Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/2001• • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Krandey - Commissioners McDaniel and Agajanian were excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner Robert Kain, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of April 19.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford and voted on to approve the amended minutes of April 19, 2001. Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Gifford Absent: McDaniel, Agajanian Public Comments: Domenico Maurici, owner of Caffe II Farro, 111 21$1 Place stated that he would like to add a room (1,000 square feet) on the top of his building. He had talked to staff and was told that would not be allowed because it would be additional area to the restaurant. Chairperson Selich stated that this could not be discussed tonight as it is not on the agenda. He then asked that staff present a report on this at the next Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, April 27,200 1. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 INDEX SUBJECT: Newport Technology Center (Mark Barker for Item No. 7 The St. Clair Company, applicant) Modification Permit 500 Superior Avenue No. 2001 -042 (PA2001- 0 Modification Permit No. 2001 -042 (PA2001 -074) 074) Request for a Modification Permit (for a sign program) of the Sign Ordinance Approved that exceeds the number, size and location of signs permitted. Included in the request is a review of the proposed landscape plans by the Planning Commission, as required by the conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3679. Associate Planner, Genia Garcia stated that Use Permit 3679 approved for the project required the Planning Commission to review the landscaping and also the signage. When the signage was proposed to staff, it appeared that they needed a modification. Staff has made recommendations in the staff report and if this request is approved, condition 6 was not intended to be included and is asking that this be deleted as it is contrary to the recommendations. Commissioner Tucker, referring to page 4, asked about the excessive amount of signage for sign type K. Ms. Garcia stated that staff agrees with the applicant's sign program with a couple of alterations. The sign program includes the potential for one wall sign per tenant in a multi- tenant building. Without knowing how many tenants can occupy that building, it could have a cluttered affect. The applicant would like to have one tenant sign for each tenant in the multi- tenant building in addition to being listed on each ground sign. There is one ground sign for each building within the interior of the project. We made modifications to the sign program to reduce the wall signage since staff felt those wall signs could lead to excessive signage. The conditions of approval, minus condition 6, contain what staff believes to be the proper amount of signage. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Garcia noted: • The Sign Program booklet, accompanying the staff report, lists the elevations and an unbound set is kept in the files. • Condition 2 pertains to one large tenant that takes over an entire building and is allowed to have three wall signs and can have those signs on three different elevations at a maximum of 200 square feet. This condition can be edited to include the word,' major'. • Condition 5 can be clarified that logos should be incorporated into any approved sign area whether it be ground or wall signs, inclusive of the major tenant signs of the 200 square feet. • Condition 6 is to be deleted. Commissioner Kranzley then asked if there was an accepted standard in .the landscape business regarding a 36' box? How big is the tree that goes into that size box? Could there be other standards, such as height of a tree or size of the trunk of the tree? I look at these beautiful landscape plans and know that the reality is somewhat different with the small trees that are planted. Do . 1) • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 any other cities have different standards rather than the measurement of the box? Ms. Garcia noted that in most of the landscape plans, a 36" box is a minimum to be considered for a large tree. Staff answered that there are other standards used by various cities specifying the height, canopy or size of trunk. There is nothing in our Code to stipulate the size of the tree. Mrs. Wood noted that staff can do some research on these requirements and then start to write our conditions of approval differently so that we can achieve the landscaping the Commission is looking for on these projects. Chairperson Selich, referring to page 2 of the Exterior Sign Package exhibit, User Identification signs says height is 6'. Looking at that table, it shows a 24" maximum. Are those in conflict? Ms. Garcia stated that the condition is worded at 50 square feet, so it could be any dimension they want within that parameter. The 200 square feet maximum is for the single tenant "building, a major tenant that occupies 50% or more of the building, typically they go to the top of the building. The 50 square feet is for an eyebrow sign for a minor tenant in a multi- tenant building. . Mr. Campbell clarified that the Sign Program submitted is inconsistent for Sign Type K - shows 6' in one place and 2' in another and it should be 2'. Chairperson Selich then asked about the location of the major monument sign on Newport Boulevard, what is the elevation difference between the base of that sign and Newport Avenue? Ms. Garcia answered that it is at approximately 20 feet. Commissioner Tucker noted his agreement that perhaps in the conditions themselves we should define what a major tenant is. As I understand, it is a tenant who occupies 50% or more of the floor area of a building. Staff agreed that is the way it is structured with the conditions of approval. Public comment was opened. Chris Torrey, LPA, 17848 Skypark Circle, Irvine, spoke as the representative of the St. Clair Company. He stated that he had brought along the landscape architect and the graphic designer for any questions or concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Tucker asked Mr. Torrey why they needed a six -foot sign height along the Superior elevation. Mr. Torrey answered that the intent was to provide the option, depending on . how large the individual tenant sign would be.^ This is the maximum height INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 INDEX allowed by Code, this program allows the flexibility depending on the graphic content of each tenant to provide adequate and proper signage. We do not know how long the names) will be, so our intent is to have a program to allow flexibility to provide the best signage possible. Commissioner Tucker then asked about the elevation that is visible from Newport Boulevard. What is happening to the trees along there that screen the building? I could not tell if you are removing any of them or not. Mr. Torrey answered that a lot of those trees are on CalTrans property. It is our intent to work with them to improve that entire sloped embankment similar to what has happened on the Hoag properly. The elevation of the sign on Newport Boulevard is at least 20 to 25 feet above Newport Boulevard where the top of the slope is. The top of our property extends out and that is where the sign will be on the top of the slope. The intent of the sign on Newport Boulevard is for identification purposes of recognition. Angela Woodward, LPA, 17848 Skypark Circle, Irvine as the landscape architect noted the following plant materials to be used to screen the parking structure and landscape: • Existing eucalyptus trees and pine trees will remain unless infrastructure dictates that one or more have to be removed. • A tree called Melaleuca at a height of 10-12 feet will be placed in the specified area. It is a fast growing tree and goes well with the pine trees. Ficus vines have been placed along the parking structure during the actual construction. • Ground planting will consist of Lillies of the Nile, zinnia, flax and star jasmine. • The trees along Superior will be replaced with 36' and /or 48" box Melaleuca trees. These trees are fast growing, approximately 2 feet per year. • The trees at the corner of Newport and Superior will be kept. • The trees had to be removed along Superior because of the footing of the building. Approximately 20 trees will be replaced. • It is most common to designate the size of the box for landscape purposes. • Referring to landscape exhibits included in the packet, she noted that the ground planting would take a couple of years to achieve. The trees are representative at 3-4 years. • This is an intensely landscaped site with a lot of color, few hedges and is drought tolerant. Public comment closed. At Commission inquiry, staff noted that the Sign Program is tied into Condition 1 for the plans submitted. • 1] City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 Commissioner Tucker noted he would like to see a slight reduction of the height of the sign for the Superior elevations. With the correction noted on Type K to 2 feet, the rest of them seem to make sense to me. I think 4 1/2 to 5 feet on the Superior side would be an improvement, (Sign Type J). The applicant agreed. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • The word major after (3) in the 2nd condition. • Delete condition 6. Add a condition that would read, 'A major tenant means a tenant who occupies 50% or more of the floor area of a building at the project. Commissioner Kiser noted the following: The sign proposed for Newport Avenue, there is no access and 1 don't understand why it is needed; perhaps it could be eliminated. The major tenant definition needs to be that the major tenant occupies more than 50% of the building. Would like to see the wall signage for the major tenant (Sign Type J) is 3 feet along Superior. Commissioner Tucker commented that the monument sign of 25 feet is in our Code. We should leave it to the applicant's judgement to put it there. The • base of the right of the way happens to be CalTrans property and the top of the slope is where the property line is for the parcel. The question is how big a sign. I think they should have identification. The height of the wall sign along Superior needs to be in scale with the size of the building. I think 4 1/2 to 5 feet makes sense for that location considering the linear building shape. Chairperson Selich noted that this is a well thought out sign program. I understand the need for flexibility to deal with different tenants. The graphics seem to be thought out. Commissioner Kiser agreed that 5 feet would be fine. He asked that the motion contain this limit in condition 2 referring to Superior Avenue elevation. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Modification Permit 2001 -042 (PA 2001 -074) with the following changes to the list of conditions: • Condition 1 would state that the installation of signs in conformance with the Sign Program for Newport Technology Center dated 04/20/2001 except as noted in the following conditions. Condition 2 would say, the word major would be added after (3). • Condition 6 would be deleted. A new condition would say that the Sign Type J for Superior Avenue elevation would be 5 feet and the sign height for Sign Type K would be changed to 2 feet. A new condition would define a major tenant means a tenant who occupies more than 50% of the floor area of a building at the project. The motion also approves the landscape plan dated 01/15/2001 for the project. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 INDEX 0 Ms. Wood suggested editing condition 5 to read, 'Logos shall be incorporated into the allowable sign area for ground and wall signs'. The idea we are trying to get across is that if a logo is used, it will count towards the maximum sign area. This was acceptable to the maker of the motion. Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: McDaniel, Agajanian EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Modification Permit No. 2001.042 (PA 2001.074) FINDINGS: 1. The approval of Modification Permit No. 2001 -042 will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the modification as approved would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The Land Use Dement of the General Plan Land Use Plan designates the site • for "General Industry' uses. This land use category has been applied to areas which are predominantly used for research and development, manufacturing and professional services. The proposed signs are accessory to the primary use. 3. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 11 (Accessory Structures). 4. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for the following reasons: • The size of the project site and buildings results in the need for more tenant signs for business identification purposes, than is permitted by Code. • The ground signs, with the exception of the monument signs on Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard, are located adjacent to each building, which are large, and located on the interior of the project away from the view from the street. • Two perimeter monument signs are necessary to clearly identify the property from Newport Boulevard and from Superior Avenue because the site is adjacent to two major roadways. A . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 • In order to avoid a cluttered effect, the signs on a multi- tenant building are limited to one wall sign for a major tenant occupying 50 percent or more of the gross floor area and all other tenants are limited to a listing on the ground sign for the building. • The proposed signs will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties because the majority of the signs are wall signs or are located on the interior of the project. • The proposed signs will not obstruct views from adjoining residential properties because the residential properties are located across Dana Road and there are no views from this location. • The proposed signs will not interfere with sight distance from any street, alley or driveway. • The surrounding property owners have no objections to the proposed sign program. CONDITIONS: The development shall be in 4 h4eR*in conformance with the Sign Program for Newport Technology Center dated 04/20/2001 eppreued plat except as noted in the following conditions. 2. A maximum of three (3) major tenant identification signs not to exceed 200 square feet shall be permitted per building for single tenant buildings, and one major tenant sign shall be permitted per elevation. 3. Tenants for multi- tenant buildings shall be listed on the ground sign for each building. 4. In a multi- tenant building, where one tenant occupies more than 50 percent of the building, the tenant shall be permitted one "eyebrow" sign, not to exceed 50 square feet maximum and the remaining tenant(s) is limited to listing on the ground sign. 5. Logos shall be incorporated into the eppreved allowable sign area for ground and wall signs and may be included in major tenant signage only. 6. The maximum height of Sign Type J facing Superior Avenue shall be 5 feet and the maximum height for Sign Type K will be 2 feet. 7. Advertising of tenants and the site is limited to ground and wall signs. 8. All illuminated signs shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of Section 20.67.025(1). 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 9. Lighting plans for all illuminated signs shall be prepared and approved in accordance with Section 20.67.025(1) of the Municipal Code. 10. The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110-L to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided. 11. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 12. A major tenant means a tenant who occupies more than 50% of the floor area of a building at the project. SUBJECT: Michael Malamut, Vespa California, Inc. 2902 W. Coast Highway • UP2001 -CM A request to operate a retail establishment for the sales and minor service of Vespa motor scooters. The minor services include; adjustments, cable changes, and the installation of various accessories. Vespo will keep less than 5 gallons of gas on site for test -drives of motor scooters. Chairperson Selich asked if this proposal had been submitted to the architect for Mariner's Mile Design Framework and if this proposal followed the guidelines of what the City is doing along Mariners Mile. Staff answered that the design consultant was informed of the colors of the buildings and the landscaping in the front of the building. The City is attempting to not need the architect's review of all projects. The reason why we have the Specific Plan and the Code amendments requiring the development plan reviews is so that staff can do these reviews. The architect and landscape architect have provided training for staff. When we get more complicated ones, we call them for assistance. Commissioner Kranzley asked if the signs fit into the framework. He was answered that the 3 existing signs are fairly plain cabinets to be replaced with stylized, cut out pieces of aluminum with illumination from the back. Staff then distributed an exhibit of the proposed signs and affirmed that there will be no increase in the number of signs. Staff expressed the opinion that they believe the proposed signs to be of higher quality than the existing signs and that they are consistent with the intent, which is to improve the signage. Commissioner Kiser clarified with staff that on page 4 of the staff report, that 15 is the total parking spaces required for this use because the standard used for the sale of motor vehicles is adequate for this use as it is closer to a retail, but it 8 INDEX • Item No. 2 Use Permit No. 2001- 008 Approved • 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 is not as parking intensive as retail. The total parking spaces required and provided for both the Vespa and Girl's Gym is 27. Public comment was opened. Richard Gemigniani, 4645 Van Nuys Boulevard, Sherman Oaks spoke representing the applicant. At Commission inquiry, he noted: • Condition 4 - the owner is agreeing to the hours of operation for the winter but asked that the summer hours for Monday through Friday be 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. On Saturdays, he would like 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Sunday 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He explained that the scooters are rented and this would allow. people time to return the rentals. • Minor adjustments are made to the scooters inside on a rack. The majority of the business is retail and rental is a minor portion. Commissioner Kranzley stated that there was no mention of scooter rental in the staff report for this proposed project. Rentals change the characteristics of this use. Staff answered that this is the first they have heard of this as well. Mr. Gemigniani stated he might be incorrect as for as the renting goes. He stated that it is strictly a retail business. Commissioner Gifford said if this was to be approved tonight, her concern is parking. If people rent, they will be parking all day in one spot if they come in by car. If we approve this as it is written, could we add another condition that it was only for retail sales? If they do want to have rentals, the applicant will have to come back for an amendment to the use permit. Mr. Gemigniani continued stating his concern: • Condition 10 - the landscaping of a hedge 4 feet long and 30 inches high in front of the display. Where is that hedge intended to be? Staff answered that the hedge is located at the back of the sidewalk on the private property in front of the establishment (parallel across the front of the building to the driveway). The hedge came out of the Mariner's Mile Design Framework guidelines and Specific Plan. The building precludes putting a palm tree in, as required, and it is not feasible. The hedge will meet the intent of the design framework. Mr. Gemigniani continued stating his concern: • Condition 13 - we have 13 spaces assigned and you are asking for 15. Is the intent to re- design the parking lot or is it accommodated within? Staff answered that the spaces are there. The lease from the property owner might be for two spaces less than that, but there are 27 spaces available for the entire property for both tenants. 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • May 3, 2001 INDEX Ms. Clauson added that the condition is that the applicant is supposed to provide for the required 15 parking spaces. If he does not provide it because it is a lease issue, the applicant will have to go back and deal with the landlord on it. Mr. Gemigniani continued stating his concern: • Condition 14 - the owner wants to display scooters along Coast Highway outside the exterior of the building. Staff answered that the application never considered outdoor displays. If the hedge gets put in and there is space available, and the Commission approves it, since it would be on private property, staff has no objection. Chairperson Selich noted he would take this under consideration. He then asked if the rental operation would change the way Commission looks at this proposal tonight? Ms. Wood answered that there could be a condition added to limit this to sales. If the applicant wants to include rentals, they can always come back and we can amend the use permit and we can analyze that part of the operation then. Mr. Gemigniani, after conferring with the owner, stated that the intent is not to rent any scooters at that location. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit No. 2001- 008 with the following changes: Condition 4 - The hours of operation 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. M -F, 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday and 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday. • Condition 10 - Eliminate 4-ft long hedge and specify entire length of the frontage except the driveway. • Add a condition to specify that the facility was to be used only for purchase and sale of scooters. Rental of scooters is prohibited. Commissioner Tucker stated that the display issue for a vehicle sales business and outdoor display seems to fit. If other Commissioners agree with that, we need to limit the amount of scooters to be displayed. I support the motion, but I would like clarification of the parking spaces. Chairperson Selich answered that there is a sufficient number of parking spaces there, his lease agreement does not entitle him to all 15 only 13. He has to go and deal with his landlord. The site parks for 27 total. He then asked the applicant how many scooters were needed to get a representative display and was answered three or four. Commissioner Kranzley agreed to add that as part of his motion and is to be • 10 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 added to condition 14. Commissioner Kiser asked to include in condition 1, '(including signage dimensions and materials)'. Commissioner Kranzley agreed to the additional language in condition 1 and also to strike the word 'substantial' before 'conformance'. At Commission inquiry, staff stated that the hours of operation are the applicant's proposal. Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: McDaniel, Agajonian, EXHIBIT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. UP2001 -008 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the commercial designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (and the Local Coastal Program), and is compatible with the surrounding commercial land uses. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). There is no expansion of use beyond the previous use and the improvements proposed are limited to interior alterations and rehabilitation to the exterior of the existing facility. 3. The approval of UP2001-008 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • The project consists of ground floor showroom display area, accessory installation areas, and administrative offices associated with the proposed vehicle sales facility within an existing building. • The limited nighttime operation of the proposed use should prevent any adverse impacts on the neighboring residential uses that overlook the project. • Service is limited to and conducted inside the building, therefore no noise or other aesthetic impacts normally associated with vehicle sales and service establishments will be present. • No intensification of the legal non - conforming parking status 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 CONDITIONS: 1. Development shall be in substeRtiel conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations (including signage dimensions and materials) except as noted in the following conditions. 2. All buildings and structures, including parking, shall be located outside of the 12 foot future street widening area unless an agreement, approved as to form and content by the Office of the City Attorney, is first approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Director. 3. The project shall be limited to building square footage as specified in the approved plans for 4,822 gross sq. ft. 4. The hours of operation of the facility shall be limited to 10am -6pra 7p.m. M -F, 11 am-5pm 6 p.m. Sat., and 11 am -" 5 p.m. Sun. 5. The use of pneumatic rifts, air compressors and air wrenches or hammers shall be prohibited in conjunction with this establishment. Additionally, activities associated with vehicle repair and maintenance shall be limited to the application of accessory items and minor adjustments. 6. The operator of the vehicle sales facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The use of outside loudspeakers, paging system or sound system shall be prohibited. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport.Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 am. interior exterior interior exterior Measured at the property line of Commercially zoned property: N/A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA Measured at the property line of Residentially zoned property: N/A 60 dBA N/A 50 dBA Residential property: 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA 8. The use of banners, pennants, balloons, wind signs, moving signs, or flashing or animated electrical signs shall be prohibited. 9. Deliveries and trash collection shall be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., daily. 12 INDEX • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared and include a 30 -inch high by d feet Lingustrum j. Texanum (Texas Privet) hedge across the entire length in front of the property, in front of the vehicle display area and on the easterly side of the entry drive, except as required to satisfy sight distance requirements or deemed infeasible by Planning and Public Works. 11. Prior to the final of the building permits and issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code Enforcement Officer to verify completion and installation of the landscaping in accordance with the approved plan. 12. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for the project, the Parking, Layout Plan shall be revised to conform with City Standard 805 -L -A, 805 -L -B or other applicable City Standard required by the City Traffic Engineer. The final - design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be incorporated into the building set of plans and shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 13. A minimum of 27 parking spaces shall be provided on and off -site. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. 14. The on -site parking lot shall remain available for employee and patron parking only. The parking or display of vehicles for sale shall be prohibited in the required off - street surface parking spaces. PGFkiRg Storage or parking of vehicles associated with the subject property on any neighboring properties shall be prohibited unless the appropriate amendment to this use permit is first approved by the Planing Department. Display of vehicles shall be limited to the portion of private property directly In front of the subject tenant space along West Coast Highway. A maximum of 4 scooters can be displayed in this location. 15. The intersection of the private drive and West Coast Highway shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls, freestanding signs, and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The applicant shall demonstrate on the plan that vehicles parked in the display area are not within the limited use area as defined in City Standard 110- L.Sight distance requirements may be modified at non- critical location, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. • 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 INDEX • 16. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, a copy of the final revised as -built plans including revised landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department. This set of drawings shall be added to the Use Permit file. 17. Prior to December 1, 2001, the parking area for the subject property be patched and repaired as necessary and a slurry coat shall be applied to the entire parking lot in a manner consistent with Public Works Department requirements. 18. the facility is to be used only for purchase and sale of scooters. Rental of scooters is prohibited. Standard City Reautremenls: 19. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. Signs associated with the proposed facility shall require a separate building permit and shall be submitted for review by a consultant retained by the City to review such submittals. The conceptual plans should be submitted for review and approval prior to submittal of working drawings to the Building Department for building permits for the signs. 20. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements, including handicap parking requirements. 21. The facility shall be designed to meet exiting and fire protection requirements as specified by the Uniform Building Code and shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Department. 22. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions to this approval, or revoke this approval upon a finding of failure to comply with the conditions set forth in this approval, the Municipal Code or other applicable conditions and regulations governing the establishment. Further, that if the operation which is the subject of this approval causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 23. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the end of the appeal period, in accordance with Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. srr 40 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 151 East Coast Highway Use Permit No. 3684 A request to permit outdoor dining in conjunction with the operation of an existing full- service restaurant /museum facility. The specific request includes: use of the bow and stern decks for Saturday and Sunday brunch; use of the bow deck adjacent to the Texas room in conjunction with a specified number of annual special events and private parties, and no outdoor music is proposed. Ms. Wood noted that the staff is requesting to continue this matter to May 17th because we received information too late from the applicant for this agenda. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this matter as requested to May 17th. Ayes: - Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: McDaniel, Agajonion i I Yi SUBJECT: Jiffy Lube 1520 West Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3647 On August 9, 1999, the City Council approved Use Permit No. 3647 to permit the establishment of a vehicle service and repair facility specializing in motor oil changes and other minor automotive repair services. A condition of approval required that the project conform to a color and materials palette recommended by the City's design consultant for Mariner's Mile. The applicant requests that the color of the window mullions and garage doors be changed from the taupe color specified to white. At Commission inquiry, staff noted that the windows are smoked or "bronzed' pursuant to the condition. The only ones that are questionable are the ones actually on the roll up doors to the service bays because they are still clear. The windows, mullions and garage doors were ordered in a specific color and can be painted if necessary. If they are required to be painted, then the color can be corrected. Public comment was opened. Christian Fanticola, 45 Auburn, Newport Coast, applicant, presented on exhibit depicting the bronzed windows, window mullions and doors, and thanked the Commission for their consideration. Arthur Bahar, 74 Promontory, architect for the project noted that the windows • and mullions are baked during the manufacturing process and are not 15 INDEX Item No. 3 Use Permit No. 3684 Continued to 05/17/2001 Hem No. 4 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 supposed to peel or Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the request for the change in color of the window mullions and doors to white in Use Permit No. 3647. Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: McDaniel, Agaianian, SUBJECT: Newport Beach Tennis Club - Special Event Permit Newport Beach Champions Tennis Tournament 2601 Eastbluff Drive • SE2001 -029 (Use Permilt No. 3071A) Request to amend Special Event Permit No. SE2001 -029 for the Newport Beach Champions Tennis Tournament, which will be held Wednesday, May 9, 2001 through Sunday, May 13, 2001 at the Newport Beach Tennis Club in Eastbluff. The amendment requests approval to extend the hours for the event with amplified sound and music on Saturday, May 12, 2001 from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Ms. Wood stated that when the applicant met with staff it was understood that the amplified music would be within the facility on Saturday evening. However, this was a miscommunication. Staff has recently learned that the applicant is intending to have the amplified music occur on the center court outside. Since the event is scheduled in the near future, we thought it best to bring this item back to the Planning Commission as quickly as possible. The same notice has been sent to the surrounding homeowners associations for this evening's meeting as was done previously for the original Special Event Permit. Chairperson Selich stated that he had received a phone call from Barry Eaton, president of the Eastbluff Homeowners Association saying that the board had taken a vote and are in favor of this amendment. Public comment was opened. Jeff Leplastirier, Director of the Kinship Foundation, and chairman of this event stated that he is not sure how this confusion happened as it was always their intent that this event happen outside. It is a low -key event and will end at 10:00 p.m. He asked that the Commission approve this request. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to amend the Special Event Permit No. SE2001 -029 to extend to 10:00 p.m. sound amplification on Saturday, 16 INDEX 0 Item No. 5 SE2001 -029 Approved 0 E City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 May 12th. Commissioner Kiser questioned if there was going to be live entertainment as part of this? I thought when we were approving this was public address system outside particularly on the center court to announce matches, players, scores, etc. Conditions 17, 18 and 19 refer to live entertainment and pre - recorded music. Is there going to be live entertainment in addition to the announcement of the matches? Ms. Wood answered that there will be music at least for Saturday evening. Mr. Leplastirier stated that a band will play, the amplifiers will be kept away from the adjacent community, there was always been the intent to have live entertainment and that is where the confusion came in. Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: -None Absent: McDaniel, Agajanian SUBJECT: Nextel Communications (PA2001 -057) • 230 Newport Center Drive • UP2001 -012 A request to construct, operate, and maintain an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility that will exceed the permitted height in the APF District. Commissioner Tucker recused himself from this hearing due to a potential conflict ofinterest. Commissioner Kiser asked for a five minute recess in order to speak to counsel regarding a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Clauson stated that Commisisoner Kiser did not have a conflict and, therefore, did not have to recuse himself from deliberation on this matter. Public comment was opened. Ira Glasky, representing Nextel Wireless of 310 Commerce Drive, Irvine commented that condtiion 3 that limits the uses of the rooftop equipment room should include electronic or radio equipment to better describe the type of equipment that will be in that room. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit No. UP2001- 17 INDEX Item 6 UP2001 -012 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 INDEX 012 (PA2001 -057) with the suggested change by the applicant to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A. Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Recused: Tucker Absent: McDaniel, Agajanian EXHIBIT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. UP2001 -012 Fndinas: 1. The approval of UP2001 -012 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification related to the proposed screening element is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 2. The project site is not in an area to either affect of achieve public view benefits. Therefore, the requirement to make a finding that the project will increase visual open space is not applicable. 3. The 4-foot increase in height results for the screen wall results in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building as the proposed wall screens existing equipment presently visible from adjacent areas and buildings. 4. The increased building height does not result in any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created as the 4-foot increase is located a the top of an existing 46 -foot high building. Additionally, the proposed screen wall is inset approximately 8 feet from the edge of the roof. 5. The increase in floor area can only be used for mechanical equipment and not generate additional traffic or increase in the intensity if the use of the project site. Conditions: I . That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations dated May 3, 2001. 2. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this • 18 • 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 3. The rooftop mechanical room shall be utilized for the housing of mechanical er electrical, electronic or radio equipment only and shall not be used for any other use without an amendment to this Use Permit. 4. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Orange County Council, Boy Scouts of America 1931 W. Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3681 (PA2001 -073) • Negative Declaration A Use Permit for the expansion of the Boy Scouts of America Sea Base facility. The existing Sea Base consists of 9,943 square feet of office space, classrooms, storage, and a duty house that is located on 1.18 acres fronting Newport Harbor. The project involves the demolition of the existing 1,785 square foot duty house and a 490 square foot storage area. The new construction includes a two -story building for an office /classroom sailing building (8,092 sq. ft.) and a two -story rowing building (6,500 sq. ft.). The total building area will be increased from 9,943 square feet to a total of 22,060 square feet. Ms. Garcia made a short presentation about the site and its characteristics through a slide presentation. She noted the following: • Expansion is to include additional classrooms. • Photographs depicting the existing buildings to be remodeled and demolished. Photographs depicting the area where some of the trees are to be removed and replaced with new landscaping per the design criteria for Mariner's Mile. Photographs depicting views from residential above Coast Highway at Kings Road as well as from Kings Road Park. • Several additional photographs taken from the public park showed that there would be a minimum loss of public view when the proposed expansion is completed. Photographs depicting the existing lateral public access easement that will be cleaned up and provide access to the Duffy Boat retail facility to the west of the project. Photographs from Lido Isle from across the bay. At Commissioner inquiry, Ms. Garcia noted that there is about 207 linear feet of open area from the caretaker's residence to the existing classroom building. Of those 207 linear feet of public view to the bay from Coast Highway, approximately 142 linear feet of public view will be maintained when the 19 INDEX Item 7 Use Permit No. 3681 (PA2001 -073) Negative Declaration Continued to 06/07/2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 INDEX project is completed. There will be about a 30% reduction of the public view as you drive along Coast Highway. Staff further explained that the landscape plan was presented to Keenan Smith, the architect working with us as a design consultant. Most of the eucalyptus trees along Coast Highway will be retained and a few palm trees will be added pursuant to the Mariner's Mile Design Framework. Some of the more mature trees closer to the water will have to be removed due to the location of the proposed building. Chairperson Selich asked for clarification for discussion purposes about the zoning on the property. It is Planned Community, so it does not have any zoning regulations, so basically what we are doing tonight is putting the zoning regulations on the property. Is this correct? Ms. Clauson answered that the Planned Community Zoning implies a development regulation and I believe the Commission could determine that this use permit is a form of providing those developments regulations. Ms. Garcia added that It is Planned Community Zoning and there is neither development text nor prior use permit for this property. The Boy Scouts have been occupying this site since the 1940's and it has evolved over time. The County of Orange owns the property and a few building permits have been issued in the past. Additionally, there are two Modification Permits for setback • encroachments; the property was zoned R-4 originally and re -zoned to PC in the 1970's. The Code provides that any development is subject to a use permit in lieu of PC text. Commissioner Kranzley voiced his concern if the Boy Scouts reach an agreement with another entity and we may have an issue of a significantly greater parking and traffic concerns than we have With the use we are approving here. Ms. Garcia answered that the land use designation is GEIF that allows for a listing of Government, Educational and Institutional uses. Included is a condition of approval based on this specific use. Their parking management and approval of this project is contingent upon annual monitoring and implementation of a parking management plan. If another use came in they would be subject to that same condition and have to operate similarly to the Boy Scouts. Ms. Wood added that the use requested in this use permit is the Sea Base. If a different use wished to occupy this site, then a new use permit is needed. The related uses noted in the proposal all need to involve marine education and recreation so they are all similar to the Sea Base use. At Commission inquiry, she then added that the Code provides for any property that is zoned Planned Community but for which there is no Development Plan then any development within that district requires a use permit. The use permit is then specifically what 20 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 was applied for. Chairperson Selich stated that the Commission has more latitude in dealing with this than we do with a normal use permit due to the fact that there are no development regulations on the property. Ms. Clouson added that if the Commission wanted to specifically limit the circulation of the site, elevations, location of the buildings and size and all the information can be provided as part of this use permit because that is basically your development regulations. Commissioner Kiser asked about the building plans that are referred to in the conditions of approval if they were attached. I did not get a set of the plans. Following a brief discussion, it was determined that the building plans were not included in the packets distributed to the Commission. A set of plans was then laid out on the table and used throughout the rest of the meeting for reference. Chairperson Selich asked how decreasing the public view from Coast Highway fits with our General Plan policies and did staff have any discussion with the applicant about taking the building that is parallel to the bay and making it • perpendicular to the bay to increase the view opportunities? Ms. Garcia answered that during discussions with the applicant, they were sensitive to the public view area. They have designed this project to be as close to that and get the circulation as close to the existing building and still maintain a sizeable amount of the 207 linear feet of open view to the bay. Placing the building perpendicular to the bay was never discussed. Chairperson Selich asked about the building constructed on the Orange Coast College site next door. Why are we reviewing this proposal and did not review that one? Ms. Garcia answered that the Orange Coast site was issued by the Office of State Architect and is a school facility exempt from local zoning. The Fire Department and myself reviewed the plans for the roving base, but the Building Department did not. The Orange Coast site was permitted by the General Plan to construct that building. They had a Coastal Permit and we issued an Approval in Concept for the site. Commissioner Tucker referring to page 7 of the staff report asked about the increased AM peak hour trips. He was answered that the future conditions represent an increase of 15 AM peak hour trips. Commissioner Kranzley asked if restrictions could be placed on this application regarding timing of heavy equipment deliveries during construction? He was • answered yes, the Commission can do that. Condition 29 requires a haul route 21 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • May 3, 2001 INDEX and traffic control plan to be approved by the Public Works Department and the Commission could add additional verbiage to make that stricter. Chairperson Selich referring to page 7 of the Negative Declaration asked about a), c) and d) under Geology and Soils. Is there something unique about this site that it is potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated? I have noticed that other projects on the bayfront that came before us did not have that done on a negative declaration. Cheryl Hodge of Hodge and Associates, consultant for the City and author of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration answered. She stated that the State Division of Mines and Geology seem to have a concern when projects come to them for review, specifically CEQA documents, where the site happens to be in an area that might be subject to liquefaction. Typically what they will do is submit a letter because that item is not checked. It is not that this site is more unique than the site next door or across the bay, they just want to see that it is acknowledged that it is in an area that is more susceptible to liquefaction in case of a significant earthquake. In this particular case the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to evaluate the project. If a project was exempt, it would not necessarily trigger that as the project is still subject to standard conditions of approval that would address those issues. The mitigation measures are typically standard conditions of approval; it just acknowledges what is being done. • Public comment was opened. David Janes, 121 Harbor Island Road spoke as the chairman of the Sea Base governing committee. He noted the following: • Scout base has been in operation for 60 years. Land was originally donated by The Irvine Company to make a Sea Base. County has increased the lease for another 30 years starting in the year 2006 to accommodate this project and allow time to raise money for this project. • A lot of support from the community. • Base has been used by many citizens for marine activities and is open to everybody as a public facility. • The base is primarily used by organized youth groups and adults for educational uses. • Maritime opportunities are provided to youngsters at low costs. The base is used during the winter period and the summer period. During a peak period there might be as many as 300 youngsters on the base at any given time. The base is primarily a day use facility where the youngsters are dropped off. There is no parking crunch. The base is very popular and there is continued demand for the use of the base. • Currently, there is not enough area to store the boats. 22 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 There is a model for you to see how the buildings are going to be laid out, the color scheme, how the architecture will conform to the plan for Mariner's Mile. • To solve a fundamental problem we have on the flow of traffic, we can not put a building perpendicular to the bay as suggested. We are removing one of the buildings to provide a new driveway to permit circular flow through the property and to create on the property a place for cars to park while they are dropping off children. • We need that expansive area for the drop off area and to contain the two driveways. The visibility from the highway will be reduced about 30% but when you go up above, the bay will not be obscured for the people up on Kings Road. The public park will also give an excellent view from that elevation. • One or two of the property owners across the street will have a diminished view of the bay. To optimize the use for the people of Orange County, we are going to have to expand that building and take up some of the view. We are sensitive to that and we have left a green area for people to use our picnic tables and admire the bay. The roofs are clean and will not obstruct views. We are proud of what we are going to accomplish on the bay with a is better facility for the youth of Orange County. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Janes added that a total of 4.8 million dollars is needed for this project. The first phase will be the construction of the driveway, the improvement of the flow of traffic and construction of the two new buildings. The last phase will be the remodel of the existing building for storage and classrooms and adding an elevator. The fund raising will be completed by September or October of this year. The school use of the base is through a program in conjunction with the Sheriff's Department primarily in northern Orange County. The students are brought down to the base and then exposed to water activities. The Sheriffs Department will identify a number of youngsters who are high risk who are given a maritime experience. There is another type of program where other youngsters are brought down to the base and given classroom experiences. There may be other areas that the Sea Base has not currently identified to expose more youngsters to the program. Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern about adding uses that may be more impactful to trip generation. How do you think we can frame this to fit within the guidelines you are talking about but not expand the current trip generation? Mr. Janes answered that he appreciates and understands the concerns. The traffic analysis and study that have been done by Pirzadeh Associates and the City Traffic Engineer, delineates what we would have to do to mitigate that problem. It is in everybody's best interest to have the maximum use of facilities . and provide that to the greater number of citizens. Where do we put all those 23 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . May 3, 2001 INDEX people and how do we park? We would envision that we would have to schedule the use of classrooms, timing and provide off- street parking and busing to the facilities and restrict the activities we do so that we would be within the parking capabilities of the base. Currently, the zoning does not require a specific number of parking stalls, we have 34. As part of what we are doing, we are increasing that to 40. That handles what we are doing currently because we already stagger the use of the base. Commissioner Tucker noted that he does not know what the facility will look like since no elevations were provided to the Commission. He also noted that there is a condition that talks about the maintenance of landscaping, is there anybody assigned to do that task since the existing landscapint it poorly maintained? Mr. Janes answered that most of the work is done by volunteers. We hove in addition to the volunteers and scouts in the maintenance of the property, we have also used people who have been provided to us by the Sheriff's Department on various types of court orders. In our new structure, there is a requirement for landscaping on the Mariner's Mile that we will conform to and there is a need to provide a landscaping plan that is consistent with the strategic vision for the Mariner's Mile. Commissioner Tucker asked how the existing building is being tied into the new • building to have similar architectural elements? Are you planning on doing anything with the exterior of the existing builidng? Mr. Janes referred to the materials board accompanying the model for a feel of the type of siding. The two buildings wili be tied together with a walkway and deck at the second level. The some paint will then be applied to both buildings to get a pleasing architectural appearance. There is no change planned for the building exterior on Coast Highway. Chairperson Selich asked if there was any functional reason why the building has to be sited parallel to the bay. Mr. Janes answered that the docks are laid out where all the sailing instructions are done at that end of the base. We have planned to construct a rowing and sailing building that will have an area in front of it to be used as a staging area to bring out the sails, rowing shells, etc. That means we have to keep that end of the base open, which has restricted what could be placed there. In taking into consideration the need for the driveway, we ended up with the current configuration. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston stated that the City does not have a minimum requirement between two driveway openings, however. CalTrans does require about 30 feet minimum. Mr. Janes added there is a practical requirement in terms of buses coming in • 24 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes 6Anv 4 onn7 and the space needed. The drop off area has to do with the width of expanse required for the cars to pull through and not stack up and another place for cars to pull up and drop off. At Commission inquiry, staff added that 142 feet is the distance between the two major buildings, that open space did not include the 32 feet between the two. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Janes added that they had anticipated at one time providing a tank for scuba diving training and have subsequently decided that is not a compatible use for the facility and that area is to be eliminated. The two tanks will be eliminated that are shown on the plans. Referencing the model, Commissioner Gifford asked if the elimination of the two tanks as shown on the plans and model would provide an opportunity to expand the building closest to the west side of the property. Mr. Mike Whitehead, 383 Rochester, Costa Mesa stated his support of the project. Scot Brownell, architect spoke representing his father who owns the property across the street from the Sea Scout Base. He noted the following: • Supports the activities at the Sea Scout Base. The Mariners Mile Plan tries to preserve views from Coast Highway, not just from the bluff above. The proposed view angle is more than a 3017a loss than is being represented. • To double the square footage on site and add only 6 parking spaces, seems to be out of balance. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the use and is a great use for the bay. His concerns are for a quality project. It is a big parcel of property for the Mariner's Mile area, so it is particularly important that it be nicely done. He is concerned with the view blockage as well as what the back of the new building along the bay will look like. Continuing, he noted that the north elevations need to be looked at. It would be nice to have the footprint moved over slightly and perhaps save a few more feet of view, but if it needs to be there so be it. I think it is important that the north side of the building be further articulated. Commissioner Gifford noted that the program is a great one. She noted the following issues with the proposed project: Amount of public view that is being impaired. Based on the policies within the City, we need to preserve the visual access to the bay. Would like to see a tightening up of the way the buildings are laid out. We do not want to wall off the bay. 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes _. • May 3, 2001 INDEX Perhaps the former diving tanks area could be used to move the building over so that all the open space is in one section. Perhaps some type of re- design. • More detail is needed to see how the project will look exactly. The view from Coast Highway is very important. The whole Commission needs an opportunity to vote on this matter as it deals with an important matter of implementing our discretion to exercise some direction that is in our policy involving public property. • Suggested that this matter be continued. Commissioner Kiser agreed with the previous comments adding that the galvanized roofs might be significant and could be problematic. The public view from Coast Highway is probably the key issue as far as siting. It does not necessarily mean a change in what has been proposed, but we need a chance to evaluate this proposal carefully before we go further. Commissioner Kranzley agreed with all the previous comments. Chairperson Selich asked the applicant about a continuance for the full Commission to vote. In the meantime, the applicant could address some of the items suggested. The Commission would be looking for a study of the new side of the building facing Coast Highway for more articulation and architectural interest; also, look at improving the public views from Coast Highway maybe by re- siting the buildings. • Mr. Janes answered that it sounds reasonable. He stated that the intent is to start this project in September to complete the project by May of next year. To the degree that the Commission would be helpful in moving this forward, we certainly will look at those two things. Our initial meeting with staff was over a year ago. In the meantime, we have done a traffic study and negative declaration. We think that the monies identified for the project is about the maximum we are going to be able to raise and we hope to bring the project in at that cost. He asked when this item would be heard next. Following a brief discussion it was decided to continue this item to June 7th. Staff added that the applicant has to get Coastal Commission approval after the City approves it. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to June 71h. Chairperson Selich noted that he is in support of this project but feels that the two issues noted need to be explored. Ayes: Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: McDaniel, Agajanian ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business • 26 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 2001 a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the last meeting of April 24th, the Council expressed concern about the Development Plan Review Regulations and whether the Planning Commission is becoming too policy oriented, but it was agreed to have a joint study session to discuss this as it would be helpful. The Rex Brandt Trust project was finally approved and Council approved a request for proposals for Senior Affordable Housing projects that will be going out for distribution tomorrow. The Coastal Bluffs Overlay was referred back to the Commission to explore objective criteria. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - The next focus of the group is to provide input into the General Plan Committee's work primarily in the area of economic and fiscal studies being done. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. • e.) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - The committee approved a request for qualifications for the consultant to actually do the update. f.) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Mrs. Genia Garcia is leaving the City for a new position in Dana Point as Senior Planner. The Commission thanked her for all her hard work. g.) Project status - none. h.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford asked to be excused June Th. ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 P.M. STEVEN KISER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 27 INDEX Adjournment