HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutes 09-20-07canning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
• DRAFT September 20, 2007
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Page 1 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
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
P11TING 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.
ITEM NO. 1
Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Cole
Approved
to approve the minutes as corrected.
Chairman Hawkins asked for comments on the minutes; there were none.
Ayes: I I
Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
Noes: iNone
Abstain:
None
OBJECT: 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
in:
None
SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2007 -005 (PA2007 -112)
'ITEM NO. 3
An amendment to Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to
Page 1 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 2 of 22
file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning COnlrnission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
PA2007 -112
vise definitio9k land use classifications, and regulations relating to group
;cupancies ON use regulations for public assembly and office uses in the
Cs
ewport i (SP -4), Cannery Village /McFadden Square (SP -6), and Central
31bo 8) Specific Plan Districts; procedures for use permits in residential
Recommended
•
st s" 66d the amortization for nonconforming uses in residential districts.
for approval
3trick Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report and
immarized the changes from the last hearing.
verlay Zone - identifies residential areas that contain small lots, minimal setback
id narrow alleys; areas identified were West Newport, Lido Isle, Balboa
Bninsula, Bay Island, Balboa Island and Old Corona del Mar. Any use permit in
ese areas would require a separation of 300 feet.
afinitions and land use classifications - language has been tightened and
3rified. The land use category known as vacation home rental is proposed to be
;feted as a separate land use classification and will be removed from the various
nd use schedules in the Zoning Code. These will be addressed as short term
ntals in Chapter 5.95 of the Municipal Code in a separate Code Amendment.
-ranges have been made to the non - conforming section dealing with uses and
ructures. The property owner will provide sufficient documentation for legal
;tablishment rather than the City having to provide the evidence.
(ceptions for two- family and multi - family uses have been made in the
nortization abatement schedule.
ie notification requirement for abatement proceedings was expanded to include
•
;cupants as well as property owners within 300 feet.
ie Code dealing with uses deemed non - conforming due to the lack of a use
=it was changed. They will be required to submit a complete application within
ie year of the approval of the non - conforming use inventory.
Afication of use permit and variance hearings to occupants and property owners
required to be given within 300 feet.
revision grants the Planning Commission review authority for applications for
asonable accommodation. The Planning Commission must consider the
aracter of the neighborhood, parking, traffic, etc when making findings for
plications for reasonable accommodations.
revision requires additional documentation for applications for reasonable
commodations.
;sistant City Manager Dave Kiff noted the City Council will take action on
:ptember 25th to hire another special counsel. The Council sub - committee has
erviewed two firms. That special counsel will report directly to the City Council
d will be available to the Planning Commission as needed.
iairman Hawkins thanked Ms. Marshall for her excellent representation and
vice to the Planning Commission during this process.
•
s. Polly Marshall of Goldfarb Lipman noted the diligence of staff and the
)mmission during the deliberations.
file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning COnlrnission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007
Hillgren asked about the issue of facial discrimination.
Marshall stated nothing has been added from the last time. It is not facie
minatory 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.
e removal of the short-term lodging from the Zone Code as a land use Gate
as not change the facial discrimination issue because it has removed
tegory. This was recommended by the City Attomey 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 some
imercial properties to make them residential, which will fall under the
rrtization scheme.
irman Hawkins asked about the requirement for a use permit for a non-
forming use and the application process within a year.
Alford answered the timing is within a year of the adoption of the inventory ii
are non - conforming solely because they do not have a use permit.
;ussion continued on "by right issue ".
rman Hawkins presented the following for discussion and completeness:
issue - concemed about the moratorium timing;
ing - there was a Planning Commission majority for 1,000 -foot distance
ion and there was support for a 300 foot distancing as presented by st
zone - affects all conditional uses in a residential area;
of accommodation determination - Commission will be the arbiter;
ant of illegal uses - direction given to be an administrative process by
3 Director and is a mandatory duty;
facilities - leave with residential only and do not extend into
ing of abatement for non - conforming uses - two years;
all unlicensed facilities - allowed in R -1.5 and R -2.
to be addressed:
ved 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;
r assembly in special zones or districts within the overlay.
Hawkins asked for any other items to be discussed.
Eaton added:
of optional or mandatory enforcement of the illegal uses. Section
2 of Exhibit 7, subparagraph E the word 'may' should be shall;
Page ? 14
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 4 of 22
we of converted commercial properties to residential and the need for
atement;
,. Alford added that it was identified in the last staff report that commercial use
•
thin residential districts is the major category of uses that will have to be
:ntified in the inventory and the amortization period establishing abatement. The
:neral Plan changed a number of properties on the Peninsula from commercial
id use designation to residential; if those changes are approved by the Coastal
)mmission, they will eventually be rezoned to residential districts and subject to
a abatement procedures. That issue will remain un- resolved until action by the
)astal Commission on the proposed changes and the adoption of a new Zoning
ode, which would reclassify these properties.
iblic comment was opened.
Drri Shapiro, local resident, presented an advertisement from a local paper and
ted her opposition to the over - concentration of group homes as being
acceptable. Continuing, she noted a reasonable amount would be acceptable;
;k of notification of these homes coming into the community, and the residents
e against this over - concentration.
jelly Dobkins, local resident noted the change to allow short term residential care
;ilities every 1,000 or 300 feet is about every 330 yards. How long does it take to
ve before you encounter each of these facilities? The R -1 is set up for homes
d not for the intrusion of commercial enterprises. What is being proposed is bad
. the community, the City and our reputation. We need to have these facilities,
t not in residential areas. Commercial enterprises should not intrude into the
sidential zones.
•
)bert Hawley of Wasserman Real Estate noted the 3355 Via Lido office building
proposed to be renovated. It appears that due to this complex situation the
)ject is on hold. We cannot finance, build or lease now unless there is flexibility
the language of the resolution. The designation is 20 units per acre and with the
)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 the
ty has an amendment pending before the Coastal Commission that would
ange the Coastal Land Use Plan to make that residential. If it is approved, re
ning will follow and would be subject to the non - conforming provisions of the
)de.
.. 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
sident owners who live on the Peninsula; we are the ones who are in a bind. I
ve four of them on my street and that is enough. This is not the right area for
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 trying
rehabilitate themselves.
d Servais, local resident noted his opposition. He noted the many peopl
nging around outside the stores who ride on their bicycles. His wife is very
•
ncerned when she sees this. He noted his concern of the emergency units
ing to respond in these close areas. The residents are concerned for their
fety.
file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007
Hawkins asked Ms. Taber how many minutes she would need to speak.
ie Taber attorney and certified planner with the law firm of Jackson DeMaroc
I Petersen Peckenpaugh representing many local residents, noted she wouk
about 10 to 15 minutes and that she represents many local residents on the
insula. The residents are very concerned about the over - concentration o
dential care facilities. This is not an issue of the residents opposed to havinc
care facilities in the community, what is the issue is the over - concentration o
n in certain areas in the community. She then distributed a hand -out
renced during her discussion:
proposed ordinance falls short and does not sufficiently address the impacts;
ass licenses /registration - City needs information to regulate the uses;
antial care facility definition - Integral facility both commercial and residential
✓er- concentration - is the business appropriate and compatible with surroundi
immunity? 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.
airman Hawkins clarified that all the other uses, by State and Federal law,
required to be treated as a single - family use.
�aber answered that alcohol and rehab facilities are treated as single - family.
nlicensed 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.
Taber noted that permit provisions should include criteria for strong a
ly enforcement if revocation is necessary as well as public involvem
ugh noticing. Reasonable accommodation is akin to a variance and spec
efit, whether there has been a legitimate hardship. Current criteria
;onable accommodation will not allow for those types of decisions on the
!cations. Transition and abatement process involves an inventory of the
conforming uses. Decision will have to be made whether or not they w(
Ily established. Appeal process and hearings need to have time frar
cific schedule needs to be placed in the ordinance identifying when the
3s will happen. The problem is residential care facilities and we urge you
pt an ordinance and get the process moving so the City Council can consk
matter. _
irman 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 unintern
Hawkins asked about the overlay zone.
Taber answered it doesn't deal with existing facilities which are the
ing the over - concentration. Discussion continued on the areas covered.
Page 5 of 22
file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 071tm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 6 of 22
is asked and agreed to provide a large scale copy of her map so that it could be
mpared with the City's map.
iairman Hawkins asked for the rationale of their 1,000 -foot separation proposal. •
s. Taber answered the 1,000 -foot separation would provide several blocks
tween each of the residential care facilities; 75 or 300 feet separation is still to
rse.
scussion continued on the rational of this regulation to alleviate the impacts of
;se uses; over - concentration both existing and future; institutionalization for the
tabled and the residents; regulations and what the law allows.
)mmissioner Eaton asked for her opinion, which she gave, on the separation
teria.
rairman Hawkins noted those criteria are included in the Concerned Citizens
Dposal. He read from the list regarding the use permit findings noting it appears
be targeting all residential care facilities but this list does not help to separate
es for the purpose of amortization and the decision as to which one goes and
rich one stays.
s. Taber answered perhaps additional items need to be added.
ndy Kohler, local resident, noted she chose to move to Newport Beach for
rious reasons including walking, biking to the beach and market, and easy
cess to shopping. We knew when we moved in that the music we heard on the
:ekends was only a minor inconvenience; that was then. She stated now tha •
e to the violence and harassment from the group homes, she now drives inland
do her shopping nor is she able to enjoy her outdoor patio. She noted the
rassment such as car vandalism and other incidents. She noted she has taken
;lures proving the impacts and given this information to the City. The residents
ve wonted in good faith and yet there are more homes than ever on the
:ninsula dealing with rehab. She noted her frustration with the process and
uation. She then noted for the record that when she attended the IRO
:etings, she was told by an ADP representative that the group homes have to
low all local code and zoning and that there were no minutes of that anywhere.
ke Crosley, local resident, noted his agreement with the previous speaker. He
ited these group homes do not pay fees for short term rentals, etc. He noted that
rking is an issue. These drug and rehab people are being placed in areas
sere drugs and alcohol are easily accessible. He noted that he has received
-eats as well when he tries to settle down people during the early morning. He
ted this area has become a nightmare and asked for the larger dispersal footage
1,000 and to put a limit on the amount of these uses in the City. A lot of money
being made here. He asked for help from the Planning Commission.
mys Oberman, local resident, noted these ordinances are insulting to the public
d do not address the over - concentration issue. There is nothing in the law that
ys the City cannot govern or regulate these uses. The public is being misled.
e would like to be taken seriously. Business licensing needs to be addressed.
her cities have implemented 1,000 -foot distancing. These obstacles are political.
ty must act now to regulate the uses and eliminate the over - concentration issue. •
Atutionalization is bad for the disabled and the community. There are man
licensed facilities in the community. The drop -out rate is high. Integral facilitie
finition needs to include residential and commercial. We are in this position due
action taken in 2004. She asked the Planning Commission for a decision
file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 7 of 22
ht.
n Cole asked about the other cities having 1,000 -foot dispersal. Do
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 tl
regarded as illegal making the restriction of 1,000 feet? She answered,
was not aware of any.
aurie Morris, local resident noted you have heard the issue. These ordinance;
eed to be changed, addressed and agreed upon and sent to City Council now.
relays are causing stress amongst the residents, and costs for the residents fo
ttorneys to act as advocates. The issue is over concentration. Our counsel ha;
een available to help. The distancing of 75 feet is ridiculous, 300 feet is not ever
nough. Even with the 75 or 300 feet, this problem will be moved from the
eninsula to other areas of the City and you will have this come back again.
hese small narrow lots don't exist just next to the beach but they are all over. We
eed 1,000 feet now and it needs to include existing uses. Giving two years tc
pply for a use permit needs to be changed, the ordinances are too broad and the
ver 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 wi
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 i
t a small percentage of the population, but a large percentage of the populatl
concerned for many reasons, all of them valid. We hope you put out
linance that is being asked for in a fair way.
3rbara Roy asked about the building at 1810 W. Oceanfront that has
=pants 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
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
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Share d\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 8 of 22
3stan Higby, local resident, noted the issue is density. This is a high)
aulated area. Any increase in density will impact the quality of life in the
ghborhood.
)lic comment
•
was closed.
airman Hawkins noted the impacts on the community appear to be substantial.
asked staff if this is a rationale for regulation.
Marshall answered, yes. The question is what kind of regulation. As we wen
)ugh at length a month ago, if the regulation is targeted at just a use that serves
disabled, i.e. just for residential care facilities, it will be considered facially
;riminatory and it must either be justified by health and safety hazards that are
y specific or benefit to the disabled. There needs to be evidence in the record
this benefit to the disabled from a particular categorization.
airman Hawkins asked how this would work.
Marshall answered the City would have to show in the record when it acted to
)pt the ordinance that it was addressing legitimate health and safety concern
based on stereotype or that this specific regulation was going to benefit the
sgory of people that was targeted.
airman Hawkins noted preventing institutionalization of the disabled has been
arded as one benefit for the disabled.
, Marshall explained there was a case in a different jurisdiction that found tha
3 a legitimate governmental purpose. It was a different standard being applied,
that's where this concept comes from.
•
airman Hawkins asked if the Federal 9th Circuit has accepted the rationale o
itutionalization.
Marshall answered no. There was a case out of Nevada that had separation
uirements where that was not upheld and there was another case in
shington. The institutionalization rationalization that we've been hearing about
omething that could be better documented. There could be experts. It would
nice to have a person with a disability to say I don't want to live in an
itutionalized area as opposed to just the people whose community they are
,ig to live in. That would be the kind of evidence a court would be much more
Iy to look at. A psychologist or rehab specialist, someone who could actually
Iress that it truly benefits the disabled and would not perhaps view it as pretext.
;re are cases that say one should be dubious of regulation that is purported tc
refit people which in truth actually excludes them.
airman Hawkins asked about the 1,000 foot buffer.
Marshall answered that the areas in Riverside and Murrieta have not been
:ad. One does not apply it to anything under 7 and is also reconsidering their
ulations because they are too confusing.
nmissioner Eaton asked about the reasonable accommodation akin to a
ance and what criteria should be applied.
•
Marshall answered it is akin to a variance in the sense that it is somebod
ing for an exception and they have a reason why they are asking for an
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007
option. There are over 500 cases that specifically lay out the criteria you c
to grant or deny a reasonable accommodation. They are that you have
(a a finding that it is necessary for the disabled person to live in the commur
at is alleged and the community can only deny it if it requires a fundamer
lion in their zoning or if it is an undue financial or administrative burden.
to go through the criteria that the Concerned Citizens °set out and see h
iy 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
F. You look at the individual and what that individual needs.
sioner Toerge asked for an explanation on the difference between
zone map discussed at the last meeting and the one proposed now.
Alford answered the difference is the West Newport Mesa area is not includ
my because it doesn't fall within a conventional residential area nor was
eloped 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 I
.jded in the types of parameters done for our analysis. The other area is tt
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
gal advisor is going to be replaced. It is my hope we as a Commission can r(
is matter on tonight. He noted the City Council has the higher level
sponsibility to consider issues and our role is to recommend what we think is
Iht planning. He noted his goal is to recommend the Concerned Citiz
oposal with the understanding that our Council will get legal advice. He gave
n on licensing, integral connections, separation, abatement, comprom
He noted his involvement with IROC and noted efforts being made by s
ad counsel. He stated his support of the proposal made by the citizen's group
was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend the Citizen's pro
the overlay map and with the process for identifying the areas that
rated characteristics. He noted that there will need to be
vises. He would like to separate out the commercial from the abate
re and utilize the City's proposed mapping as opposed to the o+
airman 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 fory
agrees with most of the concepts heard from the citizens tonight. He has
that document in detail and feels more discussion is necessary.
missioner Eaton noted his agreement of the concept. He opined sending t
She Commission can up to the Council and then they could return it back
Manning Commission if they get advice from their new counsel that is differ(
what we got and the ordinance ends up being quite different then what i
up. He cannot support the residents' ordinance as it is facie
minatory. Going into court with a facially discriminatory ordinance woa
Page 9 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 10 of 22
it enormous attorney expense with our hands tied. He suggested
)mmending an ordinance based on the advice we've had from our counsel with
understanding. He ended by saying he could not support the motion as
ed. •
airman Hawkins noted there is the will to move something forward tonight.
e have been many meetings of the Commission and the IROC before that.
noted he could not support the motion because it is facially discriminatory and
nsel recognized that. A facially discriminatory ordinance requires that the City
ie things that we cannot as our counsel has informed us. There were no other
as presented for the City to use that would be an adequate defense. Ms.
er had agreed that it was either a benefit to the disabled or the specific harm
I don't believe we can show the specific harm.
yes: Toerge
Noes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren
Recused: INone
otion Failed.
ommissioner Cole noted he would like to discuss the overlay concentration issue
; it relates to dispersal footage. He asked about the proposed concept of a non
andard subdivision map versus an overlay zone. Can we accomplish the same
ing by expanding the non - standard subdivision map and maybe extending the
spersal footage versus the original language of an overlay zone? Is there an
ay to address existing uses?
s. Marshall answered you could try to do it, but it greatly increases the ris
:cause you are talking about putting an operating facility out of business. You
•
e talking about choosing between two and there are so many opportunities to
ake that choice for the wrong reasons or to be accused. There are any number
reasons alleged why you chose one over another and there is so much more at
ake as it will be a taking challenge. The concept was to not take that on with
rerything else and not have the dispersal requirement apply to existing facilities
id have it apply to just going forward. At the last meeting you requested Ms.
fiber to come up with a point system, and for the record we have been in
scussion for many hours on this item, but the point system has not been
rthcoming.
aff has proposed what they think is the equivalent of an overlay zone, jus
chnically easier to deal with.
:)mmissioner Cole noted expanding that would not necessarily be a problem
ccept for the criteria used is specific and would be hard to expand into Corona del
ar or a commercial zone for example because it does not fit the small to
quirement, or it is not residential. Is that accurate?
r. Alford noted staff does not think an overlay map is necessary and that the
eas can be identified within the ordinance and would serve the same purpose. I
)es modify one criteria and that is all. The issue of expansion is separate and we
in identify the areas you want to. Staff was specifically told to look at non
andard areas, ones that have smaller lots with minimum setbacks and the issue
the alleys came into play due to the density and concentration, parking and
•
ifflc issues. That is how we performed our analysis. There are other areas o
e City that have substandard alleys, some have substandard lots and we've
iosen areas that have both. If you want to expand to other areas we can do tha
it we need criteria in which we can form that analysis. We did not include the
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007
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 residentk
the new General Plan, most of which will be multi - family or mixed use in nature.
Rfnissioner Cole asked for a consensus and is in agreement with what staff
lined as it relates to the subdivision zone but open to expanding that and
persal to 1,000 feet.
imissioner McDaniel agreed with that issue but noted his concern of the
:entration. 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
iher it is R -1, R -1.5 or R -2 by allowing that to take place. A business in an R -1
e, 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
fle, we are allowing this rezoning.
Marshall noted these issues have been addressed. Under the currer
)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. Yo
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
Fted together, then we can say this is not 6 or under, it is 12 or whatever tl
er is. We can say it is not permitted. The most creative, assertive part of tt
lance is the integral facilities definition.
imissioner Hillgren asked about the concept of excluding existing facilities.
•e has to be a way to deal with them. If we are concerned about these uses it
zone, whether it is there today or tomorrow, it is an issue we need to dea
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 zor
the overlay zone are functionally equivalents. Within that zone, the propos
been made to separate those permitted uses by 1,000 feet. Staff
mmending 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.
irman 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
�
er of facilities and therefore will be discriminatory. It will be noted
nce shall be modified for 1,000 feet.
mmissioner 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
Page 11 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 12 of 22
defendable
hairman Hawkins noted the areas of expansion included were the Santa Ana
Bights, West Newport Mesa and the commercial zone in Corona del Mar.
•
r. Alford noted the analysis included the 5,000 foot criteria for lot sizes and alleys
ss than 20 feet. Santa Ana Heights has larger lots than most areas of the City.
lose are the areas that have lots up to two acres in size. West Newport Mesa
3s not developed as a residential area as stated earlier. Newport Heights has
rger lots than West Newport, the islands and Corona del Mar but I believe the
leys are below 20 feet.
:)mmissioner Peotter asked if the City could require these facilities to upgrade
eir buildings to be ADA compliant including parking?
s. 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 the
e residential or non - residential buildings. It would be problematic for the City to
iy the ADA applies to these particular buildings as opposed to the federal
wernment 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
tional if the license is for drug and alcohol that they have to necessarily have
fferent handicap access than other residential facilities. It really needs to be
searched.
iairman Hawkins, referring to his previous list, brought up the subject of
moving the small unlicensed from the R -1.5 and R -2 and move to MFR. This
3s straw voted earlier.
•
)mmissioners Toerge, Peotter voted MFR only.
)mmissioner Hillgren, may not be allowable under State law to move to MFR.
)mmissioner Cole keeps with staff recommendation.
)mmissioner Eaton, leave in R -1.5 and R -2 based upon the fact that they are
call facilities. Chairman Hawkins agreed.
)mmissioner McDaniel voted MFR.
Alford clarified this was in either case whether it is R -1, R -1.5, R -2 and MFIR
with a use permit.
)mmissioner Hillgren voted to remain with staff recommendation.
ur votes to remain with staffs recommendation.
iairman Hawkins then brought up the definition in residential care, small or
neral and refers to whether or not all of these regulated require an agreement to
3y in excess of 31 days. For those that do not have a required stay of 31 days,
iat do they become?
•
3. Marshall noted this was put in to ensure that they have to be in there 31 days
fit in that category, so if less than 31 they are prohibited and become a boarding
use. The language could be expanded to clarify.
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 13 of 22
irman Hawkins then brought up short term rentals. Staffs proposal is tc
ove short term rentals and propose to regulate them in the Municipal Code.
Inissioner 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. 11
not a designated land use before and was handled through a permitting
oess and we went back to what was in the original ordinance. We are currently
ring 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
eys and will include dealing with the process of the applications, occup
s, management plans, notification plans, contact persons and things of
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.
I noted it is in the application for the use permlt that requires
: plan, traffic, parking and then specific authority for the Planni
to impose conditions related to that.
nmissioners Toerge, McDaniel, Cole, Hillgren, and Peotter agreed to rer
rt term lodging. Chairman Hawkins noted his concern of weakening
inance.
n Hawkins then noted the next item of amortization of existing
ng 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 separal
ie 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.
nmissioner Eaton noted there needs to be amortization of existing uses.
uld not be less than two years. We should recommend the ordinance but a
Council to look at the issue of applying separation to existing uses and if tt
nsel advises a way that can be done that the Planning Commission feels tl
ijd be done.
Planning Commission agreed.
n Hawkins brought up prohibiting group assembly of seven or more
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 14 of 22
,ecific Plan zones only, or include commercial zones.
Alford noted the limits on group assembly uses would prohibit clubs and lodges •
d any office type use which has services that require meetings or assemblies of
ven persons or more. It is now proposed to be only limited to the SP Districts of
iwport Shores, Cannery Village/McFadden and Central Balboa Specific Plan
stricts. The proposal is to apply it to the RSC zone, which is the city's retail zone
ywide. Most of the RSC areas will fall in what is proposed as the CG land use
signation, which stands for General Commercial.
)mmissioner Eaton noted he would expand that prohibition to Corona del Mar
d 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.
)mmissioner Peotter clarified that we would in effect disallow group assembly
es 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 •
rich would read, "The specific purposes of this chapter are to protect and
rther the recovery and integration of the disabled including those receiving
:atment and counseling in dependency with recovery. The City seeks to
,old and ameliorate over - concentration of care facilities so that such
cilities are dispersed throughout the community and are not congregating
over- concentrated in any given particular area." The thrust is to say that
ie of our purposes is to avoid the over - concentration and benefit the disabled.
)mmissioners McDaniel, Toerge, Hillgren agreed.
)mmissioner Eaton noted 20.62.030E the word shall. The Commission and staff
(reed.
)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
legral facilities or integral facilities that are partly residential and partly
immercial that the sense of this commission is they should. The Commission
Ireed.
)ntinuing, he noted if the City Council with advice from their new counsel ends up
th an ordinance that is significantly different than what we have recommended to
em, ask the Council to refer it back to us along with the benefit of their counsel
well so that we can consider those changes.
)mmissioner Toerge noted he does not agree with that. This should be moved to •
:)uncil and let them decide.
:)mmissioners Hillgren, McDaniel and Cole agreed
file: //F:1Users\PLNlShared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007
irson Hawkins noted his concerns about the resolution. The term
should be changed to "residential care facilities" throughout the ord
ly. Finding 15 should include a dispersal requirement of 1,000 feet.
issioner Hillgren asked if Finding 11 is to include verification of disability?
Marshall answered what the law requires in the reasonable accommodatior
:ext is that all you can ask for is documentation from a licensed medica
assional. There are all kinds of issues and where is the line drawn? You car
for evidence but it can't be so detailed that it invades somebody's privacy but i
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 he
business licensing authority or is this something we should ask the Council
I suggest that the Council look at the licensing restrictions and impose
i 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 wt
e there are disabled. Unlicensed 6 or fewer require a use permit. We cc
sure that evidence is provided. We looked and it is already required th
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 bus
r. You can't charge a fee to a licensed facility under six because the
events 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 Commiss
ngs. It was agreed.
;hairman Hawkins noted the existing ordinance increases the dispersal to 1,00(
eet, including a requirement for an agreement of staying more than 30 days
Short-term rentals are out. Amortization of non - conforming is two years. Groul
rssembly to be limited in the SP zones only not in general commercial.
,ommercial non - conforming use amortization to be looked at if possible (one c
he senses). Add language to 20.91A regarding' purposes. Change 20.62.030 E
nom "may" to "shall ". Add commercial facilities to the definition of commercia
ntegral (sense of the Commission).
was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner
to recommend approval to the City Council of Code Amendment 2007 -00
)7 -112) with the changes as noted.
rissioner Toerge noted the proposal of the Concerned Citizens is not facial
(minatory 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.
Page 15 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007
issioner McDaniel noted his support of legal counsel during
ations 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.
Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren
Toerge
Panini Cafe (PA2007 -063)
2421 E. Coast Highway
equest 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 W1
sting Place). Request for Accessory Dining Permit No. 2007 -006 to allow t
)eration of a 160 square -foot outdoor dining area in conjunction with t
-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
the Commissioners and from the public, copies which have been
Toerge asked if there was a requirement for parking for a
. Alford answered that for a take -out service restaurant, the parking is o
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 r
Aic 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.
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 a
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.
Eaton asked about the off -site parking spaces that if lost, then
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Cornmission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm
ITEM NO.4
PA2007 -063
Page 16 of 22
•
•
11
10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007
nt has to find substitute parking or reduce the capacity in proportion to
spaces lost. If the employee parking spaces are lost, how does
'Ung answered that should the off -site parking be lost, the
mission or Director has the authority to re- evaluate their parking arr
to determine the appropriate ratio. Discussion continued of
Edwards, representing Panini Cafe, distributed copies of his presentation ti
referred to during his discussion. He noted the applicant has read and agre
the staff report; however, questions Condition 19 regarding the construction
trash enclosure. He discussed the proposed street elevation compared to I
sting street elevation, proposed alley elevation compared to the existing all
:vation, proposed dining area layout compared to the existing layout, restro(
:ilities comparisons, kitchen facilities comparisons, patio dining comparisoi
iployee parking plan, proposed valet management layout for 17 vehicles, a
erall vehicular circulation.
sy Farzine, real estate agent for Panini, noted she has reviewed the st
rt, noted the number of support letters received and that this is not an openi
new restaurant bar; it is about re- locating an existing cafe and eatery that h
i in business for many years. The busiest times for the restaurant are
rday and Sunday mornings for breakfast and brunch service and is case
g. Panini will not add any night life or congestion to the area; it is only looki
locate to provide better service to its patrons. 31% of the restaurant patro
to the establishment. Panini is proposing on -site valet parking. She asked
id the latitude of the parking ratio of 1 space to 50 square feet due to t
nt of walk -in traffic and allow this relocation.
II Edwards noted condition 19 regarding the trash enclosure. We are prol
trash enclosure with a locked door and a trash drop in the back of the k
del down into the trash receptacle. To have a lid would prevent the
)eration from functioning. It is a water -fight enclosure.
agreed.
:)mmissioner Eaton noted his concern of the off -site employee parking that
irly distant from the site. Is there a way to oversee this parking? Would yc
Tree 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
ces 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
`i
e only one we could approve. He added that using the van accessible loadins
s 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.
Page 17 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 18 of 22
'ublic comment was opened
ohn Morgan, local resident, noted the parking is problematic even with the walk -in
nticipated. He presented a hand -out and made reference to it during his speech.
le noted the several restaurants using the alley, parking and the use of on-streeil
•
arking. He ended saying this relocation will only add to the already congested
arking, egress and ingress in the alley.
ierek Keefer of Ameripark West, noted he parked the cars in the garage for the
revious tenant. He noted SUV's cannot be parked in this garage. This is a
arking garage, not a valet operation inside a parking garage. In order to make
its happen you would have to queue the cars outside the garage. Stacking cars
utside would block all the alley traffic. He noted the problems with cars coming
nd going, turning radius and parking. At Commission inquiry, he noted his
ompany operates the valet parking for the Bungalow.
:ommissioner McDaniel asked how wide and long the proposed 16 -space
onfigurations are. He was answered they are a little over 9 feet and are not AD
ompliant.
ila Crespin, representing 29 homeowners south of the block on Acacia, Carnation
nd Begonia Avenues, distributed petitions signed in opposition to this proposed
roject due to the traffic and congestion. The argument that there is parking space
nd that there will be no congestion arising from this is specious because you are
etting facts that are not accurate. You have received information contrary to this
ssertion. Customers do not always accept valet parking and will park themselves
Wherever they can find a space. She noted the problems with the large trucks
arked in the alleyway servicing the restaurants and asked that this be considered
uring the deliberation.
•
ion Lorenz, local resident noted there will be four restaurants on one comer, three
pith ABC licenses and a new one that will be operating from morning until late
vening. That impacts all the other retail uses and the people who occupy the
ffice buildings. This building was built as a retail use and will require extensive
;model. He urged that this project not be allowed.
'hiI De Carion, appearing on behalf of the Bungalow noted this restaurant is
bout 50% larger than the Bungalow and has 50% less parking in total if you
iclude the fact that people will be parking a substantial distance away and walking
cross Coast Highway. A real issue is that the Bungalow is on a private alley and
ie parking belongs to Bungalow and Golden Spoon. Access is off Carnation onto
ie Bungalow lot and there will be no way to differentiate the customers. There is
o agreement for Bungalow to park Panini traffic. Stacking is an issue. A
;ommission inquiry he noted that the Bungalow is 2,900 square feet with a
squired parking of 40 spaces. They have 44 spaces. Discussion continued on
ie parking.
lick Nichols, local resident, noted this is the worst parking area in the City. The
roposed employee parking is not practical. This building is a dry goods store and
ow you are making a restaurant out of it. This is not an appropriate or practical
se for this building.
'hiI Berry, owner of the property of the Bungalow and Golden Spoon, presented a
•
iagram depicting the proposed traffic flow of potential Panini customers. It will no
,ork and is not a practical plan.
im Walker, owner and operator of the Bungalow restaurant, noted the proposed
file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Conunission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007
ilding design is spectacular and the frontage will be an improvement from wt
there currently. His concern is the parking. He currently has 44 spaces for I
staurant and another 30 spaces he uses on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday a
Iday nights. He noted that all the restaurants within that community are op
nner and that is when the traffic issues begin. This proposed building tl
is a low demand parking requirement and that generally closed at 5 or 6 in t
ening will now become a restaurant with evening hours and will cause tral
ngestion in this small tight alleyway. He noted he has tried to coordin,,
iliveries; 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 respr
intent, but the reality is it doesn't work that way. The delivery trucks in t
eyway 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
aurant 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 th(
permits and when they were approved.
Tissioner Toerge noted Panini is a successful restaurant. An approved i
� it runs with the land. As land planners we need to assure that any busine
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 locat
.re is going to have deliveries. Our Code requires that convenient parking
ovided for residents, guests and patrons. It should not be difficult to maint,
native off -site parking nor should it be difficult to enforce. There is no location
is 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
ire 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
tion 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
Ilishment is contrary to the intent, which was to allow a restaurant to e)
or area up to 25% of its public area not to exceed 1,000 square feet w
ding any parking. That policy was created in the early '90's when sm
banned in restaurants, in order to help the complaining restaurants that
gling because they lost clientele. This permit was an effort to help er
Page 19 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 20 of 22
staurants that already met the Code to take advantage of some areas that does
t impact parking but allow them to use the outdoor dining areas. The Code
early says it is to be used for existing restaurants. When a property is going to
:at expense to move walls and reduce floor area to create outside dining i •
esn't have to park when we are in an already in a very constrained parking
vironment is disingenuous.
e Code states roof coverings shall not have the affect of creating a permanent
closure. This area is already enclosed and covered.
. Edwards noted they are pulling back the building mass and there will be only
,nings over this area with heaters.
mmissioner Toerge noted a couple of restaurants have used this Code in the
st. I certainly don't think it is appropriate to encourage this kind of creation o
tdoor space in an effort to not provide parking. For all these reasons and the
Dact on the area, I cannot support this proposal.
)tion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Col
approve Use Permit 2007 -010, Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007 -006
d Off -site Parking Agreement No. 2007 -001 with the modification to Condition
changing the parking number from 12 to 16.
mmissioner Eaton asked for an additional condition for an annual review by the
inning Commission.
(lowing discussion on a parking management plan and the benefit of a public
aring, it was agreed to add this. •
mmissioner Eaton discussed his rational for his vote.
Ung requested the deletion of Condition 46 as it is no longer applicable to this
plication.
. Edwards, on behalf of the applicant, accepts the revisions to the conditions.
yes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren
Noes: Toerge
Recused: lNone
:night Appeal (PA2007 -137) ITEM NO. 5
312 Hazel Drive I PA2007 -112
appeal by Diane Knight of the Planning Director's interpretation regarding th Continued to
lication of a development stringline (setback) determined pursuant to General 1010412007
i Natural Resources Element Policy NR 23.6 to property located at 312 Hazel
item was continued to October 4, 2007 at the request of the appellant.
was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner
to continue this item to •
d: IEaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
None
None
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007
Page 21 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
OBJECT: Special November Meeting of the Planning Commission.
Discussion Item
Only
epo requested that the discussion item regarding a special November
ng 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 Cole
to cancel the November 8th meeting and to hold a meeting on November 15th for
e 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 /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee
missione
Comr 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.
d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on
at a subsequent meeting
None.
8. Matters which a Planning Commissioner .may wish to place on a
future agenda for actionand staff. report
None.
f. 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.
doRequests for excused absences
Commissioner Eaton requested an absence from the meeting of
October 4th.
Page 21 of 22
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/20/2007 Page 22 of 22
p.m.
BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY I •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
•
•
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn09- 20- 07.htm 10/01/2007