Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 - Draft Minutes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers— 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, July 17, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE— Planning Technician Jason Van Patten III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Brown, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker ABSENT: Hillgren Staff Present: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director; Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Leoni Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Jim Campbell, Principal Planner; Fern Nueno, Associate Planner; Ben Zdeba, Assistant Planner; and Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant Vice Chair Tucker welcomed new Planning Commissioner, Peter Koetting. IV. RECOGNITION OF FRED AMER[ FOR HIS DEDICATION AND YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION Vice Chair Tucker noted that as Mr. Amen has not yet arrived, this item will be postponed until he is present. V. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ITEM NO. 1 a. The Commission will elect officers to serve for the year. • Chair • Vice Chair • Secretary b. Appoint three Commissioners to the General Plan/LCP Committee • Chair to appoint one additional member, and confirm or replace existing appointments. Vice Chair Tucker introduced the item noting that no seconds are necessary for nominations, declared the positions of Chair,Vice Chair and Secretary of the Planning Commission,vacant, and called for nominations. Commissioner Brown nominated Vice Chair Tucker for Chair, Secretary Kramer as Vice Chair and Commissioner Myers as Secretary. There being no other nominations, Vice Chair Tucker was declared Chair, Secretary Kramer was declared Vice Chair and Commissioner Myers was declared Secretary, unanimously. Chair Tucker appointed Vice Chair Kramer to the General Plan/LCP Committee and the remaining Commissioners on the Committee remained the same. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Tucker invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on items not on the agenda, to do so at this time. Seeing no one wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Tucker closed public comments. Page 1 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/17/14 VII. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Principal Planner Jim Campbell reported that several attachments to the report relating to Item No. 6 were not placed on the City website in a timely manner. He added that although the matter has been corrected,the public has not had the same opportunity to review the documents as the Planning Commission has. He recommended continuing the matter to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 7, 2014, to allow the public additional time for review. He apologized for the omission. Rather than continuing the item, Chair Tucker suggested that staff present a report and that the Planning Commission receive public comment but added that the Commission will no action at this time. A full report will be presented at the August 7, 2014, meeting and action will ken at that time. He added that correspondence was received and that staff will respond to them in wdti VIII. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO.2 MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 2014 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Tucker noted he submitted changes to the minutes of June 19, 2014, as well as Mr. Jim Mosher. Chair Tucker opened public comments. Seeing none, Chair Tucker closed public comments. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Lawler and carried (5 — 1) to approve the study session meeting minutes of June 19, 2014, as corrected. AYES: Brown, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: Koetting ABSENT: Hillgren I Chair Tucker noted that Commissioner Ameri arrived therefore; Item No. 4 was heard at this juncture. IV. RECOGNITION OF FRED AMERI FOR HIS DEDICATION AND YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION Chair Tucker commented on Commissioner Amen's dedication and service to the Planning Commission and the City. He expressed appreciation for having worked with Commissioner Ameri and commented on his common-sense approach and efforts. He presented Commissioner Ameri with a plaque in recognition of his years of service on the Planning Commission. VIII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 THE FRANCESCONI RESIDENCE VARIANCE (PA2014-084) Site Location: 7 Harbor Island Assistant Planner Ben Zdeba presented a PowerPoint presentation addressing location, required setbacks, existing encroachments, and a request by the applicant to encroach into the required 19-foot setback area and to increase the floor area limitation. He added that board members have expressed concems with respect to the easements for fire access, but noted that the Fire Department and Public Works have reviewed the project for access and traffic circulation and no comments were provided with respect to the encroachments into the easement. He addressed proposed encroachments and stated that staff has reviewed the project and has determined that facts exist to support the findings for a variance. He expressed a belief that the proposed development is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of size and scale and indicated that the requested increase in floor area brings the proportion of square footage to lot area closer to what is typical for a neighboring Page 2 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/17/14 property and properties within the R-1 Zoning District. He added that if the project is approved, it will proceed through the Coastal Development Permit and the Building Permit Plan Check process. Regarding the private easement, Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski added that there is a Condition of Approval included in the draft resolution requiring that approval of the proposed encroachments into the easement area shall be granted by those who are a party to the easement and added that the approval shall be demonstrated prior to the issuance of building permits. She stated that staff feels that the project has been appropriately conditioned and the easement issue will need to be addressed between the private parties which include the property owner and the Homeowners Association. Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill noted that Condition No. 11 relates to the Cit easements and Condition No. 12 relates to the private easements. In response to an inquiry by Chair Tucker, Ms. Wisneski added that staff will propose modified language for the condition requiring written documentation indicating that consent for the use of the easement has been approved. Commissioner Brown noted that the staff report refers to an easement established to accommodate a bridge and a pedestrian pier, but notes that improvements are no longer desired by the Harbor Island Community Association and asked if that is the same easement. Ms.Wisneski reported that it is the same easement. ' A Chair Tucker opened the Public Hearing. Christopher Brandon,Architect,thanked staff for its hard work and commented on the history of the property. He stated that the proposed project will significantly improve the property and addressed discussions with adjacent neighbors as well as community outreach. He added that the majority of the board has approved the project and, if approved by the Planning Commission, that they will continue to seek approvals necessitated by the Conditions of Approval. Betina Gallagher, speaking on behalf of her parents who are nearby neighbors, stated that they are opposed to the project and noted that the easement is used primarily for parking and is also used as a turn-around for a lot of properties. She added that the subject easement is owned by Harbor Island and residents. She reported that with the proposed addition, the subject house will stick out from all the other houses along the waterfront and will inhibit private views. Dardee Dunlap, nearby neighbor, noted that her family has lived there for the past sixty years and reported that the easement was originally the entrance to Harbor Island from Shark Island (Linda Isle)and was owned by all of the homeowners when the original deed was created. She reported there are limited areas to turn around on Harbor Island and that the easement is the only access for fire equipment, emergency vehicles, and moving vans and to encroach in that easement would not be wise. She asserted that the entire board was not aware of the proposed project and that a letter presented in support of the project was not authorized by the board but was rather, a personal opinion. She stated that all owners on Harbor Island need to know and be represented on this matter. The variance would negatively impact the area and the easements are the only open space on Harbor Island. Chair Tucker stated that the Planning Commission is in the business of land use and not arbitrating private property issues. He added that the planning process does not judge as to who has the rights to the property in question, but noted the condition addressing the need for approval by the appropriate private parties. Jean Watt, nearby neighbor, stated she would like to see a statement issued by the entire board regarding the project and indicated that all residents of Harbor Island should be informed. She noted that the easement is used for parking and as a turn-around for vehicles. Jack Woodall, President of the Harbor Island Community Association, noted that generally, residents do not want to give up the easement and indicated that he is opposed to the proposed project. Page 3 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/17/14 Jim Mosher referenced Finding E in the staff report and believed there may be difficulties in making that finding. Seeing no other speakers; Chair Tucker closed the Public Hearing. At the request of Secretary Myers, Assistant Planner Zdeba provided illustrations of the existing and proposed encroachments and improvements on the property. He addressed the existing principal structure and the proposed principal structure and noted that encroachments are going further back away from the setback areas. He provided clarification regarding the distances between the landscape walls and the property line with the existing development. Chair Tucker noted with the development there would be more room for a vehicle on the easement than there is today. It was noted that the concerns deal with the front side of the property toward the Harbor Island private roadway. Mr. Zdeba clarified the location of the landscape wall and addressed the width of the planter area. In response to Commission Koetting's request, he also the existing encroachments on the neighboring property as well as the setback on the harbor side of the property. Commissioner Koetting stated the access towards the front of the property would in actuality be improved with the proposed project inasmuch as the clear width is increasing. Chair Tucker added that the City does not protect private views, but that it is concerned with p views. In response to a motion for approval by Vice Chair Kramer, Ms. Wisneski asked if the Commission would consider amending Condition No. 12 to require the applicant to provide written documentation and suggested adding the following language: "Written documentation shall be submitted, prior to issuance of building permits, establishing approval by the holders of any private easements for any proposed encroachments", In response to an inquiry by Vice Chair Kramer, Rob Francescon, Applicant, noted acceptance of the modification to Condition No. 12. He added that the board has already signed off on the project adding that it was an abandoned easement. Although the majority of the board expressed approval, two (2)members did not. Additionally, there is a letter in the agenda packet indicating that the Harbor Island Community Association supports the project. Chair Tucker noted that minutes from the board, approving the project and a copy of the Title Report would suffice as proper documentation of board approval. Motion made by Vice Chair Kramer and seconded by Chair Tucker and carried (6 — 0) to adopt a resolution approving Variance No. VA2014-004 with amended Condition No. 12. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren ITEM NO.4 YACHT TRUANT GARAGE SETBACK (PA2014-086) Site Location: 909 Yacht Truant Associate Planner Fern Nueno provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing location of the subject property, regulation of development in the area, background, the setback map, and request for a deviation on the setbacks, review of the project by staff, required setbacks, options for consideration and staff recommendations. Ms. Nueno discussed the applicant's request and the staff recommended setbacks in regards to compatibility with the neighborhood, consistency with the intent of the Development Plan, maintaining the varied setbacks along the street, creating consistency with the surrounding properties, and garage placement meets requirements to prevent vehicles from overhanging onto the sidewalk. Brief discussion followed regarding the minimum requirements for a setback. Chair Tucker opened the Public Hearing. Page 4 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/17/14 Tim Francis, representing the applicants explained the need for the garage setback deviation. He addressed challenges with an existing Edison box in front of the property, adding that, according to Edison, moving that box would cost approximately $10,000. He asked for approval of a five (5) to ten (10) foot setback rather than a three (3)to five (5)foot setback. He noted that it is a private, gated community with a single-loaded street. Mary Donovan, representing the HOA, reported that all board members and members of the architectural committee approved the project. She added there are only ten (10) properties within Sea View that have the twenty(20)foot setback. The intent is to keep cars off the street and into an enclosed garage. Tom Schauppner, Applicant, stated that the setbacks he is requesting are the same setback as on an adjacent property. Seeing no other speakers; Chair Tucker closed the Public Hearing. "o" Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (6 —0) to adopt a resolution approving Staff Approval No. SA2014-012 requiring a 5-foot to 10-foot gartback. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren ITEM NO. 5 CORONA DEL MAR PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN (PA2013-157) Site Location: Corona del Mar Chair Tucker introduced the item and called for a report from staff. Associate Planner Nueno provided background and addressed a consultant retained by the City to prepare the study, community outreach, and the purpose of the study. She introduced Brian Canepa, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates and deferred to him for a report. Vice Chair Kramer commented positively on the work done by Nelson/Nygaard. Brian Canepa, Nelson\Nygaard, provided a presentation addressing the purpose of the project, the review process, community outreach, the study area, determination of the study area, overall parking demand and trends, parking demand peaks, parking "hot spots", possible deficiencies in the study in terms of omission of high-intensity parking areas, changes in parking demand over the course of the day, and the length of typical vehicle stays. Mr. Canepa noted difficulties in finding publicly-accessible parking spaces and provided information regarding future parking demands and key findings. He noted that supply is not the issue but rather the issue relates to parking management. Discussion followed regarding Seaview Avenue and Ocean Boulevard not being included in the study area. It was noted that the Walker study was used as the basis for this study. Mr. Canepa provided details of the strategies including revising the parking requirements in the Zoning Code, making shared parking easier, enhancing bicycle parking requirements, and addressing larger community goals. He stated that the study does not make firm recommendations. Secretary Myers commented on the strategies noting that some seem to be good recommendations and some seem counterintuitive. Mr. Canepa addressed intensification of use and noted that uses work in tandem with different demands and peak uses at different times. Ms. Nueno reported that the Commission is presently reviewing the Parking Management Plan which will be forwarded to City Council. Any specific Municipal Code changes would be presented to the Commission and Council for review including the exact code requirement and in-lieu fee. Page 5 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/17/14 Chair Tucker commented on the strategy recommendations and stated that the Commission will consider the short-term strategies at this time. Mr. Canepa addressed extending time limits and making public-paid lots free. Commissioner Koetting commented on the extensive report and the conclusion relative to there being an oversupply of parking. He asked if consideration was given to people who walk and to employees. Mr. Canape explained what was meant by "oversupply of parking" in terms of the overall area. He addressed shared parking, potential liability, employee parking and establishing employee permit parking programs, restriping along East Coast Highway and other lots to gain spaces, increasing the bicycle parking supply in coordination with the Bicycle Master Plan,wayfinding improvements, and a monitoring and evaluation program. Commissioner Brown commented on the benefits of implementing the strategies in concert. Mr. Canepa agreed adding that when they are implemented in concert, they would have increased effectiveness. Chair Tucker opened the Public Hearing. Dennis Baker, Flower Street representative for the Corona del Mar Residents Association, commented on valet parking and distributed information regarding the valet that operates behind the Bungalow restaurant. He reported attending various meetings regarding this matter and commented positively on the report. He agreed that the issue relates to utilization of parking rather than the lack of space. He expressed concerns that the consultants did not talk to the parking experts (valets) as well as with adjusting required parking. He hoped that the Planning Commission will consider the matter carefully and make good recommendations to Council. Jim Walker, Board Member of the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (BID), President of the Restaurant BID, and owner of the Bungalow, commented positively on the work of his valet and suggested that the existing parking code drives inefficiency. He added there is a fight over parking land in the area, that a lot of people walk from their homes to various businesses, and that it was not considered in the demand. In order to comply with the code, parking plans must also comply with lease times. He noted that it is not a level playing field as other restaurants and businesses have been grandfathered in, opined that the parking code is a joke because no one enforces it and that Newport Beach is a complaint-driven City. Additionally, he stated that the current code drives inefficiency and it puts him at a disadvantage, and that existing businesses are not driving revenues or attracting customers. The City needs to attract more commercial businesses that will create a different dynamic than a "city of banks." He believed that the area has a lack of parking and commented on a "battle"with the Corona del Mar Plaza noting that many employees park within the restaurant's market area. He addressed a conflict between businesses and residential areas, commented on creating additional parking, and suggested that the City designate an area where employees can park. Chair Tucker stated that the City is attempting to move this matter forward and commented on changing the parking code. Mr. Walker believed that changing the parking code would be helpful as it would allow the business community to provide better businesses to the area and it would level the playing field. Chair Tucker agreed that it would be a policy discussion that the Council should consider. Scott Laidlaw commented on how changing the parking requirement can help, on hot spots and noted that it allows higher intensity uses to spread out and have a "more even" balance and makes more uses accessible to walkers and allows the market place to operate more efficiently. Bernie Svalstad, Chair of the Corona del Mar BID, commented on the 2020 Corona del Mar vision plan to allow more retail in the area. Jim Mosher commented on the environmental review portion of the staff report noting that adoption of the plan will be exempt from CEQA as it has no legally binding effect. Page 6 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/17/14 Seeing no other speakers; Chair Tucker closed the Public Hearing. Secretary Myers stated that some of the things he thought were counterintuitive seem to be fairly logical and commented on spreading out higher-intensity uses and improving turnover. Commissioner Koetting asked regarding the Planning Commission's responsibility in terms of actions necessary at this time. Chair Tucker addressed the recommendation and noted that it is a plan at this that still needs to be developed into the code and needs to go through the environmental process. At this point, it will be sent to City Council with recommendations to consider the plan. Vice Chair Kramer commented on the options available to the Planning Commission. Chair Tucker suggested limiting consideration of the project to short-term strategies and that City Council should look at what an appropriate parking rate should be. He addressed the various strategies noting that most are good ideas. He added that recommendations to Council should be a statement that the Planning Commission approves the short-term strategies as presented in the report. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of having additional time for the Planning Commission to review the matter and discussing each strategy in detail, having the strategies work in concert and encouraging implementation of same. In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry as to whether the business community has addressed parking time limits on streets, Mr. Svalstaad stated that it is important to have a hearing regarding increasing the time limits from one (1) hour to two (2) hours. He continued that business owners may have differing opinions, but that no one has opposed the strategy. Chair Tucker agreed with the strategy language and believed that the Planning Commission should recommend approval of the listed short-term strategies. Ms. Nueno reiterated recommendations listed in the report. Vice Chair Kramer reiterated that the study is deficient as it did not include specific areas in Corona del Mar. Chair Tucker indicated that the strategies deal with the shortcomings of that area. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Vice Chair Kramer and carried (6 — 0) to find the Corona del Mar Parking Management Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and forward the Corona del Mar Parking Management Plan to City Council for review and that the eight strategies in the report be adopted. AYES: "VIL' Brown, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren ITEM NO. 6 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL (PA2013-217) AND FORMER CITY HALL COMPLEX AMENDMENTS (PA2012-031) Site Location: 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street Chair Tucker noted that no action will be taken on this item at this time and referenced the Environmental Impact Report. He added that there will be no staff report but that he would like to receive public comments at this time. Chair Tucker opened the Public Hearing. Page 7 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/17/14 Cliff McCule commented on the proposed parking and asked how that will work out in the development. He complained about construction parking on City streets and blocking driveways and felt that parking for this project will impact his neighborhood in the Finley tract. Jim Mosher referenced Table 1 in the report offering two (2) distinct options for the development as well as a hybrid. He addressed various combinations and stated he does not believe the EIR addressed total combinations existing at once or what the impact would be. Gordon Hart, on behalf of Lido Partners, owners of Lido Plaza, referenced written comments he submitted relative to the written responses to his comments. He urged that the Commission focus on Exhibit 2B in the response to comments noting that a new study requires recirculation of the EIR and suggested the need for the Planning Commission to study this matter further. He believed that all delivery trucks will now use Via Lido. He added that there has been no analysis of the impact on egress/ingess on Via Lido or of parking on Via Lido. Discussion followed regarding large trucks that service Via Lido Plaza and the effect of closing access across the project site to 32nd Street. Chair Tucker commented on the number of trucks involved per week with a grocery store and shopping center. He added that the information is significant and that staff should do more analysis. If the City is successful in its legal proceedings related to access,the notice of consent recorded in 1964 was valid and therefore, the City had the right to have terminated access at any time, CEQA would not apply to the termination? Mr. Hart commented on a lawsuit filed by the City noting that the project was changed and that it will impact his client's shopping center. If the City loses, the project will not proceed. There has been nothing indicating why inclusion of the easement closure is necessary. He commented on the need for CEQA review. The City would be making a decision which would have a negative effect on the environment. Discussion followed regarding closure of the driveway. Ms. Mulvihill reported that this is the City's property and that it did not file a lawsuit against the Lido Partners but that the City is trying to get a conclusive,judicial determination as to the existence of rights. She disagreed with Mr. Hart's comments and reported that the City is trying to get a determination as to whether or not the City has a fee interest in this property or not. Mr. Campbell added that the original proposal included a driveway that would lead to Lido Plaza and that was the proposal that City Council considered back in July of 2013. When the application was filed, there was a change to the site plan closing off that access, there were gates controlling the parking area, and valet parking was a component of the project. He added that there has been an evolution of the site plan where the applicant made changes to the project site that they felt would be appropriate for the project. Chair Tucker noted that the application showed the driveway eliminated. Mr. Campbell added that closure of the access driveway has always been part of the project when the application was filed and that staff has evaluated the application with that access being closed. In response to Vice Chair Kramer's inquiry, Ms. Mulvihill reported that she disagreed with the statements that the City has not complied with CEQA. She added that she received a letter in response to staffs responses to their original comments and the City has addressed those comments,specifically. She noted that at the next meeting the Planning Commission will see further responses as it is important to see the position that the City has taken. As to historic access, she noted there was a notice of consent and it would be revoked if the project is approved. She added that it is the right of Lido Partners to management and operate their property and arrange for their operational needs. She stated that Lido Partners is alleging traffic impacts but that staff does not see them. She objected to the assertion that the project has not been fully disclosed. Staff intends to provide more full responses prior to the August 7,2014, meeting and acknowledged there is a difference of opinion as to the rights to that area and as to the City's obligation under CEQA. Ultimately, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation as to the adequacy of the EIR that was prepared. Page 8 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/17/14 Vice Chair Kramer commented on the City suing a business owner but noted a history of issues between Lido Partners and the City. Ms. Mulvihill reported she does not see this as the City suing a business owner but that Lido Partners believes there is an equitable easement and noted the need for a determination. She added that she reached out to Lido Partners to discuss the possibility of resolving the issue. She reported sharing Vice Chair Kramer's concern and stated she will convey that to the City Attorney and outside counsel. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of settling the issue prior to the Planning Commission hearing the matter. Chair Tucker stated that is beyond the Planning Commission's purview, although Vice Chair Kramer could make that suggestion, but the ultimate decision is a City Council matter. Mr. Hart indicated willingness to meet to discuss the issue and noted that legal and planning issues are separate. He added that even if the City has a right to close that access, that doesn't mean it should exercise it and that approving this project should be done in conjunction with that exercise. He indicated that the does not have to approve exactly what the applicant wants. Vice Chair Kramer encouraged both parties to work lution of the issue. See no other speakers; Chair Tucker closed the Public Hea �- Chair Tucker stated he would like to see written responses to the most recent comments. Commissioner Brown addressed the number of parking spaces and requested a response from staff. Mr. Campbell reported that staff factored in the parking demands of the various ancillary uses of the hotel and noted that the analysis shows that the parking requirements will account for normal operating demands. Additional clarification will be provided. Relative to Mr. Mosher's comments, Chair Tucker stated he is not satisfied with the development limits in terms of the combination of dwelling units and the hotel. Mr. Campbell reported that the genesis was to provide flexibility in the RFP and the intent is to have both stated limitations to reach the same intensity, overall. He added that staff will look at the issue to provide better clarification. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (6 — 0) to continue the aforementioned Item to the Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 2014. Alms; Brown, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Ms. Wisneski welcomed Vice Chair Kramer to the Committee and addressed frustration with the lack of coordination with the Coastal Commission staff. At the last meeting, staff received direction to put the LCP together based on how it will benefit the community and will submit that to the Coastal Commission. Page 9 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/17/14 Chair Tucker suggested having a study session prior to acting on the item. Ms.Wisneski reported that the July meeting is cancelled. 2. Update on City Council Items Ms. Wisneski provided an update of Planning Commission related items that have been recently considered by City Council. Ms. Wisneski shared items that will be on the Planning Commission's agenda for August 7, 2014. ITEM NO. 9 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT - None ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioners Lawler and Koetting requested excused absences for August 7, 2014, and it was noted that Commissioner Hillgren will also be absent on that day. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Page 10 of 10 Correspondence Item No. la Draft Minutes 07/17/14 August 11, 2014 August 11 , 2014, Planning Commission Agenda Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(oo)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1: MINUTES OF JULY 17, 2014 Changes to the draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in striker t underline format. 1. Page 1, Item III ("Roll Call"): "Staff Present: ...; Ieeni Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; ..." 2. Page 4, paragraph 6: "In response to Commission Koetting's request, he also described the existing encroachments on the neighboring property..." [?] 3. Page 4, paragraph 3 from end: "Ms. Nueno discussed ..., maintaining the varied setbacks along the street, creating consistency with the surrounding properties, and garage placement meets meeting requirements to prevent vehicles from overhanging onto the sidewalk." 4. Page 5, Item 5, paragraph 3: "Vice Chair Kramer commented positively on the work done by NelsenlNlgaarel NelsonlNygaard." 5. Page 6, paragraph 4: "He addressed shared parking, potential liability, employee parking and establishing employee permit parking programs, restriping along East Coast Highway and ether in lots to gain spaces, increasing the bicycle parking supply ..." [?] 6. Page 7, paragraph 4: "Chair Tucker addressed the recommendation and noted that it is a plan at this time that still needs to be developed into the code ..." 7. Page 7, paragraph 6: "He added that rern.m.me.nda"^^s the recommendation to Council should be a statement that the Planning Commission approves the short-term strategies as presented in the report." 8. Page 7, end of Motion: "... and that the first eight strategies in the report be adopted." or and that the eight short-term strategies in the report be adopted." [?] 9. Page 8, last paragraph: "She added that it is the right of Lido Partners to managemen manage and operate their property and arrange for their operational needs." 10. Page 9, paragraph 5: "He indicated that the City [or Planning Commission ?] does not have to approve exactly what the applicant wants."