Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/1999CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzleyand Hoglund Commissioner Hoglund was excused STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood - Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple- Planning Director Robert Burnham- City Attorneywas presentfor Item No.4 Robin Clauson, - Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston - Transportation and Development Services Manager Janet Johnson- Planning Department Assistant Marc Myers - Associate Planner Minutes of Study Session and Reaular Meetina of April 22,1999: Motion was made by Chairperson Selich, and voted on, to continue the Study Session Minutes to the next meeting, and to approve the minutes of the regular meeting. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich Noes: None Absent: Hoglund Abstain: Gifford, Kranzley, Fuller Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Hoglund Abstain: Fuller Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: . The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, April 30, 1999 INDEX Minutes Continue Study Session Approved Regular Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 3007 East Coast Highway • Modification No. 4879 Request to permit the installation of a roof sign on a new parapet wall where the Code limits roof signs to business locations that preclude the effective use of a pole sign, ground sign or projecting sign. Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has asked that this item be continued to the next meeting on May 20th as he is out of town on business. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to May 20th. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford and Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Hoglund Abstain: None *x* SUBJECT: Albertson's, Inc. (Mark Steinman, applicant) • 3049 East Coast Highway • UsePerm#No.3650 • Off -Site Parking Agreement Request to permit a remodel and construction of a storage mezzanine within an existing retail grocery store building. The application also includes a waiver of off - street parking requirements with the acceptance of an off-site parking agreement. Commissioner Tucker recused himself from this matter. Associate PlannerMyers presented the staff report noting the following: • The remodel includes construction of a 1,673 square foot second floor storage mezzanine in the rear of the building. • The storage mezzanine will increase the storage capacity of the store and thereby reduce the numberof truck deliveriesto the store. • The storage mezzanine addition should not increase parking demand for the facility since there is no increase in retail floor area or additional employees. • The proposed warehouse addition is considered retail floor area by the Code, therefor nine additional parking spaces are required. • Since the parking cannot be accommodated on -site, the applicant is requesting a waiver of parking with the acceptance of an off -site parking • agreement. ^ INDEX Item No. 1 Modification No. 4879 Continued to May 20th Item No. 2 UP No. 3650 Off -Site Parking Agreement City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 The Albertson's building and the adjacent commercial building are on separate parcels but currently operate as a single building site. The off -site parking agreement will ensure that the subject property maintains access to off - street parking. Public comment was opened. Mark Steinman, Albertson's. Inc., 1180 West Lambert Road, Brea representing the applicant noted the additional information: Albertson's leases the property. The last remodel was eleven years ago. Referencing exhibits on the wall, he noted the proposed remodeled facade and the proposed interior remodel. Mr. Steve Ceck, District Manager of the Corona del Mar store stated that the truck deliveries of twelve big trucks per week should be reduced by three deliveries per week. The additional storage area for 80/20 items (smaller items that sell the most) deliveries should go down by two or three a week per vendor. Fourteen employees staff the store at any given time. No additional employees will be added to support the mezzanine. The mezzanine will not • cause an increase in the building elevation. The deliveries are early in the morning until 11 a.m. and then between 6 and 9 p.m. (big trucks). There are two types of delivery, from the independent vendors and from the Albertson's warehouse. Chairperson Selich asked the applicant if employee parking on Bayside Drive through permit system from the City would be viable. Following a brief discussion, they agreed that could be a consideration. Ms. Temple noted that in the Bayside Drive parking lot, there are a total of 51 parking spaces. Twenty -eight of those are blue pole meters and twenty -three are silver pole meters. The blue pole meter spaces could be used with the blue meter parking permit, which costs $100 per year. The silver pole requires the Master Permit that is $400 per year. That lot is used by the Corona del Mar Fanners Market every Saturday and is utilized by area residents in the evenings after six. Kimberly Cole, 410 Iris Avenue noted that there is less parking on Iris than other streets. There is parking demand from the Farmer's Market and Blockbuster's. There are additional restrictions for street sweeping. Parking is definitelyan issue that needs to be addressed by the Planning Commission. She asked how long the construction will take and how many additional workers will be brought into the neighborhood to perform the construction? . Mr. Edmonston stated that parking in Corona del Mar is a common issue, as 3 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 most of the businesses there do not have adequate parking resulting in negative parking on all residential streets. The area south of Coast Highway and the ocean fall within the Coastal Zone, and the Coastal Commission has tended not to approve programs that restrict public parking. The City continues to seek solutions to the problem. Appearing in opposition to the proposed project: Virginia Cole, 410 Iris Avenue noted similar parking frustrations as noted by previous speakers. Keith Dean, 403 Iris Avenue noted lack of parking spaces, truck routes and parking waiver. Susan Clark Dean, 403 Iris stated that she has called Albertson's many times over the past eight years regarding trucks on the streets and the parking. Referencing her letter that was distributed to the Planning Commission, noted several possible solutions to the problems such as moving the loading bay. Commissioner Kranzley asked if there was a current Use Permit on this property and was answered yes, and that it was issued in 1965. There are no restrictions • regarding delivery and it has only one condition, which requires the parking lot configuration to be reviewed by the City Engineer. Eric Parker, 400 1/2 Iris Avenue, noted that the trucks have arrived as early as 5:30 a.m. and some leave as late as 11:30 p.m. He noted similar concerns of opposition as noted above. Janet Rappaport, 400 1/2 Iris, asked if the design of the truck route is to be changed. She noted similar opposition comments as stated. In conclusion, she asked that the Planning Commission consider the neighborhood and find a way to get the truck route out onto Coast Highway. Speaking in support of the proposed project: Val Skoro, 1601 Bayadere Terrace, Chairman of Corona del Mar Residents Association asked that the parking and delivery truck concerns be mitigated. Additionally, the remodel of the store will be a real benefit to the community. He asked for additional landscaping to be provided and if trees could be placed along Jasmine and Pacific Coast Highway as a beautification factor for the whole City. Chairperson Selich asked staff of possible limitations to use the municipal parking lots for the Albertson'semployees. • Mr. Edmonston stated that residents park there in the evenings and on INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 weekends when they con and restaurant patrons park there as well. During the weekday, the lot is fairly empty. In response to further questions, Mr. Edmonston noted that trucks entering from Jasmine would not be viable because the trucks need room to maneuver to the docking bay and would therefore block the public street. Mr. Stein answered the three questions resulting from public comment: 1. How long is the construction going to take? The construction on this project is anticipated to be 27 to 30 weeks. They have hired a specific contractor to do this work. The rear dock will be taken care of first, then the outside and inside will be worked on simultaneously. 2. How many workers will be on the job? The amount will vary. The contractor has been told he must find an off -site storage yard so that all the materials to be used for the construction will be stored away from the neighborhood. They will be brought in once a day to the construction site. Some days there could be ten workers depending on the activity underway at that time. They are to carpool from that remote storage yard as much as possible to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. • 3. Truck routes? Albertson's distribution staff has discussed alternatives that could be made. The problems they note are the street widths, parking on the streets and the size of the trucks. The trucks have to come in off Coast Highway, to the relocated dock. They will back into the dock and exit straight out thru the drive aisle. They can not turn right onto Iris to go to Coast Highway because the street is not wide enough. The trucks will continue to exit left on Iris down to Boyside and then on Marguerite back to Coast Highway. �J At Commission inquiry, Mr. Steinman stated that they would provide for the fourteen employees parking in the Municipal lot. Regarding the landscaping, he noted that Jasmine trees and flowers would be planted. He will provide additional landscaping on Iris and Coast Highway as requested. He agreed to working with staff to come up with a landscape plan on all three sides, Coast Highway, Jasmine and First Avenue. The outdoor sales and displays of merchandise by the front door will be eliminated because of the proposed architecture design. The coke vending machines facing the parking lot will be screened. The signs will be as shown on the plans. The existing off -site pole Albertson's sign on the next parcel will have new inserts and will be lowered. Mr. Ceck stated that he can speak for the trucks from Albertson's and will restrict them to delivery between from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p. m. He noted that most of the delivery trucks the neighbors are concerned with are the vendor trucks. 5 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 Commissioner Fuller asked if a chain could be placed across the truck well to enforce the delivery schedule. Mr. Ceck stated that in addition to the placement of the chain, he would instruct his people to not open the receiving doors. He also agreed that the employee parking after peak hours would be on site. Ms. Temple, noting the Commission's concerns of employee parking, stated that a condition could be crafted where Albertson's could come up with some type of program where they are required to park on site whenever the parking is available. If something is going on in the neighborhood and the lot is full, the employees are going to have to park some where. The employees may park on the streets rather than the patrons of the market. She suggested the following additional condition: 'The owner of the market shall provide blue meter parking permits to all employees and renew them on an annual basis. The permit shall be provided at no cost to the employees. The employees shall be directed to park in the City parking lot on Bayside Drive at Marguerite at all times space is available in the parking lot" Public commentwas closed. . At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted the following: • Terms of external affects of employee parking on site may result in patrons leaving carts in the neighborhood, although the neighborhood may prefer cars that come and go at varying time intervals. The parking lot will not be reconfigured as it may result in a loss of additional parking spaces. • The proposed project characteristics parking table includes the parking requirementsof all businessesin the lot. Commissioner Kranzley noted his support of the use of the City parking lot. However, the verbiage of 'When available", may be problematic. He suggested amending the condition to say that the employees have to either park on the street or on site. There should be remote areas that could be designated for Albertson's employees on site. Commissioner Fuller asked about the parking agreement, does the underlying owner have to agree as well and do we know if that has been done. Assistant City Attorney answered yes, that the owner has to agree to the parking agreement. Staff affirmed that the owner has been apprised of the parking agreement and that he also agrees to it. Commissioner Kranzley noted that Albertson's employees should not be in the Municipal parking lots after 7:00 p.m. The employees need to park on site in order to free the spaces for parking use by other business patrons in the INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 neighborhood as well as the residents. Commissioner Gifford stated her concern with allowing a business to utilize a Municipal parking lot for its employees. By having the requirement that the employees park on site at all times, the Planning Commission would address a real concern of the neighbors. The conditions that have been agreed to in terms of the trucks would solve some of the other problems. Chairperson Selich noted that this is a way to use an under utilized parking lot. It provides a better utilization of the total parking in the area whether public or private. By parking in the lot, it frees the parking in the residential area. The only reason the applicant is here for this Use Permit is to seek a waiver for the extra storage mezzanine space. They could go ahead and do the remodel plans and not do the mezzanine. Their willingness to do a lot of other things shows they are willing to cooperate and work with the City. With the use of the City parking lots, it's a way to get the parking off the street. The back lot by Rite Aid usually has spaces available, but the first lot is generallyfilled up. Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson stated that to the extent that the employees agree to park on site according to their current lease, they are not allowed to have the employee parking on site. This approval is for the • mezzanine that requires the waiver of nine parking spaces. There is a connection that the Planning Commission could make. The Planning Commission could condition that the applicant would have all employees park on site. Motion was made by CommissionerGifford to approve Use Permit No. 3650 with the requirement for an Off -site parking agreement with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A plus the additional conditions relating to: • Requirementfor employee parking permits • Landscapingplan • Signs will be as depicted on the plans submitted with this application and that the existing pole sign on site shall be lowered to a monument sign. • Clarification of employees parking on site after 7:00 p.m. • Chain across the service bay • Prohibition of outdoor display and sale of merchandise • Screening of coke machines • Street trees • Delivery hours 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford and Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Hoglund Abstain: Tucker 9 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3650 Findings: 1. The property is designated for "Retail and Service Commercial' use by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed use is consistentwith that designation. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3650 and the Off -Site Parking Agreement 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 is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code the following reasons: • The project is consistentwith the guidelines and intent of the FAR INDEX provisions of the Municipal Code. • The off -site parking area is so located as to be useful in connection with the supermarket use since the lots are contiguous. • Use of the off -site parking lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. • The two parcels are in common ownership. • The suggested conditions of approval should limit potential noise and light spillage and glare concerns associated with the supermarket operation. • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of propertywithin the proposed development. • The proposed addition is a second floor area for the storage of sales products only which will not generate an increase in traffic or parking demand. • There is no increase in retail floor area. • No new employees will be added as a result of the addition. • The proposed addition will not eliminate any of the parking spaces currently provided on site. . • With the new truck well location adjacent to the rear of the INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 building, no parking stalls will be required to be vacant when a truck makes a delivery because the maneuvering will now occur in the drive aisles. The new enclosed trash compactor bin will reduce the frequency of pick -ups for trash truck served garbage bins. Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the entire shopping centerfacility. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The retail grocery store facility operation shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., daily. Any increase in the hours of the facility shall require an amendment to the use permit. 3. A covenant to hold the two existing parcels that comprise the subject property into one building site shall be approved and recorded prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the project, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Department. 4. Seventy -five (75) parking spaces shall be provided in the off -site parking lot location to serve the proposed operation of the facility. 5. The parking lot shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 6. The owner or owners and the City shall execute a written instrument or instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, providing for the maintenance of the required off - street parking on the contiguous lot commonly referred to and addressed 3007 -3027 East Coast Highway for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the subject site. Should a change in use or additional use be proposed, the off - street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instrument shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk and copies thereafter filed with the Planning Department. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of nearby properties and public streets within view of the equipment, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 8. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container . enclosure. .lam City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 9. Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 840 7.00a.m., daily, unless otherwise approved by an amendmentto this Use Permit. 10. The operator of the grocery store use shall be responsible for the clean- up of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use. 11. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure, or a container otherwise screened from view of adjoining properties and streets except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and the top shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 12. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors which may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. • 13. The area outside of the establishment, including the parking lot and the public sidewalks, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner and may be subject to periodic steam cleaning of the public sidewalks as required by the Public Works Department. 14. The project shall be limited to a maximum of 19,842 gross square feet. Any increase beyond that approved shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit or an application for a use permit approved by the Planning Commission, if required. 15. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent properties or uses, including minimizing the number of light sources. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. • 16. Intersections of West Coast Highway and the private drive shall be 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 designed to provide sight distance in accordance with Standard 110 - L. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 17. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements 18. The owner of the market shall provide blue meter parking permits to all employees and renew them on an annual basis. The permit shall be provided at no cost to the employees. The employees shall be directed to park in the City parking lot on Bayside Drive at Marguerite at all times space Is available in the parking lot. After 7.00 p.m., the employees shall park on site. 19. Wall Signs shall be limited in size and location as depicted on the plans submitted with this application and the existing pole sign on site shall be lowered to a monument sign in compliance with sight • distance requirements and as approved by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 20. Outdoor display and sale of merchandise is prohibited. 21. The four existing coke machines that face the parking lot shaft be screened on three sides with a solid enclosure consistent with the exterior fagade of the supermarket building and approved by the Planning Department. 22. A comprehensive landscape plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall include landscape proposal around the perimeter of the building by East Coast Highway, Jasmine Avenue and First Avenue. The plan shall include street trees, vines and ground cover to soften the mass of the building walls. The plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Public Works, General Services and Planning Departments. The approved landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the required plan and shall be permanently maintained in a clean and orderly fashion. Prior to Building Permit final, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm compliance with approved landscape plan. 23. During hours not available for delivery, the service bay shag be chained. • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 Standard City Requirements: The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the condition of approval. 2. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter20.67 of the Municipal Code. 3. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements, including handicap parking requirements. 4. 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. 5. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems of both sites be subject to furtherreview by the Traffic Engineer. • 6. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. The operator of the supermarket facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Upon evidence that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise standards established by Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code, the Planning Director may require that the applicant or successor retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the project and to develop a set of corrective measures necessary in order to insure compliance. 8. A washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 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 Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. • 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 10. 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. SUBJECT: Beffingen Residence (Bill Edwards, Architect) 2215 Pacific Drive • Variance No. 1228 • ModificaHonNo.4908 Request to approve a variance to permit alterations and additions to an existing non - conforming single family dwelling (due to height and parking) that will exceed the height limit in the 24/28 foot Height Limitation Zone by approximately 18 feet and exceed the maximum allowable floor area limit on property located in the R -1 District. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to allow a second floor bay window to encroach into the required side yard setback area and the roof eaves to encroach within 1 foot of the side property lines. • Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has asked that this item be continued to the next meeting on May 20th. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to May 20th. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford and Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Hoglund xsx SUBJECT: Traffic Phasing Ordinance • Amendment No. 864 Proposed amendments to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, to provide that circulation system improvements required for a development are roughly proportional to that project's impact, to allow the City Council to exempt from improvements intersections that meet criteria established in the ordinance, and to establish a threshold for traffic impacts that require circulation system improvements. Following a five minute recess, Chairperson Selich read the following procedures to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance Hearing: • 13 INDEX Item No. 3 Variance No. 1228 Modification No. 4908 Item No. 4 A No. 864 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 1. The staff will present their report, which answers questions that were asked at the last meeting by the public and commissioners and present the major issues for Planning Commission discussion. Questions by the Planning Commission to staff will follow. 2. The City Attorney will address the changes made by the City Attorney's office to the proposed ordinance. Questions by the Planning Commission will follow. 3. The public hearing will be opened. The two main interest groups that participated in the City Council appointed TPO Working Group, SPON and BIA will be allowed to testify first. Since these two groups have spent over a year on this effort the 3- minute time limit on their testimony will be waived. Both groups have agreed to a format whereby a representative of each group will address 19 issues, on which there is disagreement. Each side will alternate in presenting their testimony on each issue, with SPON testifying first on issue No. 1. 4. After SPON and BIA complete their testimony the representatives of EDC and EQAC will be invited to present their testimony, subject to the 3- minute time limit. • 5. Then the hearing will be opened to the general public with testimony limited to the 3- minute time limit. It is requested that the testimony not be repetitive of previous speakers. If you have no new information to present you may simply state that you agree with a previous speaker. b. After the general public testimony is complete, BIA and SPON will be invited to make a 3- minute or less summary of their position. 7. The public hearing will be closed. Planning Commission discussion and further questions of staff will then commence. The Commission will then have the opportunity to poll a straw vote on the 19 SPON /BIA issues, or any new issue that comes about as a result of the evening proceedings or an issue that a Commissioner raises. 8. The Commission may or may not take a final vote on the ordinance tonight, depending on the length of the testimony and information or questions that arise tonight. If, at 11:00, it appears that the Commission Mil not complete its work this evening the Commission may decide to continue it over to the next regular meeting. Ms. Temple presented the staff report and noted that at the last hearing on this issue, a number of questions were asked of staff and that information has been prepared and delivered in the staff report. She then proceeded to highlight some key questions: • 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 1. Traffic modeling - time frames and cost 2. City's ability to identify feasible improvements at all intersections of the City of Newport Beach which could achieve Level of Service D. 3. There may not be available improvements at each and every intersection from a realistic point of view. Some intersections are constrained by right - of -way issues and might only be able to achieve Level of Service (LOS) D upon construction of a separated intersection similar to what is found at Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard. 4. Information related to Traffic Model includes an accounting for the toll road and its capacity as well as changes to the circulation patterns that have resulted from it. The Traffic Model is updated every four or five years with the cost of between $20,000 to $30,000. 5. The Traffic Model can be annually updated, however, the model does not isolate the City from the rest of the County and part of the Traffic Model update process involves updating all of the land use database in the City of Newport Beach and for all the surrounding communities. 6. The Banning Ranch project is accounted for in the Traffic Model and is a larger project than that which is under consideration at this time. 7. Key issue areas upon which decisions need to be made by the Planning Commission before it makes its recommendations to the City Council are listed in the report as items 1 thru 9. These present the most central of the • issues to be resolved including the issue of exempt intersections; rounding /significance threshold; override vote; General Plan update possibility; Airport Area level of service; traffic study requirement; development agreements and security and accounting for TPO fees. A further expansion of this issue area list has been developed and is at your desk and lists the 19 decision points referred to earlier. City Attorney, Bob Burnham presented the legal issues changes: 1. Section 15.40.075 is intended to address the need to establish a 'tough proportionality' between project conditions and project impacts. We have tried to limit the extent to which the 'tough proportionality' test would be applied to those cases where a General Plan amendment is not involved; those cases where a Zoning Amendment is not involved, and where the City would have the authority to impose fees or conditions in excess of those that are roughly proportional because of other authority the City might have. 2. The concept of exempt intersections has been added to deal with the potentially significant risk of inverse condemnation litigation that could arise if the project is denied because did not want to improve an intersection that would function better than LOS D if General Plan improvements were made to that intersection. • 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 He introduced Mr. Phil Kohn, City Attorney of Laguna Beach (in the audience) who is an acknowledged expert in inverse condemnation litigation. He has evaluated the TPO and has been presented with certain hypothetical fact situations that could occur in the future and he concurs that there is a significant risk of litigation under those circumstances. He is available to respond to questions. Also proposed is a provision to create an annexation exemption. If there was a project outside the City that the City Council would like to annex to the City, that section establishes a certain level of certainty as to how the TPO would apply to the project. Basically it would not apply to the project if approved by another jurisdiction and then annexed to the City unless the project proponents proposed an intensification of the project that would increase trips by 300 ADT or more. In the last few days, we have met with representatives from SPON and the BIA to discuss ways to narrow the differences of opinion over certain issues and as an outgrowth of those discussions, there were five additional changes proposed to the Ordinance as outlined in the staff report. Responses to questions: • Commissioner Tucker: Q. The project will neither cause nor make worse an Unsatisfactory Level of Traffic Service at any Critical Intersection. - regarding standard of approval, if an intersection is performing at Level of Service C and trips are added to it but does not cause nor make worse an Unsatisfactory Level of Service is a contribution to an improvement required? A. Not unless the trips cause it to go to LOS D or worse. Q. You can have a series of developments that cause the intersection to degrade until it hits the point of D or worst, that series of projects would be exempt from the requirements of the TPO? A. They would not have any mitigation obligations pursuant to the TPO. Q. How is a feasible improvement determined? If an improvement is on the circulation element but Council rejects it, is that no longer a feasible improvement? A. As long as it is in the Circulation Element, the fact that the City Council chose at a particular point in time not to implement that particular improvement, would not change its feasibility. The definition is intended to allow for changes in the Circulation Element concurrently with approval of the project and identification of the feasible improvement as part of that process. This definition has been in the Ordinance for thirteen years. • 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 Q. Page 3, Paragraph c (i) does this have to do with those types of improvements where the proportionality rule would apply? The time and /or funding to complete is not roughly proportional to the impacts of project generated trips - are those specific identified improvements? A. They are identified in the course of the Traffic Study. Those improvements were necessary so that the project will not cause or make worst an unsatisfactory level of service. Commissioner Ashley: Q. How is money appropriated, what triggers fees and by what proportion? A. Mr. Edmonston noted the following. Identified for a number of intersections is a long range need for improvements. As time passes and the Traffic Model is updated to reflect the most current conditions those intersections change, and there is not always an immediate estimate of the new improvements that might be needed. There are some intersections where we have not identified improvements because of the scope needed in terms of the amount of right -of -way, etc. For example, in the airport area that we have not attempted to identify what it would take in terms of the improvement(s) and /or costs. We have made the reasonably doable improvements at many of the intersections in the past and the ones that are yet to be costed, typically are the ones that require considerable right -of -way • acquisition. There are two levels of fees. The one not in discussion tonight is the Fair Share Fee which every development pays and is intended to help build out the circulation system as we have identified it needs to be further constructed. The fee in conjunction with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), has to do with the timing of identified improvements or, to the extent that through a traffic study an additional improvement is identified, the implementation of new improvements. Everybody from a single family dwelling on up pays a Fair Share fee. The additional TPO fee would really be a function of additional improvements or improvements that are needed perhaps sooner that are identified through the short-term traffic analysis. City Attorney Burnham noted that the TPO is geared towards the actual construction of improvements as conditions to project approval than it is to impose fees to fund construction of improvements. Commissioner Kranzley: Q. If the City Council has exempted Riverside and Coast Highway, and a development is built near that intersection, but two years later a new City Council decides they are going to widen Coast Highway. Have we collected TPO fees from that development? What happens there? A. If the intersection is declared exempt by the City Council it is not subject to • 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 fee related to the TPO. The Fair Share Ordinance would collect that project's fair share towards the unfunded cost to the Circulation Element improvements. Commissioner Gifford: Q. As I understand the response regarding monies, the improvement of the condition would cost money and the last person who tripped the LOS would pay the monies? A. Yes. Commissioner Tucker: Q. There is a definition and references to exempt intersections, but there is no section on exempt intersections. Why? A. Because it is in the Finding Section, that is the operational part of the Ordinance. Q. Any procedure for reversing exemptions? • A. If the Council were to decide it wanted to make the circulation improvement, that would eliminate one of the criteria and the intersection would not remain an exempt intersection. Commissioner Fuller: Q. Inverse condemnation - There is agreement that a public agency will be liable in inverse if it adopts regulations that constitute a physical invasion or deprive the owner of all beneficial use of property. The issue of ripeness, is it difficult to prove? A. (by Mr. Kohn and Mr. Burnham) It is not difficult to prove. It is difficult to get to that stage where the court believes you have fulfilled the requirement. They want to make sure that whatever determination or regulation one may be challenging is final, official, conclusive and there are no other options available and all the remedies have been exhausted. A number of cases on the books have found just how many repeated applications you need to make before you can make a complaint that your efforts to make use of the property have been frustrated. It is a hurdle that many courts have established to avoid addressing these claims on their merits. You would have to file, as a property owner, at least one development application and pursue that application through all of the administrative remedies. A potential hurdle of a property owner would be whether that improvement was going to be made or not. At least, in the current situation, it would be • fairly easy for the property owner to establish that fact. In order for a project 18 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 to be exempt from the TPO under the ADT threshold, it would be at about a .10 FAR as opposed to a .50. Anything above that, assuming that project did trip the TPO, would carry the same mitigation requirement as a larger project. There is no differential if the impact is a little bit or a lot long as you cause or make worse that unsatisfactory level of service. Q. Is there a legal problem to ask that developer to pay a fee that is equal to what they would have paid had the exempt intersection improvement been made? A. Potentially, you would have the ability to impose that fee in conjunction with a zone change, a general plan amendment or a development agreement. But if that property owner was able to avoid all of those, we would have a great difficulty imposing a fee because there would be no statutory basis. We could possibly impose it under CEQA as well. There is a requirement that city's use development fees within a given period of time. If the funds are not used for that specified purpose within 3 to 5 years, then you have to give the money back. Q. If the ICU increases beyond LOS D at an exempt intersection, is the only alternative to down -zone the property that increased that density to make . sure that the condition wasn't worsened? A. Mr. Kohn answered that the problematic nature of the ordinance, as presently written is the City is put in a position of being forced to deny a project because of the impacts it will create, notwithstanding the fact that the General Plan has specified improvements, presumably has expressed a willingness to implement them, but the City does not act to implement them. At the same time the applicant is willing to either contribute its fair share towards the cost of constructing those improvements or perhaps constructing new improvements themselves, but yet the City says the only option is to deny this application and to force the applicant to come back with something less than otherwise would be permitted, through no fault or wrong doing on the part of the property owner. Because of the perceived difficulty in approving a project because of the constraints imposed by the TPO, it is felt the only recourse is to in terms, down zone the property to avoid the harsh results that the TPO as it exists now, would cause, you would not escape the problem. You have not eliminated the potential of legal vulnerability of the City's position. The potential for the TPO to create liability for inverse condemnation, or a taking of property, is not as clear as the issue of proportionality and there is considerable disagreement on the subject among lawyers who practice in that area. The California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have ruled that regulations may constitute a taking depending on numerous factors. When you see a negative treatment in order to protect against a particular harm that should be born by the • public generally, in this case, down zoning one parcel to minimize congestion 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 at an intersection which according to the Circulation Element should be uncongested to begin with. Public comment was opened. Issue No. 1 - General Plan Update Claudia Owen - SPON representative: • Optimum approach for the Traffic Phasing and responsible development in the City would be a thorough and complete study and update of the General Plan. • Address the existing TPO to resolve legal and operational problems. The TPO would be in good perspective and could then wait for a new General Plan. • An updated General Plan would have us all come to grips with what we want Newport Beach to be. We want streets to be free of congestion but to do that we need to look at the possibility to widen boulevards, widen intersections or perhaps construct overpasses or underpasses. She suggested to look at what Newport Beach is to be and all citizens need • to come to grips with the General Plan. At Commission inquiry, she stated that the General Plan Amendment needs to be done before any other changes. The various factors that comprise the City as it is and the differences from the 1988 General Plan need to be addressed through this update. Lynn Fishalt, Deputy Director of the Building Industry Association: • Thanked staff and Planning Commission for allowing BIA to participate in this process. Philip Bettencourt, BIA introduced Mike Erickson of Robert Fein, William Frost Associates and Tony Petros of LSA. • TPO needs to be updated now. • There is neither work - program, nor budget to update the General Plan now and it should not impede the necessary reforms being considered to the TPO. Issue No. 2 - Establish Exempt Intersection Criteria. Tony Petros, LSA representing BIA: Referenced a graphic which depicted the exempt intersections that are • expected and accepted to operate at a greater than Level Service D 20 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 conditions. They are primarily located in the airport area and on Mariner's Mile. The only two exceptions are Jamboree and Santa Barbara and Newport at Hospital. The vast majority of the street system is under the control of the TPO. The mandates and the requirements of the TPO are still in place. The majority of the residential areas within the City are insulated from these exempt or unsatisfactory intersections. There are focus areas in the airport and along Mariner's Mile and regardless of the outcome, it maintains the integrity of the circulation system, the TPO and the residential quality of life. Q. Commissioner Gifford asked for clarification regarding the "peninsula as being isolated from the affects of exempt intersections ". A. He explained that the corridors of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard would still be subject to the TPO. There have been no signalized intersections along the peninsula that have been identified in the long range horizon as being unsatisfactory. Those are limited primarily to the east /west corridors of PCH. The General Plan has accepted the ingress and egress to the peninsula as already being at those LOS. Commissioner Kranzley clarified that the Ordinance as proposed, does not contain specific exempt intersections. It only introduces the concept of • exempt intersections. The City Council will make the decisions of what is an exempt intersection. Q. Commissioner Tucker asked what exempt intersections are designated? A. City Attorney Bob Burnham answered that in Appendix B are listed six potential exempt intersections. At a public hearing, the City Council would make a determination if it wanted to declare any intersection to be exempt so that each project would be evaluated on the same criteria. Mr. Vandersloot, SPON representative: As a resident of the Newport Heights area, he noted his area is directly impacted by what happens at Mariner's Mile and Coast Highway. He asked to reject the notion of the exempt intersections at Riverside /Coast Highway and other Coast Highway intersections. The first reason would be you would not collect fees if the intersection were exempt. You are accepting the fact that intersections will get worse and no one will be paying for any improvements. The second reason, it doesn't make sense to treat the worst intersections the same as the best intersections. If you exempt an intersection, you will treat it as if there is nothing wrong with it. You have to try to relieve the congested intersections. The third reason is you try to correct the problem. By allowing the exempt intersections, you will make it worst. He concluded, asking the Planning Commission to deny the concept of exempt • intersection. 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 Commissioner Ashley noted that the whole concept of the exempt intersection is that it is not feasible to pour money into a particular intersection for improvements so that additional traffic can be absorbed. If you didn't exempt the intersection when you recognize its limitations of being expanded or improved, it would mean that our TPO as it applies to those intersections, would be subject to litigation and we would lose. Mr. Burnham noted that the concept of exempt intersection is designed to avoid one of those bad facts situations like treating the worst intersection like the best intersection. The concept is these intersections would not be the worst if the City Council chose to implement improvements identified in the Circulation Element. If it chooses not to do so, the bad factual situation that we are trying to avoid is the denial of the project because of this intersection. Chairperson Selich noted that the Fair Share fee includes a cost to improvements to any intersection, exempt or not. Mr. Burnham stated that under the current TPO any project would have to make the improvements at the intersection if the project would cause or make worse unsatisfactory level of traffic service, or it would be denied. That would be the same result under the proposed TPO if you take out the concept of exempt intersections. The TPO could be overridden with the some number of votes that it takes to declare an intersection exempt by the City Council. Commissioner Tucker stated that this is a legal issue and is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. We should leave that to the City Council. Mr. Burnham emphasized that these are intersections that would be declared exempt only when the City Council has made a conscientious decision not to improve them, not to put them in the five year capitol improvement program. It is not the situation where you are exempting them because they would be improved at some time in the future, you are exempting them because a conscientious decision has been made not to improve them within the foreseeable planning and capitol improvement horizon. Commissioner Gifford stated that the Council is not telling the Planning Commission to create exempt intersections. There is a desire to avoid potential litigation over inverse condemnation issues. We have a situation where the General Plan and the desire to make improvements are in conflict and there are a number of ways it could potentially be addressed. This is one of them. • Mr. Burnham stated that he is not telling the Planning Commission to adopt a 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 concept of intersections and to declare certain intersections exempt. What he is saying is that there is potential legal risk inherent in not doing so. We have tried to identify that risk and tried to develop a solution that does as little damage to the TPO as possible. The some vote is necessary to override the TPO as it is to declare an intersection exempt. Either way you will need six out of seven Council members or Planning Commissioners. The purpose of an exempt intersection concept was to level the playing field so that everybody that has property in the City would know what intersection improvements could or would be expected of them. Commissioner Gifford stated that we are focusing mostly on developers paying the City, but, taking the range of possible solutions, one other way would be for the City to condemn certain properties and pay fair value for them. Commissioner Fuller asked if there was any mechanism to collect for an exempt intersection and was told there is none. Commissioner Tucker stated that the concept of an exempt intersection is one way out of a difficult situation that the City Attorney believes could arise. It is up to the City Council at the point to decide whether there will actually • be any exempt intersections. All we are voting on tonight is whether or not that concept will exist, not whether or not there will be any exempt intersections. • Mr. Burnham stated that he has just received a letter from Mr. Williams, lawyer for SPON and that he will be asked to confer on this issue. Issue No. 3 - Provisions for trip generation reductions. Nancy Skinner, SPON representative. At the time the TPO was being developed, the Air Quality Management was pushing for air quality improvements and this was put in to reduce the car trips and encourage the use of other means such as carpools, bicycle, etc. SPON is asking to eliminate the ability to incorporate trip reductions because of the way it is set up. If one is able to use the trip reduction credits then it is permanently implemented. There is also the possibility of abuse of that credit and it might circumvent the goal of the TPO. Philip Bettencourt, BIA representative. Supports staff position, which is to have Traffic Manager review /approve reductions, proposed by applicant. 23 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 Issue No. 4 - Use of mixed criteria versus exclusive use of peak hour standards. Philip Bettencourt, BIA representative. • Supports staff recommendation which is to have three criteria (peak hour, peak 2 A hour traffic period) used for various situations. Howard Hall, SPON representative. A resident of the Balboa Peninsula since 1945 stated that the residential area has been changed from R -3 to R -1 merely to improve the traffic on the peninsula. The residences have been impacted already by various urban planning within the City. SPON's position is that it should be standardized on 300 ADT and that there should not be a combination of ADT and peak hours. The peak hour trips are about 1 /10 the average daily trips. A conversion from the ADT to a peak hour would result in office buildings growth to 437.. Issue No. 5 - Source of trip distribution for each project. . Mr. Beek, SPON representative: Need to get accurate data. What is being used now, is rough estimating. He then proceeded to explain about an "overlay" method that is currently being done in the City of San Clemente. The traffic model is run with the project in to find out what the trip distribution is. They can get the model to print out for all the intersections of interest and how many trips are ending at the traffic analysis zone in which the project is located. They then take the total trip generation for that zone and compare the trip generation for the project. The calculations are then based on the comparisons. He proceeded to explain the pros and cons. Mr. Bob Burnham stated that there was general consensus of the working group that the administrative guidelines adopted by council policy be incorporated in the ordinance. When we went back and looked at those guidelines, they needed to be updated and we did so. Looking at the Section 4 Initial Traffic Study Procedures, it notes that preliminary determination shall be consistent with NBTAM and decisions on trip distribution patterns for previous projects of similar size and location. This will be part of the ordinance and is consistent with what Mr. Beek is requesting. It is an attempt to try to standardize the trip distribution decisions that the Traffic Engineer has made in the past with input from trip distribution assumptions in the traffic analysis model. • At Commission inquiry, Mr. Beek stated that this does not determine the 24 1711 #1 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 distribution. He will be reached. these administrative guidelines some point Mr. Bettencourt, BIA representative stated his satisfaction with the City Attorney's representation. Issue No. 6 - Formula for calculating contribution to improvement by project that is too small to pay full cost (Section 15.40.030A.1.c (iii) Mr. Michael Erickson, BIA representative: The City should use the standard methodology used throughout the county. What is being done is that the share of the project is compared to the share of the future traffic. This should be how it is done from a technical standpoint. From the developer's point of view, if the developer is going to share in the cost of the improvement that helps the project as proposed as well as the future and will share in the future trips. Simply divide the project share by what is going to be added in the future as projected. It's simple, consistent and fair. Mr. Beek, SPON representative: • Mr. Beek disagreed with the previous speaker giving an example. You have an intersection and have made an improvement that costs $100,000. The effect of the improvement is to increase the capacity by 100 peak hour car trips. You have spent $100,000 for a benefit of 100 trips. The project itself is only going to put 25 trips into that intersection. It has only used a quarter of what it did to improve it. It seems fair and reasonable to only pay a quarter of $100,000. You did 100 trips worth of goods you only use 25 of them, you pay only a quarter of the cost. The formula for your share, take the cost of the improvement then multiply by the trips you put in and divide by the increase of capacity. There has been no definition given of the increase of capacity and I have proposed a definition which is a technical point that needs to be discussed at a later time. We propose the term effective capacity and how and why it works. Capacity has to be matched to the traffic that wants to go through an intersection. We propose the term effective capacity to indicate how much you're improving the capacity. Commissioner Kranzley asked Mr. Erickson about the example just proposed. Mr. Erickson stated that you should have a share of everything, all the capacity from improvements that are going to occur. Again, what we are proposing takes away the concern about phasing. There is going to be some series of improvements, to be measured against and some series of projected • trips to be added and are all adding to the different phases of improvement, 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 be it one, two, three, etc. So what is your share as the project that added trips. So you are really paying your share of the improvements that are mitigating what will happen in the future as you build out the area. There are so many variables, it is hard to deal with. Mr. Burnham stated for clarification that the TPO looks one year post occupancy of the project. It is a short term time frame, where some of the scenarios you ore talking about are over time and sound more like improvements we would make using Fare Share Fees. One concern the working group had was the formula the BIA is proposing is really the some formula we used to calculate Fair Share fees. The TPO is the ordinance that looks at the shorter term impacts and as such it is thought that the SPON proposal in this regard was more appropriate given the short-term focus of the TPO. The TPO looks to a specific project and a specific improvement designed to mitigate that project. We will be able to come up with a definition of the effective enhancement of capacity resulting from an improvement that will solve Mr. Beek's remaining problem. Commissioner Kranzley stated that since it looks like we are not going to get to vote on this issue tonight, proposed the Planning Commission should continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. • Chairperson Selich stated that we would take issue no. 7 and at that point will continue the public hearing to the next meeting on the May 20th, • Mr. Burnham stated he would not be available to attend that next meeting. Chairperson Selich following a discussion of staff and Commisssioners' availability, suggested that this item be continued to a special meeting on the 17th at 6:00 p.m. Issue No. 7 - Definition of Critical Intersection. Mr. McGert, SPON representative: The definition has to be locked into concrete and not allowed to be changed by City Council deciding something is exempt which they can then reverse after a project has been approved and then avoid the whole problem of having to turn down projects. The definition is that it is to have a signal light, over 9017o ICU and that a project will increases it over 90% by its impact. At Commission inquiry, he stated that critical intersections have a specific definition. If the City Council cares to, they can take any critical intersection and decide that it is exempt. Therefore, it does not follow under this policy. Rep INDEX 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 Mr. Burnham explained that the criteria for exempt intersections based on current information, would allow six of the 59 intersections to be deemed exempt. It would not allow the other 53 to be exempt and one of the criteria for exempt intersection, it would be an intersection that could function better than LOS D with a General Plan improvement. The City has for 20 years, used the same 59 intersections as the basis for all traffic studies and as a basis for determining consistency between the Land Use and the Circulation Element. They are important, significant intersections that anyone would expect to see modified in any way. All of the critical intersections are signalized, but not all signalized intersections are critical. Mr. Erickson, BIA representative. Exempt intersections are not exempt from CEQA, not exempt from the disclosure of an impact, not exempt from identifying mitigation. There is still full and complete disclosure. The issue is the definition of critical intersection. BIA supports staff recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue the public hearing on this item to a special meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, May 17th. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Hoglund Abstain: None SUBJECT: Procedural Rules for Study Sessions Proposed language amending Section VI, Time of Meetings of the Planning Commission's Procedural Rules. Commissioner Gifford proposed that the new language to this section was correct with the exception of a word that was missed. She suggested that a sentence in VI. C Time of Meetinas, should read,'The time of the Study Session shall be announced and set at least of the preceding meeting ". Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford including this edited verbiage. Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Hoglund Abstain: None 27 INDEX Item No. 5 Procedure Rules for Study Sessions Discussion Only City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1999 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood reported that the City Council, at their meeting on April 26, 1999, approved the Resubdivision and Zoning Amendment for 3000/3002 Breakers Drive, approved the Residential Floor Areas amendment, introduced the Ordinance regarding the height limits in the R -A District, and continued the introduction of the Service Station Regulations Ordinance to May 10th, due to the absence of CouncilmemberAdams. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee- None. C.) Matters which a Planning Commissionerwould like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting- None. d.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - None. e.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford excused from June l Oth meeting. .r. ADJOURNMENT: 11:05 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 28 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment