Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/19960 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams Gifford, Selich, Commissioner Ashley arrived late EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager, Community and Economic Development Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes of September 19,1996: Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway and voted on to approve, as amended, the September 19, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none Public Comments: none Posting of the Agenda: Ms. Temple stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 4, 1996, outside of City Hall. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple reported that special notices were mailed to all homeowner associations and business associations within the city, additionally, a INDEX Minutes Public Comments Posting of the Agenda n t.J City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 news release was prepared and sent to three local papers regarding this SUBJECT. Zoning Code Update • GPA 96 -1 • LCP A46 • A 834 • A 846 This is a continued discussion from September 19, 1996, on a set of amendments related to an update of the Zoning Code. For the record, Commissioner Selich stated that since he had not been in attendance at the August 8th meeting, he has reviewed the tapes and is qualified to vote on this issue tonight. Chairperson Adams announced that copies of the June 15th draft Zoning Code are available for public use during the meeting. He stated that the code has been addressed during the past five public hearings. The current staff report summarizes the straw votes taken on the larger groups of items. Mr. Alford summarized the staff report stating that this is the sixth public hearing on the proposed comprehensive update of the Zoning Code of the City of Newport Beach. The proposed Zoning Code provides: • updated formatting, terminology, land use classifications, land use and property development regulations, and administrative procedures includes an amendment to the General Plan Amendment and LCP Amendment to set existing floor area ratio limits by statistical area, rather than by parcel, and to review policies on variable floor area ratio limits to be consistent with Zoning Code property development regulations • includes an Amendment to the Districting Maps which will create consistency between the Zoning Code and the Land Use Element The staff report contains modified revisions to the proposed code as directed by the Planning Commission at the meeting of September 19th. The Commission will be taking straw votes on these revisions tonight: a deletion of Section 20.62.090 (B -3) which contained the provisions for the abatement of nonconforming structures, addition of provision for public notification for accessory outdoor dining (Section 20.82.050). revised provisions addressing issues of permit expiration and discontinuances. INDEX Item No. 1 GPA 96 -1 LCP A46 A 834 A 846 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Lastly, the staff report contains a summary of actions by the Planning on other key issues. Assistant City Attorney Clauson continued the staff report by distributing a supplemental report on the proposed amendment to Zoning Code, chapter 20.03 definitions. A few suggested changes to the use classifications are recommended to be consistent with the definitions of Chapter 5.28. Suggested changes proposed are on the topics of Live Entertainment, and, Eating and Drinking Establishments. Commissioner Kranzley asked how the 'theaters' portion under Chapter 20.05 would affect the Balboa Cinema. Ms. Clauson answered that after staff discussion, it was decided that it was possible for a place to have two use classifications. To the extent that the Balboa Cinema was going to have food and beverage service Within the theater, this will be done on a special event basis. The restaurant use Within that building is a separate use. He was assured that by enacting this, a nonconforming use would not be created. Ms. Clauson then clarified the deletion of text regarding percentage of total gross annual revenues from sales of alcoholic beverages. Since this was referenced as a guideline of the Alcoholic Beverage Codes, the text is considered a duplicate of an ABC guideline plus it may cause confusion because there are some restaurants that • operate as a restaurant during the day, but have a high bar or cocktail pricing during the evening. At Commission request, Mr. Alford then presented the research on the abatement of nonconforming structures. Mr. Alford stated that a number of coastal communities comparable to Newport Beach were contacted, these include Monterey, Santa Barbara, Malibu, Santa Monica, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Del Mar. Of these, Santa Monica, Oceanside, and Carlsbad have adopted procedures and time tables for the abatement of nonconforming structures. The rest of the cities indicated that they have no such procedures. Many indicated that they had different provisions dealing with certain exceptions tied to land use, etc., all had timetables similar to the proposed 25 years. The survey was limited to medium size coastal communities with older developed areas, therefore, the results should not be considered to be definitive. However, the results do suggest that most communities of this type have not provided procedures for the abatement of nonconforming structures within their zoning codes. Chairperson Adams then referred to page nine of the staff report and asked about the process of the transfer of floor area limits within a statistical area. Staff answered that it is proposed to be done through a use permit approved by the Planning Director. Certain findings would have to be made dealing with the rest of the apparent surplus of building area within that area and no potential for use by future development or redevelopment of the property. Reference was then made to handwritten page twelve on the topic of 'required notice'. Chairperson Adams asked if it is current policy that the applicant provide the names of the people • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 within the 300 foot radius. Staff answered that this is a common practice, although some cities provide this service for a fee. Reference was then made to handwritten page 14, Section 20.91.055. Item six should be listed as a separate paragraph because it addresses a specific case where a coastal permit is required. The time period references the effective date of approval of the coastal permit. The effective date of the beginning date of an expiration for use permit and variance is found in the code under Section 20.91.050. Public testimony was opened. Pamela Sapetto of Government Solutions represented the property owner of the Newport Beach Tennis Club. She stated that the property owner believes that the Planned Community not Open Space - Active is the most appropriate zoning designation for his property for the following reasons: • maintains a consistent and fair application of future zoning categories to all of the properties to be considered for re- zoning within the open space general plan use category • benefits the community and neighborhood by guaranteeing that any future use proposed for the property will have full neighborhood and community review because of the noticing requirements and the nature of the planned community district • it is consistent with and implements the general plan designation • gives greater flexibility to propose open space recreational uses than does the Open Space - Active She concluded by urging Commission approval of the Planned Community zoning category for this property. Mr. Bob Calkins, 124 Crystal Avenue, Balboa Island referenced page seventeen and spoke on the issue of the gross area calculations for the R -1.5 zoning which does not include carports. The way this is written it perpetuates carports. Commissioner Gifford asked for specifics of what he would like done to address his concerns on this issue. If the word 'covered' was deleted from item 1 under 'Exceptions', would that suffice? Mr. Calkins answered, that he is asking for a conscience decision to be made by the Commission, rather than something that slips through. Chairperson Adams commented that Commission should consider that there are discussions going on in the community about this item. It may be appropriate for this to come forward as a separate item. Mr. Calkins continued, the abatement of the use permit would be within a certain time. Wouldn't this inhibit businesses having a nonconforming use permit in either a conforming or nonconforming building? As that business continued, it would inhibit 0 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 any sale, extension or continuation of that busine appropriate to have mandatory abatement periods page 14, Section C 20.91.055 on 'violation of terms', are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated." included? Can a variance lapse if the exercis, discontinued for 180 consecutive days? ss. He questioned if it was on use permits. Referencing '....any use permit or variance Should the word variance be of rights granted by it is Staff explained this verbiage is not changed from the current language in the code. A use permit is generally granted to permit a use within a structure or to construct a structure. A variance most often is for the construction of a structure which is not in compliance with the development standards. Discussion ensued whether to keep /remove the term variance in this section. Mr. Calkins then brought up the subject place it talks of them being five feet high open, (East Bay Front is not included). In feet (the upper 3 feet of which must t differences? of fence heights on Balboa Island. One and the upper 2.6 feet having to be 40% another case, fences shall not exceed 5 le at least 40 percent open). Why the Mr. Alford explained that there were inconsistencies in the language of this type and stated that there is an illustration in the staff report of July 18th, handwritten • page thirty -one that addresses these issues. Mr. Doug Hockett, President of Orange Coast Realtors voiced the same concerns as the previous speaker on the issue of abatement of variances. Mr. Alford explained that this has no effect on a variance once it has been issued and implemented, rather, it refers to once a variance is granted, if not acted on within 24 months, it expires. Mr. Tom Hyans, stated the concerns of the Central Newport Beach Community Association relating to: • redesignation of commercial properties outside of the core commercial areas; • additional redefinition of outdoor dining; • public notification for outdoor dining not being required for establishments not within 300 feet of a residential district; • no right of appeal to the decision of the Planning Director; • hours of operation for outdoor dining different than indoor dining at the same establishment • bed and breakfast parking and traffic concerns • R -1.5, R -2, and MFR Districts restrictions of 10 feet being maintained between buildings. Commission and staff addressed all of the concerns noted by Mr. Hyans in discussion that followed. • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 • Public testimony was closed. Commission discussion ensued recommending straw votes being part of the staff report to the City Council. Commission then addressed each of the items on the staff report followed by a straw vote or assent: 20.62.090 Abatement of Nonconforming Structures Commissioner Ashley voiced concern of 'nonconforming uses of a conforming building or structure shall be discontinued within the time limits specified ... residential 5 years.' What happens to the duplex that is now in an R1 use? Would this use have to be abated? Staff answered this is a nonconforming structure not a nonconforming use. Density is not considered a nonconforming use in this regard. This clarification will be added. Chairperson Adams stated that there likely will be a legitimate purpose in time for having an abatement of structures but Newport Beach is not there yet. Staff has not given an example of the necessity for such abatement. Staff has come up with some cities that have it, maybe the time will come when the city will have a need which would instigate a change in the code at that time. There does not seem to be an overwhelming need to have this provision now. For the reasons discussed at the last meeting, there is some legitimacy to retain the nonconforming use provisions. He reiterated that everyone should recognize that in this area of the code, we are giving a little more latitude for the improvements of nonconforming structures. This is counter to the idea of abatement or bringing a building into conformance, it extends the natural abatement where the structure gets too old to fix up. Straw vote on the revised text to 20.62.090 Abatement as amended in the current staff report: Ayes: All Ayes 20.82.050 Accessory Outdoor Dinina no further discussion - Voice vote all commissioners in support. 20.91.055 Expiration, Time Extension, Violation, Discontinuance, and Revocation Voice vote all commissioners in support. Amendments to the District Zoning Maps - Chairperson Adams stated that the testimony tonight with regard to the Newport Beach Tennis Club suggests another straw vote should be taken tonight. The first straw vote had been taken to change from the PC District to the Open Space A District. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Commissioner Kranzley talked about Marina Park, the Dunes and the Newport Beach Country Club and placing them in the PC District. He asked that the straw vote be retaken on the Newport Beach Country Club. Chairperson Adams then asked staff to read the PC District provision as amended. Staff complied. Commissioner Ridgeway stated, for the record, that he would vote PC designation for all of these properties. Open Space - Active denotes more non - development, each of these have active commercial components. Newport Beach Country Club has actually asked for and is processing a General Plan Amendment for residential development. Commissioner Ashley stated that the OS -A designation is appropriate for what the Newport Beach Country Club has today. But it is restrictive to ever allowing the owner of the property to come to the Commission and suggest an alternative use. The restriction is referred to in the August 8th as the Open Space - Active District permitting "....recreational and environmental open space to allow the continuation of this active recreational use" and sets the maximum permitted development at fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. Any application for the development of other land uses would be inconsistent with this policy and would • likely be denied. Chairperson Adams stated that the process by which the owner would propose a change to this property would be the same process whether it remains OS -A or PC. With the PC, he would have to come in and plan something that is beyond the status quo. MS. Temple stated that there are two planning documents which affect entitlement on any property in the State of California, the General Plan and the underlying zoning. In this particular case, the general land use designation is recreational and environmental open space. If the PC District were applied, then that applicant could prepare a PC Development Plan for any use which was allowed under the recreational and environmental open space category of the general plan of which his use is one. The reason staff originally suggested the OS -A is that the permissions granted under that zoning district are consistent with the recreational and environmental open space general plan category. The process to change that would require a General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Selich said that there a number of zones that would be consistent with the open space zoning on this property. The Land Use Element is very specific in regards to the fact that it is a tennis club, commercial recreational facility. Under the Zoning Code, commercial recreation is permitted under the same circumstances in commercial, industrial districts, etc. The issue is to try and get the most appropriate zone on the property. One of the problems, as he sees it, is taking open space zoning and placing it on a piece of property that is primarily • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 commercial use. If you look at the property, it is practically all paved over. It is a mistake to put open space zoning on it because if anyone does want to change the use of the property, it places an unfair stigma on the property. This is compounded because if you also look at the city's Open Space Element, there is a diagram in there that shows it's open space where you are putting Open Space zoning and showing it as Open Space in the Land Use Element and in the Open Space Element. Commissioner Ridgeway supported Commissioner Selich's statement. He concluded saying the property owner is asking for a PC text and it is consistent with the General Plan. Straw Vote on affirming Bluffs be placed in the R -1 District: Ayes: All Straw Vote to place Marina Park, the Dunes, the Newport Beach Tennis Club and the Newport Beach Country Club in the PC District: Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Adams, Selich, Ashley Noes: Kranzley, Gifford • Bed and Breakfast Inns in Residential Districts - change to the size of the signs to four square feet with a provision that would allow the Planning Commission to increase the size to six (6) square feet. Requires one (1) off - street parking space per guest room, plus two additional off - street parking spaces to cover the owner occupants with the Planning Commission authority to modify or waive this requirement. Commissioner Kranzley proposed an additional sign limit to a height limit of six feet in residential areas. Commission agreed. Straw vote: Ayes: All Home Occupations - changes made that limits the business license requirements to those required by Title 5; allow independent contractors to make occasional or periodic visits to the site of the home occupation; noise cannot be detectable off the site of a home occupation, and, revision to definition for home occupations to eliminate any ambiguity about where home occupation activities may be conducted on a residential property. Chairperson Adams asked for clarification on house structure changes both internal and external. Minor interior changes to a house would not be inappropriate for an occupation as they are not considered structural forms. n u INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Eating and Drinking Establishments - no further discussion - Voice vote, commissioners in support. Outdoor Storage and Display - no further discussion - Voice vote, all commissioners in support. Off - Street Parkina - no further discussion - Voice vote, all commissioners in support. Floor Area Ratios - no further discussion - Voice vote, all commissioners in support. Deletion of Older Zoning Districts - no further discussion - Voice vote, all commissioners in support. New IBP District - no further discussion - Voice vote, all commissioners in support. New Overlay Districts - no further discussion - Voice vote, all commissioners in support. Nonconforming Structures and Uses - no further discussion - Voice vote, all commissioners in support. • General Plan /LCP Amendments - no further discussion - Voice vote, all commissioners in support. Staff stated that as a result of Mr. Calkins' previous testimony, they acknowledge that perhaps there were some inconsistencies and confusion in the paragraphs under the section regarding exceptions on the calculations of parking and floor area. Changes have been made to the paragraphs in that code to make the section actually read the way the historic practice and interpretation of the Planning Department has been. Noted was that this section is applicable to R -1, R- 1.5 and R -2 Districts so if changes are made, all districts will be effected city -wide. There is a process to address this particular issue on Balboa Island exclusively. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend to City Council approval as modified General Plan Amendment 96 -1 (D); Local Coastal Program Amendment 46, Amendment 834 and Amendment 846 to the Districting Maps. Ayes: All Commissioner Gifford then took the opportunity to thank Commissioners Kranzley, Adams and Selich as well as staff for their work and diligence on the subcommittee. 0 9 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 2. SUBJECT: The City of Newport Beach • Amendment No. 854 An amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code deleting Chapter 20.03, Report of Residential Building Records which was recently modified and recodified as Chapter 15.15 within Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Temple summarized the staff report as a result of the reorganization of the building and planning functions over the past 18 months, the responsibility for the Report of Residential Building Records has been relocated from the Planning to the Building Department. This is a housekeeping item that places the Chapter regarding the Report of Residential Building Records into Title 15 o the Municipal Code which is the Building Code and to remove it from Title 20. Public Hearing was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to Adopt Resolution No. 1441 recommending to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 854. Ayes: All Noes: None • Absent: None Abstain: None At• 3. SUBJECT: The Keith Company (Civil Engineers on behalf of the Irvine Company) 1250 Sandcastle Drive. • Resubdivision No. 1025 Request to appeal the Modifications Committee's decision to approve the subdivision of one 63.2 acre parcel of land in Buck Gully into four parcels of land for conveyance purposes only. No development or change in the present "open space" land use designation is proposed in conjunction with this resubdivision. The owner (The Irvine Company) has requested that this item be withdrawn due to potential revisions to the proposed parcel map, with the understanding that when such revisions are made, a new resubdivision will be filed . to the Modifications Committee for review. Staff has no objection to this request. 40 10 INDEX A 854 Approved Item No. 3 Resub No.1025 Withdrawn • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 4. SUBJECT: Requests to initiate various amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as follows: (A) Proponent: Newport Diagnostic Center 1605 Avocado Avenue SUMMARY: Request to increase the floor area limit in Block 500 of Newport Center by 6,600 square feet to allow expansion of an existing medical office building. (B) Proponent: Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B (vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road) SUMMARY: Request to increase the floor area limit in Koll Center Newport Office Site B by 120.000 square feet. (C) Proponent: The Ayres Group Lower Castaway's Site (owned by The Irvine Company) (corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive) SUMMARY: Request to amend the Land Use Element'area description to allow hotel development on the Lower Castaway's site. (D) Proponent: Magdl R. Hanna 3900 -3956 East Coast Highway SUMMARY: Request to redesignate a portion of a vacated alley from the "Single Family Detached Residential" land use designation to the "Retail & Service Commercial" land use designation in conjunction with the abandonment of the adjoining alley. The redesignation will increase the commercial site area approximately 1,212 sq.ft and increase the floor area allowance by approximately 606 sq.ft. (E) Proponent: Dahn Corporation 1133 CamelbackStreet (owned by United States Postal Service - vacant site adjacentto existing Post Office) SUMMARY: Request to redesignate approximately 2 acres of vacant land from the Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities to the General Industry land use designation to allow for the development of a mini storage facility. Also requested is the establishment of a floor area limit of 99,900 square feet for the proposed development. • 11 INDEX Item No. Newport Diagnostic Center Recommended for Approval Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B Recommended for Approval The Ayres Group Lower Castaway's Site Recommended for Approval Magdi R. Hanna 3900 -3956 E Cst Hghwy Removed from calendar Dohn Corporation 1133 Camelback St. Recommended for Approval • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 (F) Proponent: Rockwell SemiconductorSystems 4311 Jamboree Road SUMMARY: Request to increase the floor area limit for Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1 (Rockwell) by 650,000 square feet, to allow for expansion of the existing research, development and manufacturing facility. Ms. Temple reported that City Council has requested that the Commission take separate votes on these issues. She continued, stating that this is the third cycle of general plan amendments for the year 1996. There were six requested, but Item D regarding 3900 -3956 East Coast Highway has been removed from calendar at the request of the property owner. The initiation process is for the city to maintain its compliance with provisions of state planning law which limits the number of times per year which a city may consider amendments to its General Plan. This action of initiation is not an approval of any of these proposals. Initiation only starts the process of staff analysis which would lead to a public hearing and decision by the Planning Commission and City Council. Public hearing was opened with regard to the Newport Diagnostic Center. • Mr. Robert Kraft, of Kraft Architects made himself available to Commission to answer any questions adding the intent of this proposal is to add footage to increase the facilities operation based upon the modification of the PC text for that segment of Fashion Island. Public testimony on Koll Real Estate Group. Commissioner Ridgeway asked staff about the location of this proposal. Staff answered that Koll Real Estate Group has not done any precise site design or planning for this request of entitlement. However, they are looking at locating a new structure within the existing parking lot in front of the twin towers at the corner of Jamboree and MacArthur. In association with that they will be building another parking structure. Public testimony on Lower Castaway's Site, The Ayres Group. Mr. Bruce Ayres, said this proposal would involve an upscale, moderately priced, small meeting space and restaurant within a hotel that will fit in the community. Public testimony on 1 133 Camelback, Dahn Corporation. None. Public testimony on Rockwell Semiconductor Systems. None. Public Hearing was closed. • 12 INDEX Rockwell Semicon- ductor Systems 4311 Jamboree Road Recommended for Approval • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Chairperson Adams spoke on the Lower Castaway's site stating he is not supportive of moving ahead with processing the hotel development. Commissioner Ridgeway spoke on the proposal for 1133 Camelback location stating that this is a 99,900 square feet request on a two acre site. Recently approved was an approximate 100,000 square feet on a three acre site for a similar storage facility. He continued by talking about the topography and landscaping differences. He concluded by stating that it appears that 99,900 square feet on a two acre site is very aggressive. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Amendments be initiated: (A) Newport Diagnostic Center 1605 Avocado Avenue Ayes: All Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None • (B) Koll Real Estate Group Koll Center Newport Office Site B Ayes: All Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None (C) Lower Castaway's Site (corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive) Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Selich, Ashley Noes: Adams, Gifford Absent: None Abstain: None (D) Magdi R. Hanna 3900 -3956 East Coast Highway Removed from calendar (E) Dahn Corporation 1133 Camelback Street Ayes: All • Noes: None 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 Absent: None Abstain: None (F) Rockwell SemiconductorSystems 4311 Jamboree Road Ayes: All Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a.) City Council Follow -up- An oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - Mrs. Wood reported that at the City Council meeting of September 23rd, Cannery Village was discussed and staff has been requested to do a report at the October 28th meeting; Council started their review of the KPMG report; China Palace wall has been called for review on October 28th; an urgency ordinance regarding outdoor restaurants on Mariners Mile has been put in effect for another 45 days; and the urgency ordinance regarding condominium • conversions on Balboa Island has been extended for nine months. b.) Oral report by the Planning Director regarding Outdoor Dining Permits, Specialty Food Permits, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permit approvals- Ms. Temple reported that a Specialty Food Service Permit for 3441 Via Lido, Suite A was approved. Modifications for 300 Newport Center Drive, 202 Newport Center Drive, 3 Collins Island, 707 Heliotrope Avenue and a temporary use permit for a tent at 4545 MacArthur Boulevard were approved. Modification No. 4495 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 96 -7 were called up for review on October 24th by Commissioner Kranzley. Motion passed - 6 Ayes, 1 No. C.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich at the next EDC meeting will present a summary of the results of the proposed changes to the Zoning Code for their review. d.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - Commissioner Kranzley reported that there have been three meetings regarding the Camp plan and how it effects the various districts. October 23rd will be an all day session to compose a final draft of the BPPAC presentation. e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Mr. Rich Edmonston reported that the Public Works Department had prepared an application for Major M funding for the Riverside/Tustin Avenue project. At the direction of the City Council, that application was withdrawn from the . packet. The next opportunityto seek funds for that projectwill be in two years. 14 INDEX Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1996 f.) Matters which a Planning Commissionermay wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report -- none. g.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford will be excused from the October 24th meeting and Commissioner Kranzley will be excused from the November 7th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m. rr• ED SELICH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 1 15 INDEX