is being misled. would like to be taken seriously. Business licensing needs to be addressed ier cities have implemented 1,000 -foot distancing. These obstacles are political Page 6 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 y must act now to regulate the uses and eliminate the over - concentration is titutionalization is bad for the disabled and the community. There are n icensed facilities in the community. The drop -out rate is high. Integral faci Inition needs to include residential and commercial. We are in this position action taken in 2004. She asked the Planning Commission for a ded rman Cole asked about the other cities having 1,000 -foot dispersal. Do an overlay zone? Oberman answered they do not have an overlay zone. Their application der. One of them is Riverside. irman Hawkins asked if any ordinances had been overturned because b regarded as illegal making the restriction of 1,000 feet? She answered, was not aware of any. e Morris, local resident noted you have heard the issue. These ordinance: to be changed, addressed and agreed upon and sent to City Council now. ys are causing stress amongst the residents, and costs for the residents fo ieys to act as advocates. The issue is over concentration. Our counsel ha: available to help. The distancing of 75 feet is ridiculous, 300 feet is not ever gh. Even with the 75 or 300 feet, this problem will be moved from tN isula to other areas of the City and you will have this come back again. e small narrow lots don't exist just next to the beach but they are all over. We 1,000 feet now and it needs to include existing uses. Giving two years tc for a use permit needs to be changed, the ordinances are too broad and the concentration needs to be addressed. Koons, local resident, noted that due to the close proximity of homes, everything that goes on at your neighbors. These group homes are not g to the community. There are too many of them. The City needs to deal now. It is about money, power and greed. Batley, local resident, noted a lot of time and effort has been spent on There have been no regulations on these types of homes in the previ years. The issue is over - concentration. Including short term lodging is I solution. The City requires a license for every use except for a re ess. This doesn't make sense. Distancing requirement needs to be plot y is involved in the treatment facilities that are not being regulated by If this issue was massage parlor, both the Commission and Council wr solved this problem by now. k Nichols noted his appreciation of this tough job and thanked the what they have done so far. it MacFarland, president of the Lido Isle Community Association, noted I, ht there was a homeowners' meeting attended by 150 residents. Everyone m agree with what has been said tonight from these citizens. This input is r I a small percentage of the population, but a large percentage of the populati concerned for many reasons, all of them valid. We hope you put out linance that is being asked for in a fair way. arbara Roy asked about the building at 1810 W. Oceanfront that has ;cupants She noted that this has been problematic for over ten years and ask there is going to be something in the ordinance that would address the issue andfathering. Page 7 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 8 of 22 t City Attorney Harp stated this building will fall under the regul, of the ordinance and, if needed, will have to apply for and get a >tan Higby, local resident, noted the issue is density. This is a high slated area. Any increase in density will impact the quality of life in tt hborhood. blic comment was closed. airman Hawkins noted the impacts on the community appear to be su asked staff if this is a rationale for regulation. Is. Marshall answered, yes. The question is what kind of regulation. As we a rrough at length a month ago, if the regulation is targeted at just a use that ser re disabled, i.e. just for residential care facilities, it will be considered fac iscriminatory and it must either be justified by health and safety hazards that sry specific or benefit to the disabled. There needs to be evidence in the re( )r this benefit to the disabled from a particular categorization. Hawkins asked how this would work. Marshall answered the City would have to show in the record when it acted A the ordinance that it was addressing legitimate health and safety ooncer based on stereotype or that this specific regulation was going to benefit t gory of people that was targeted. Hawkins noted preventing institutionalization of the disabled has as one benefit for the disabled. Is. Marshall explained there was a case in a different jurisdiction that found ,as a legitimate governmental purpose. It was a different standard being apr ut that's where this concept comes from. Hawkins asked if the Federal 9th Circuit has accepted the rationale Marshall answered no. There was a case out of Nevada that had separati tuirements where that was not upheld and there was another case ashington. The institutionalization rationalization that we've been hearing abi something that could be better documented. There could be experts. It woi nice to have a person with a disability to say I don't want to live in :titutionalized area as opposed to just the people whose community they a ing to live in. That would be the kind of evidence a court would be much m< aly to look at. A psychologist or rehab specialist, someone who could actin dress that it truly benefits the disabled and would not perhaps view it as prete: ere are cases that say one should be dubious of regulation that is purported nefit people which in truth actually excludes them. Hawkins asked about the 1,000 foot buffer. Marshall answered that the areas in Riverside and Murrieta have not d. One does not apply it to anything under 7 and is also reconsidering lations because they are too confusing. Eaton asked about the reasonable accommodation akin to "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 and what criteria should be applied. s. Marshall answered it is akin to a variance in the sense that it is somebc king for an exception and they have a reason why they are asking for ception. There are over 500 cases that specifically lay out the criteria you c e to grant or deny a reasonable accommodation. They are that you have ake a finding that it is necessary for the disabled person to live in the commur what is alleged and the community can only deny it if it requires a fundamer eration in their zoning or if it is an undue financial or administrative burden. ) ad to go through the criteria that the Concerned Citizens set out and see h any of them we could put in those categories for denial and we put in all the or could, but there were a lot of suggested criteria that goes exactly the otl ay. You look at the individual and what that individual needs. mmissioner Toerge asked for an explanation on the difference between ;rlay zone map discussed at the last meeting and the one proposed now. Alford answered the difference is the West Newport Mesa area is not include my because it doesn't fall within a conventional residential area nor was sloped that way. There are some mobile home parks and some newer mu ily, but it wasn't subdivided in similar manner as West Newport, Corona c and the islands. Staff was directed that possibly that area may not ided in the types of parameters done for our analysis. The other area is tir commercial area in Corona del Mar is not shown because this applies to u nits in residential districts. mmissioner Toerge noted we've heard this concept many times and now at advisor is going to be replaced. It is my hope we as a Commission can n s matter on tonight. He noted the City Council has the higher level ponsibility to consider issues and our role is to recommend what we think is it planning. He noted his goal is to recommend the Concerned Citiz ,posal with the understanding that our Council will get legal advice. He gave nion on licensing, integral connections, separation, abatement, comprom . He noted his involvement with IROC and noted efforts being made by s i counsel. He stated his support of the proposal made by the citizen's group was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend the Citizen's prc the overlay map and with the process for identifying the areas that rated characteristics. He noted that there will need to be ,nises. He would like to separate out the commercial from the abatf ire and utilize the City's proposed mapping as opposed to the o, rirman Hawkins clarified that draft was dated August 22, 2007 and presented August 23rd meeting. iissioner Toerge agreed and stated that the Council may have to change they go through it with advice from their counsel. Hawkins seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. imissioner Hillgren noted he agrees with the concept of moving this fonr agrees with most of the concepts heard from the citizens tonight. He has that document in detail and feels more discussion is necessary. Eaton noted his agreement of the concept. He opined sending Page 9 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 I the Commission can up to the Council and then they could return it back Planning Commission if they get advice from their new counsel that is diffen r what we got and the ordinance ends up being quite different then what J up. He cannot support the residents' ordinance as it is facia riminatory. Going into court with a facially discriminatory ordinance wo it enormous attorney expense with our hands tied. He suggest rmmending an ordinance based on the advice we've had from our counsel % understanding. He ended by saying he could not support the motion airman Hawkins noted there is the will to move something forward tonight. are have been many meetings of the Commission and the IROC before that. noted he could not support the motion because it is facially discriminatory an( ansel recognized that. A facially discriminatory ordinance requires that the City ve things that we cannot as our counsel has informed us. There were no othe ues presented for the City to use that would be an adequate defense. Ms bar had agreed that it was either a benefit to the disabled or the specific harry i I don't believe we can show the specific harm. Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren on Failed. ommissioner Cole noted he would like to discuss the overlay concentration is s it relates to dispersal footage. He asked about the proposed concept of a i tandard subdivision map versus an overlay zone. Can we accomplish the & ring by expanding the non - standard subdivision map and maybe extending ispersal footage versus.the original language of an overlay zone? Is there ,ay to address existing uses? Is. Marshall answered you could try to do it, but it greatly increases the r ecause you are talking about putting an operating facility out of business. Y re talking about choosing between two and there are so many opportunities rake that choice for the wrong reasons or to be accused. There are any numl f reasons alleged why you chose one over another and there is so much more take as it will be a taking challenge. The concept was to not take that on H verything else and not have the dispersal requirement apply to existing facilit nd have it apply to just going forward. At the last meeting you requested P aber to come up with a point system, and for the record we have been iscussion for many hours on this item, but the point system has not bE has proposed what they think is the equivalent of an overlay zone, nically easier to deal with. missioner Cole noted expanding that would not necessarily be a prob pt for the criteria used is specific and would be hard to expand into Corona or a commercial zone for example because it does not fit the small rement, or it is not residential. Is that accurate? Ir. Alford noted staff does not think an overlay map is necessary and that t reas can be identified within the ordinance and would serve the same purpose. oes modify one criteria and that is all. The issue of expansion is separate and an identify the areas you want to. Staff was specifically told to look at nc tandard areas, ones that have smaller lots with minimum setbacks and the iss Page 10 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 the alleys came into play due to the density and concentration, parking an ffic issues. That is how we performed our analysis. There are other areas c City that have substandard alleys, some have substandard lots and we'v, osen areas that have both. If you want to expand to other areas we can do tha t we need criteria in which we can form that analysis. We did not include th est Newport Mesa area because it is an area that wasn't developed as ; sidential area, there are spots here and there and there will be more residenti< the new General Plan, most of which will be multi- family or mixed use in nature. ;loner Cole asked for a consensus and is in agreement with what staff as it relates to the subdivision zone but open to expanding that and to 1,000 feet. imissioner McDaniel agreed with that issue but noted his concern of the oentration. It is clear that these are businesses dealing with disabled people when there is a concentration of any kind of business, we re -zone the area Cher it is R -1, R -1.5 or R -2 by allowing that to take place. A business in an R -1 for whatever reason, we have the right to regulate; by allowing that to take because of other issues that we may be afraid we are dealing with disabled )le, we are allowing this rezoning. Marshall noted these issues have been addressed. Under the currei )sal nothing is allowed in the R -1 zone except the licensed facilities of 6 c r that are required by State law to be treated as single - family homes. Yc chosen to exclude everything else from the R -1 and that is in this ordinance. missioner McDaniel noted when we have a duplex are we allowed to one building be 6 people or less or do we have to allow it to be Marshall answered if we are successful with the integral facilities definition, duplex has two units being operated as 6 or under licensed facility and I •ated together, then we can say this is not 6 or under, it is 12 or whatever tl bar is. We can say it is not permitted. The most creative, assertive part of tt lance is the integral facilities definition. mmissioner Hillgren asked about the concept of excluding existing facilities. are has to be a way to deal with them. If we are concerned about these uses ii ; zone, whether it is there today or tomorrow, it is an issue we need to dea h. I don't know how we can move forward an ordinance that doesn't. Marshall noted the issue is money. It is making a choice. It is a policy is very risky. Perhaps the Council can consider this. rman Hawkins noted there is general agreement with the non - standard zc the overlay zone are functionally equivalents. Within that zone, the propo been made to separate those permitted uses by 1,000 feet. Staff mmendinq 300 feet. sioner McDaniel noted he recommends 1,000 feet and it is up to to make the final determination. Toerge, Hillgren, Peotter and Cole agreed with 1,000 feet. Orman Hawkins noted he could not support 1,000 feet stating his concern separation is so broad and the uses are so remote that it effectively limits Page 11 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /20071mnO9- 20- 07.htm 06/2012008 'Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 bar of facilities and therefore will be discriminatory. It will be noted lance shall be modified for 1,000 feet. rmmissioner Eaton noted his support of 300 feet as it is clearly used by the S addressing seven or eight other kinds of group occupancies and therefore defendable. i Hawkins noted the areas of expansion included were the Santa West Newport Mesa and the commercial zone in Corona del Mar. Alford noted the analysis included the 5,000 foot criteria for lot sizes and alley: than 20 feet. Santa Ana Heights has larger lots than most areas of the City. se are the areas that have lots up to two acres in size. West Newport Mes< not developed as a residential area as stated earlier. Newport Heights ha: er lots than West Newport, the islands and Corona del Mar but I believe the ✓s are below 20 feet. missioner Peotter asked if the City could require these facilities to buildings to be ADA compliant including parking? >. Marshall answered that ADA interpretation is extremely complicated; however, nerally residential uses are not subject unless there is an area that is available the general public within a residential building. We would get into the issue they a residential or non - residential buildings. It would be problematic for the City tc y the ADA applies to these particular buildings as opposed to the federal vernment that enforces the ADA. The licensing people actually have quirements but it will relate to the type of license and I am not sure it would be Jonal if the license is for drug and alcohol that they have to necessarily have ferent handicap access than other residential facilities. It really needs to be rman Hawkins, referring to his previous list, brought up the subject wing the small unlicensed from the R -1.5 and R -2 and move to MFR. 1 straw voted earlier. imissioners Toerge, Peotter voted MFR only. imissioner Hillgren, may not be allowable under State law to move to MFR Cole keeps with staff recommendation. imissioner Eaton, leave in R -1.5 and R -2 based upon the fact that they II facilities. Chairman Hawkins agreed. McDaniel voted MFR. Alford clarified this was in either case whether it is R -1, R -1.5, R -2 and with a use permit. Hillgren voted to remain with staff recommendation. votes to remain with staffs recommendation. rman Hawkins then brought up the definition in residential care, small ral and refers to whether or not all of these regulated require an agreement in excess of 31 days. For those that do not have a required stay of 31da) Page 12 of 22 "http: //www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 13 of 22 khat do they become? >. Marshall noted this was put in to ensure that they have to be in there 31 d; fit in that category, so if less than 31 they are prohibited and become a board use. The language could be expanded to clarify. irman Hawkins then brought up short term rentals. Staffs proposal is to eve short term rentals and propose to regulate them in the Municipal Code. imissioner McDaniel noted he would like to separate it out. imissioner Hillgren asked how this would happen. Harp answered that they went back to the original language in the Code. It not a designated land use before and was handled through a permitting ass and we went back to what was in the original ordinance. We are currently (ing on the regulation scheme and it will be presented to the City Council. re is a full report in the May staff report to the City Council as to what the lance would look at. Alford added that the ordinance will address the impacts identified in the eys and will include dealing with the process of the applications, occupancy s, management plans, notification plans, contact persons and things of that imissioner Hillgren asked if these plans can be asked of rentals, why can't for them from the group occupancies? Alford answered some of them are provided for within the new 91 A. Harp added those will be subject to the terms of the use permit. Marshall noted it is in the application for the use permit that requires igement plan, traffic, parking and then specific authority for the Planni mission to impose conditions related to that. issioners Toerge, McDaniel, Cole, Hillgren, and Peotter agreed to ren term lodging. Chairman Hawkins noted his concern of weakening an Hawkins then noted the next item of amortization of existing ling and the procedural period. Marshall noted the ordinance before you provides that existing uses could )rtized, i.e., if they are in a district and they need a use permit and they d one, or if they are in a district where they are now prohibited. It is a separai e that says it will not apply to existing. Harp added that the amortization issue as far as existing facilities is a g e to be looked at by outside counsel to come up with criteria to use for incing requirement. Commissioner Eaton noted there needs to be amortization of existing uses. I hould not be less than two years. We should recommend the ordinance but asIl he Council to look at the issue of applying separation to existing uses and if thei "http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.usIPInAgendas /2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 I advises a way that can be done that the Planning Commission feels that be done. Planning Commission agreed. n Hawkins brought up prohibiting group assembly of seven or more in Plan zones only, or include commercial zones. Alford noted the limits on group assembly uses would prohibit clubs and lodges any office type use which has services that require meetings or assemblies of an persons or more. It is now proposed to be only limited to the SP Districts of uport Shores, Cannery Village /McFadden and Central Balboa Specific Plan ricts. The proposal is to apply it to the RSC zone, which is the city's retail zone aide. Most of the RSC areas will fall in what is proposed as the CG land use ignation, which stands for General Commercial. imissioner Eaton noted he would expand that prohibition to Corona del Lido Marina Village. Alford noted Lido Marina Village is within the base zoning district of the RSC d the same with Corona del Mar. We based this on the direction received from member of the public who identified that the coastal commercial areas were ique and were meant to serve residents and visitors and that these uses were t of character. If you want to limit it to just those areas to fit within the general ection, south side of Corona del Mar is in the Coastal Zone and is surrounded the non - standard subdivision areas. The non - standard subdivision areas were ly supposed to apply to residential districts. rmmissioner Peotter clarified that we would in effect disallow group assembly as of seven or more in the commercial zone. He noted he would not be in favor limiting it to seven. Commissioners McDaniel and Cole agreed. mmissioner Hawkins suggested inserting on 20.91A.010 a new paragraph C ch would read, "The specific purposes of this chapter are to protect and ther the recovery and integration of the disabled including those receiving atment and counseling in dependency with recovery. The City seeks to )id and ameliorate over - concentration of care facilities so that such Rides are dispersed throughout the community and are not congregating over - concentrated in any given particular area," The thrust is to say that of our purposes is to avoid the over - concentration and benefit the disabled. McDaniel, Toerge, Hillgren agreed. Eaton noted 20.62.030E the word shall. The Commission and ntinuing, he asked for a recommendation that if the City Council with the advice their new counsel finds that if it is feasible to add commercial zones to the -gral facilities or integral facilities that are partly residential and partly rnmercial that the sense of this commission is they should. The Commission ntinuing, he noted if the City Council with advice from their new counsel ends up h an ordinance that is significantly different than what we have recommended to :m, ask the Council to refer it back to us along with the benefit of their counsel well so that we can consider those changes. Page 14 of 22 "http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.usIPInAgendas /2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 �mmissioner Toerge noted he does not agree with that. This should be Council and let them decide. ers Hillgren, McDaniel and Cole agreed. rson Hawkins noted his concerns about the resolution. The term should be changed to "residential care facilities" throughout the ord y. Finding 15 should include a dispersal requirement of 1,000 feet. Hillgren asked if Finding 11 is to include verification of disability? Marshall answered what the law requires in the reasonable accommodatic :ext is that all you can ask for is documentation from a licensed medic essional. There are all kinds of issues and where is the line drawn? You ca for evidence but it can't be so detailed that it invades somebody's privacy but be a letter from a professional. missioner Hillgren asked it if was unfair to require a business to verify a de evidence that the people living there are deemed disabled? Do we ha business licensing authority or is this something we should ask the Council I suggest that the Council look at the licensing restrictions and impose 1 as they can. Marshall answered this is in the ordinance that you have before you. If y( y for a use permit, one of the things you have to show is the people wl le there are disabled. Unlicensed 6 or fewer require a use permit. We c� e sure that evidence is provided. We looked and it is already required th e facilities get a City business license. They may not be getting them, but are operating a business in a residential district, they are required to g Harp added that every separate location is required to have a bw se. You can't charge a fee to a licensed facility under six because the prevents a fee charge. Cole asked about the noticing requirement. Marshall noted it is notice to property owner and residents to 300 feet, which standard for all discretionary applications. Alford clarified that the resolution will reflect the sense of the ngs. It was agreed. irman Hawkins noted the existing ordinance increases the dispersal to 1,00( , including a requirement for an agreement of staying more than 30 days rt-term rentals are out. Amortization of non - conforming is two years. Groul 3mbly to be limited in the SP zones only not in general commercial. imercial non - conforming use amortization to be looked at if possible (one o senses). Add language to 20.91A regarding purposes. Change 20.62.030 E i "may" to "shall". Add commercial facilities to the definition of commercia Aral (sense of the Commission). on was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner n to recommend approval to the City Council of Code Amendment 2007 -00! ?007 -112) with the changes as noted. Page 15 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newpott- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 missioner Toerge noted the proposal of the Concerned Citizens is not facia iminatory because the overcrowding in his opinion breeds utionalization of the area which is quite inconsistent with the purpose rating people into the residential zone. He does not support the motion but that it's being forwarded to the City Council. !r McDaniel noted his support of legal counsel during and recognizes their countless hours. s. Marshall thanked the Commission and noted this issue has been handled lot of integrity. Peotter noted staff should follow -up with a possible ADA Hawkins noted his concern of the dispersal requirement of 1,000. and Hillgren Toerge None BJECT: Panini Cafe (PA2007 -063) 2421 E. Coast Highway squest to consider Use Permit No. 2007 -010 to allow the operation of a 3,8 luare -foot, full- service restaurant with a net public area of 640 square feet and low alcoholic beverage service Type "41" ABC License (On -Sale Beer and Wi sting Place). Request for Accessory Dining Permit No. 2007 -006 to allow 1 )eration of a 160 square -foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with I oposed restaurant and an approval of Off -site Parking Agreement No. 2007 -0 justify the off- street parking requirement utilizing the off -site property located Corporate Plaza. Ung gave an overview of the staff report and noted staff had received i the Commissioners and from the public, copies which have been ]able. ner Toerge asked if there was a requirement for parking for a . Alford answered that for a take -out service restaurant, the parking is or ace for every 50 square feet plus one for each employee on duty. It also refe the section of the Code that allows the Planning Commission to establish ige for take -out service establishments from 1 space for each 30 -50 square n blic area. mer Hillgren asked about the crime rate notation. Ms. Ung made to 17 %. mmissioner Toerge noted if the restaurant is proposing to do both, take out down, how do you reconcile both of them? Alford answered that it gives you the latitude within that range from 30- are feet of net public area and take into consideration the various aspects operation such as the design characteristics of the number of tables and se: outdoor dining. ITEM NO.4 PA2007 -063 Approved Page 16 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 missioner Toerge clarified that it could be a determination of 1 per 40 squ, or 1 per 30 square feet, based on characteristics. The amount of ai ted for take -out might help us to assess whether 1 parking space for re feet or 1 for 30 square feet which would increase the parking. nissioner Eaton asked about the off -site parking spaces that if lost, then :ant has to find substitute parking or reduce the capacity in proportion to fig spaces lost. If the employee parking spaces are lost, how does t 7 Ung answered that should the off -site parking be lost, the Plann nission or Director has the authority to re- evaluate their parking arrangem to determine the appropriate ratio. Discussion continued of possi I Edwards, representing Panini Cafe, distributed copies of his presentation referred to during his discussion. He noted the applicant has read and agi the staff report; however, questions Condition 19 regarding the constructio r trash enclosure. He discussed the proposed street elevation compared to sting street elevation, proposed alley elevation compared to the existing Ovation, proposed dining area layout compared to the existing layout, restn Jlities comparisons, kitchen facilities comparisons, patio dining comparisi iployee parking plan, proposed valet management layout for 17 vehicles, oral[ vehicular circulation. issy Farzine, real estate agent for Panini, noted she has reviewed the sl )ort, noted the number of support letters received and that this is not an openi a new restaurant bar; it is about re- locating an existing cafe and eatery that h en in business for many years. The busiest times for the restaurant are turday and Sunday mornings for breakfast and brunch service and is case ling. Panini will not add any night life or congestion to the area; it is only looki relocate to provide better service to its patrons. 31% of the restaurant patrc ilk to the establishment. Panini is proposing on -site valet parking. She asked pand the latitude of the parking ratio of 1 space to 50 square feet due to I count of walk -in traffic and allow this relocation. II Edwards noted condition 19 regarding the trash enclosure. We are proposi trash enclosure with a locked door and a trash drop in the back of the kitch gel down into the trash receptacle. To have a lid would prevent the tra >eration from functioning. It is a water -tight enclosure. agreed. nissioner Eaton noted his concern of the off -site employee parking that distant from the site. Is there a way to oversee this parking? Would yc to a condition of approval for a review of the operation in six months or Edwards agreed to the additional condition for review and the employees % signing an agreement regarding parking off -site at 7 Corporate Plaza. The be a method of electronic enforcement as well. He requested condition 44 ect 16 vehicles parked on site in the parking garage. Tony Brine noted the only plan he could approve was the one with 12 cars it garage. The applicant has now submitted another plan with angled parkins ;es and different turning movements that staff cannot support as there is not quate turning radius provided. The original plan with 12 vehicles in the garage Page 17 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnO9- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 the only one we could approve. He added that using the van accessible load ea as a hammerhead turnaround is not acceptable. ;sion on the valet parking, turning radius, not using the van stripped add up to 16 vehicles, parallel spaces, operation of ingress and egress. comment was opened. n Morgan, local resident, noted the parking is problematic even with the walk -ir cipated. He presented a hand -out and made reference to it during his speech. noted the several restaurants using the alley, parking and the use of on -stree king. He ended saying this relocation will only add to the already congestec king, egress and ingress in the alley. :k Keefer of Ameripark West, noted he parked the cars in the garage for I ious tenant. He noted SUV's cannot be parked in this garage. This is ing garage, not a valet operation inside a parking garage. In order to ma happen you would have to queue the cars outside the garage. Stacking c: ide would block all the alley traffic. He noted the problems with cars comi going, turning radius and parking. At Commission inquiry, he noted pany operates the valet parking for the Bungalow. ssioner McDaniel asked how wide and long the proposed 16 -; rations are. He was answered they are a little over 9 feet and are not r Crespin, representing 29 homeowners south of the block on Acacia, Carne i Begonia Avenues, distributed petitions signed in opposition to this propc ject due to the traffic and congestion. The argument that there is parking sr J that there will be no congestion arising from this is specious because you ting facts that are not accurate. You have received information contrary to sertion. Customers do not always accept valet parking and will park themse erever they can find a space. She noted the problems with the large to •ked in the alleyway servicing the restaurants and asked that this be considr -inq the deliberation. Lorenz, local resident noted there will be four restaurants on one corner, ti ABC licenses and a new one that will be operating from morning until ing. That impacts all the other retail uses and the people who occupy buildings. This building was built as a retail use and will require exten del. He urged that this project not be allowed. I De Carion, appearing on behalf of the Bungalow noted this restaurant rut 50% larger than the Bungalow and has 50% less parking in total if y ude the fact that people will be parking a substantial distance away and walki oss Coast Highway. A real issue is that the Bungalow is on a private alley a parking belongs to Bungalow and Golden Spoon. Access is off Carnation or Bungalow lot and there will be no way to differentiate the customers. There agreement for Bungalow to park Panini traffic. Stacking is an issue. emission inquiry he noted that the Bungalow is 2,900 square feet with uired parking of 40 spaces. They have 44 spaces. Discussion continued parking. Nichols, local resident, noted this is the worst parking area in the City. >osed employee parking is not practical. This building is a dry goods store you are making a restaurant out of it. This is not an appropriate or prac for this building. Page 18 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Berry, owner of the property of the Bungalow and Golden Spoon, presented ram depicting the proposed traffic flow of potential Panini customers. It will n and is not a practical plan. m Walker, owner and operator of the Bungalow restaurant, noted the propos gilding design is spectacular and the frontage will be an improvement from wl there currently. His concern is the parking. He currently has 44 spaces for staurant and another 30 spaces he uses on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday a aturday nights. He noted that all the restaurants within that community are op r dinner and that is when the traffic issues begin. This proposed building ti is a low demand parking requirement and that generally closed at 5 or 6 in 1 rening will now become a restaurant with evening hours and will cause tral ingestion in this small tight alleyway. He noted he has tried to coordin, ;liveries; however, you can not dictate to any supplier what time they are going :liver. They determine that based on their load, traffic conditions, etc. I respi e intent, but the reality is it doesn't work that way. The delivery trucks in 1 leyway do block it as the alley is narrow. This is not a good use of the prope id will make conditions worse. rk Susson, local resident, noted the issue is parking and questioned whether you fit the requisite number of cars in that garage. If there is enough room, it. If not, then you will have to figure something out. comment was closed. Cole asked the reason for using the 1 per 40 square feet or 1 square feet. Lepo answered that is determined by what traditionally has been used by 3urant with some take out and sit down service. This is a convention that h; i historically used. Compared to other restaurants, it would depend on tho permits and when they were approved. immissioner Toerge noted Panini is a successful restaurant. An approved t rmit runs with the land. As land planners we need to assure that any businf restaurant that wants to improve itself is not done so at the expense of reside other businesses in the area. If the commercial application can contain pact on site, then it gains support. To the degree the impacts generate iers, we need to address that. is a very limited area in back of those restaurants. Any business that local !re is going to have deliveries. Our Code requires that convenient parking ovided for residents, guests and patrons. It should not be difficult to maintE native off -site parking nor should it be difficult to enforce. There is no location s plan for off -site queuing of cars while working the valet operation. I avoid va irking as much as I can and I usually park on the street because I want to re that some young man is not driving my car. The issue of walk -in patrons 3ical. The proposed employee parking is a quarter mile away. The agreeme th the employees will be difficult to manage. Our Code requires that off-s irking agreements have to be permanent in nature. Five years with a five -ye lion is not permanent and the last thing I want to do is to tell Panini's they ha cut their service because they've lost parking. The amount of investme eded in this building to make it work is substantial and to me it puts too mu assure on the City to have to compromise the operation due to this potential to parking which is clearly not permanent as our Code requires. appropriateness of using an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit for a Page 19 of 22 "hftp: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca. u s /PinAgendas /2007 /mnO9- 20 -07. htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 ablishment is contrary to the intent, which was to allow existing restaurants )and its floor area up to 25% of its public area not to exceed 1,000 square fe hout providing any parking. That policy was created in the early '90's whii oking was banned in restaurants, in order to help the complaining restaurar it were struggling because they lost clientele. This permit was an effort to he sting restaurants that already met the parking requirement to take advantage ne areas that does not impact parking but allow them to use the outdoor dinii :as. The Code clearly says it is to be used for existing restaurants. When ,v application is going to great expense to remove walls, roofs and floor area ju create outdoor dining for which they do not have to provide parking, this ingenuous and not consistent with the code. Code states roof coverings shall not have the affect of creating a )sure. This area is already enclosed and covered. r. Edwards noted they are pulling back the building mass and there will be vninqs over this area with heaters. ssioner Toerge noted a couple of restaurants have used this Code in 1 certainly don't think it is appropriate to encourage this kind of creation space in an effort to not provide parking. For all these reasons and I on the area, I cannot support this proposal. tion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner i approve Use Permit 2007 -010, Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 t Off -site Parking Agreement No. 2007 -001 with the modification to Cond changing the parking number from 12 to 16. missioner Eaton asked for an additional condition for an annual review by ning Commission. lowing discussion on a parking management plan and the benefit of a firing, it was agreed to add this new condition. ,nmissioner Eaton noted the issues raised in the petition about concentration taurants and liquor and I don't think those are critical to this issue. There col I be a concentration but that is not a reason to vote against this. If there -night liquor problems in the neighborhood, I don't think it is from tl ablishment as they close at 10. The overall parking is an issue. He not ployee parking is critical, valet operation is key, the amount of walk ronage makes a difference, the amount of the garage vehicle parking increa I the annual review of the operation. He added that this can be operat sonably well if they are diligent in their responsibility to do so. Ung requested the deletion of Condition 46 as it is no longer applicable to tl ilication. Edwards, on behalf of the applicant, accepts the revisions to the conditions yes: I Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hiilgren Noes: I Toerge Recused: lNone ITEM NO. 5 PA2007 -112 Knight Appeal (PA2007 -137) 312 Hazel Drive Page 20 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /P]nAgendas /2007 /mnO9- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 n appeal by Diane Knight of the Planning Director's interpretation regarding the Continued to application of a development stringline (setback) determined pursuant to Genera 10/04/2007 Plan Natural Resources Element Policy NR 23.6 to property located at 312 Hazel Drive. This item was continued to October 4, 2007 at the request of the appellant. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Peotter to continue this item to Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Recused: None SUBJECT: Special November Meeting of the Planning Commission. Discussion item Only Mr. Lepo requested that the discussion item regarding a special November meeting of the Planning Commission at the request of Hoag Hospital be considered prior to the agenda items. It was agreed. Approved Mr. Lepo noted staff would accommodate both the Planning Commission and Hoag and suggested that the meeting for November 8th be cancelled and hold a meeting on November 15th. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Col to cancel the November 8th meeting and to hold a meeting on November 15th for he Hoag Health Center CUP. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Recused: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up Mr. Lepo stated that at the last Council meeting the Code Amendments on mechanical screening on rooftops and ground, and the Development Agreement for Pacific View Memorial Park were approved. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee Chairman Hawkins reported that the. Public Works Director gave a presentation on the Capital Improvement projects. C. Report from the Planning _ Commission's representative to the General Plan /Loral Coastal Program Implementation Committee Commissioner Eaton reported that there was a discussion on fair share fees and the time table of the Zoning re- write. The proposal is to have the Planning Commission meet every week for six weeks on this topic during March and April as well as other topics that may arise. Matters which a Plannino Commissioner would like Staff to re op rt on at a subseg went meeting None. Page 21 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn09- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report None. Project status Commissioner Hillgren asked about and received an explanation of the staff action report regarding the approval of a proposed change for Coastal Peak Park relating to the specific amenities in the park. Requests for excused absences Commissioner Eaton requested an absence from the meeting of October 4th. p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 22 of 22 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PInAgendas /2007 /mnO9- 20- 07.htm 06/20/2008