Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/2001• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley - Commissioner Gifford was excused STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Daniel Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes • Minutes of August 23.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley, and voted on, to approve the Approved amended minutes of August 23, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Kranzley, Selich Abstain: Tucker Absent: Gifford Public Comments: Public Comments Ms. Temple introduced the new staff member Todd Weber, Associate Planner coming to the City from Indian Wells. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of Agenda • The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, September 14, 2001. • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 SUBJECT: La Salsa; Milestone Management (Continued from 08- 23 -01) 4341 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite F • Use Permit No. 2001 -018 (PA2001 -086) A Use Permit requested for an eating and drinking establishment and a waiver of parking to expand the seating from 21 seats to 36 seats without an increase in net public area. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant has asked for another continuance to October 18, 2001. Chairman Tucker noted that he would recuse himself from and will abstain from voting on the continuance. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Kranzley, Selich Abstains: Tucker Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Jackson Residence 3631 Ocean Boulevard (Continued from August 23, 2001) • Variance No. 2001 -001 and • Modification No. 2001 -092 (PA2001 -062) Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right -of -way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 -feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. Chairperson Tucker asked Vice Chairman Kiser to step in and conduct the hearing on this item, as the Chairman was not at the last meeting when it was first heard. He added the Planning Department staff had received a call today concerning some people who wanted to testify on item 4 also wanted to hear the president's speech tonight. I indicated to staff that we would hear that item no earlier than 7:30 this evening. If we get to that item before 7:30 we will take a break and start the item at that time. Senior Planner, James Campbell noted the changes to the project as directed by the Commission at the last meeting. The project is to conform to the curb height • limit as well as address concern of the size of the 'at grade' deck to the rear of the INDEX PA2001 -086 Confinued to 10/18/2001 item No. 2 PA2001 -062 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 residence above the bluff. The applicant has re- designed the project and there are new exhibits for consideration. The entire house is below the height of the curb; the project still exceeds 24 feet to the natural grade toward the seaward edge of the house; the other change to the project is the reduction of the rear deck by approximately 8 feet. The slope of the driveway as designed is 2076, which the Public Works states is the maximum they would like to see. Vice Chairman Kiser stated that the plans he received do not appear to have an update; only a sticky on the upper right -hand comer that says 'revised site plans of 09 /13 /01'.First, I want to make sure that the Commission received the right plans and second, at such time we would approve this, for proper reference to the plans we have need the right dates on the plan sheets. Mr. Campbell answered that all the Commissioners received the plans that have the sticker with the date of 09/13/01 and made a correction to condition one referencing the some date as on the sticker. Public comment was opened. Chairman Tucker noted that condition four should be changed to reflect a maximum grade of 20 %. The front yard encroachment is not something that is within our authority. Effectively, whatever we approve that has anything to do with front yard issues is subject to an encroachment permit. Staff answered that there is a modification for the front yard and the encroachment referred to is within the public right of way and subject to an encroachment permit pursuant to the City Council's authority. Mr. Ed Lohrbach, spoke representing the Jackson. He stated that they had met with the neighbor and are in accord. The garage has been lowered and the driveway is at a 20% grade; the building is at the curb height at this point and we have pulled the deck back and we are in conformance all the way around. He added that they did try a different driveway approach and it just does not work. The soils engineer from Petra is here to answer any questions on the stability of the property. At Commission inquiry, he stated that the applicant has read, understands and agrees to all the findings and conditions to the application. He stated he would like to see the garage a foot higher and that the framing of the garage is at 6 inches and the garage is at 7'6 ". The client is aware of what the impact is of having a 7'6" ceiling. He confirmed that the deck on the lower floor was brought back 6 to 8 feet, depending on the location of measurement. Bill Benz, 3625 Ocean Boulevard, noted that he had met with the Jacksons and they have come to an amicable agreement covering the objections he had raised at the last meeting. He supports the project as shown including the deck below. Public comment was closed. • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 Chairperson Tucker noted that 207o is fairly steep and 7'6" is low. They are bringing the roofline of the house down in compliance that he would support the additional foot requested by the applicant. I would like to see 6" of that dedicated to lessening the grade and 6" to the height of the garage to make it 8 feet so that the grade will be less than 20 1/o. I am a little concerned with people trying to back out of the driveway. Commissioner Selich stated he did not agree with the previous comments. There are a number of design solutions and for the sake of preserving other aspects of the project, the applicant chose to go with the lower garage height and steeper driveway. The driveway is acceptable to our Public Works Department. Many years ago when this curb height regulation was adopted it was something that was near and dear to the hearts of a lot of people in Corona del Mar. This is one of the most spectacular views walking along that sidewalk than there is anywhere in Southern California. Continuing, he noted that the Planning Commission should adhere to the standard that was set and there are numerous solutions to the property. The applicant chose this one out of many solutions that they could have placed there and they are willing to live with it. We should adhere to the regulations that we imposed on this area many years ago and maintain that view. • Commissioner McDaniel agreed with the previous comments. Commissioner Agaianian noted he would like to see the view maintained. However, he suggested moving the roof portion of the garage up by 1 foot or 6 inches. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the applicant made a choice to design this project the way they did. I would agree that they could have done things differently. I am not willing to compromise the curb height and it is important to understand that it was an important long and hard fought battle. I don't think it is necessary in this case to go away from that height limit. Vice Chairman Kiser, noted his agreement with the plans submitted. The architect was able to retain the 10 -foot floor heights and given that, I don't think that the project is compromised by keeping the garage roof height where it is, particularly in view of the very important public purpose behind what we are doing. He applauded the bluff top preservation efforts. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification No. 2001 -092 with the findings and conditions in the staff report as amended by staff, adopting Resolution No. 1536. Following a brief discussion regarding the on -site drainage, the Public Works will be involved with the details as provided in the drainage study as required by condition 11. 0 Vice Chairman Kiser noted the following additions: INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 • Change in condition 1 to 'revised site plans dated 09/1312001'. • Condition 3, 'desired' instead of 'desires'. • Condition 4,20% instead of 15% for maximum grade. • Condition 9 ...... For the purpose of this condition, the width or depth of the chimney will be the smaller dimension parallel to Ocean Boulevard.' It would be clearer to delete, the width or depth of the chimney will be the, and insert after the word dimension, ...'of the chimney will be..'. • Condition 11, insert the word, all. • Condition 17c, 6m bullet; change 'raids' to 'roads'. Chairperson Tucker asked what happens to the variance and modification if the Council does not approve of the Encroachment Permit? Does the variance expire? Staff answered that the variance would not be affected; it would change what could be built in the front yard. The encroachments that would come under a lot of scrutiny would be the patios, etc. Commissioner Tucker noted he had listened to the tape of the public hearing of August 23, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Collins Residence 312 Buena Vista Blvd. 8 604 W. Bay Avenue • Off -Site Parking Agreement No. 2001 -001 (PA2001 -146) Off -site parking agreement in conjunction with an addition to 312 Buena Vista. Two parking spaces will be provided across the alley at 604 West Bay Avenue. Both properties are under common ownership. Mr. Campbell noted that there are some photographs of the site available for the Commission and that the Public Works has suggested two additional conditions dealing with size of the parking spaces and site distances related to their location. The first condition would be, 'The parking space that is shown as 8 feet 9 inches, shall be 9 feet. The other space shown shall be 8'6" per City standard 805LA and LB'. The other condition is, 'the existing fence location shall be revised to provide site distance for the new parking spaces'. He then proceeded with a slide demonstration noting the: present sites, parking spaces on site; site distance issues, closing in of a patio space that triggers the requirement for the additional parking. Commissioner McDaniel noted an area that had been enclosed and used as a patio area was supposed to have been for a parking area that was just INDEX Item No. 3 PA2001 -146 Continued to 10/04/2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 barricaded off and used as a patio. Is that not supposed to be designated as parking? Mr. Campbell answered that concrete has been poured underneath to raise it to grade as if there never was parking there. We do not know if that was done after the original construction or not. The applicant intends to enclose it while providing for policing on the other side of the alley, which would then create a conforming situation, although it is a little unconventional. At Commission inquiry staff noted that: • The Municipal Code does not require that this item be conducted at a public hearing, therefore notices were not sent nor was the property posted. The property is non - conforming in terms of parking, as it does not provide the required two spaces. There may be other non - conformities that exist that staff is not necessarily aware of. The addition that is proposed in that area is conforming. • No comments have been received from the neighbors. • There are no standards for landscape screening or interior parking lots for single - family residences. If this is an aesthetic concern some screening landscape could be required of the applicant. The single sheet plan should be corrected to show the 312 Buena Vista property placed on the lot to the right of the one shown on the plan. • There have been no off site parking agreements specifically done for residential properties. However, there are private arrangements all over this part of the peninsula for these shared and unconventional parking arrangements. Particularly, in the area from Buena Vista to the ferry landing, there are many times when the bayfront or ocean front properties don't have any parking. There are some internal lots that have been used by multiple property owners to sustain their parking requirements and done through private arrangements. If one of these properties gets sold off there could be a potential conflict if the different owners were not necessarily agreeing to the use of the spaces. The agreement would be structured in such a way that it would stay on the property and be binding upon any future interests or successors. It would be enforceable by either party or the City. This project is an alley setback area with the front yard on Bay Street. The requirement is one covered space and one other space. The covered space will be satisfied with a space in the garage for the donor parcel and one space in the garage for the house across the street; each lot will have a space in the open. The agreement assures that the space in the garage is available for use. If the garage was closed off to Buena Vista property, the City or the private parties could enforce the agreement. The arrangements would be between the two property owners. A condominium plan for this property was not addressed by the staff because it was not what the applicant was seeking. • The City has a template whereby we use the property description and the INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 particulars of the project as well as any additional provisions as they may pertain to being inside a structure as opposed to a commercial parking lot. • If separate ownership happens, this agreement runs with the land. • The ownership has been verified as one owner per City records and can be re- verified when this agreement is recorded. • The open parking will be an open of asphalt that would meet the City standards and can be accessed from the alley. • The applicant is intending to re- develop this property and have applied to and received the Coastal Commission approval. There will be a two-car garage and a two-car carport. The carport will be located towards the back of the property, and the garage will remain in its approximate some location. • The applicant does have certain entitlements to re- develop the site that would still maintain the integrity of the agreement and provide the parking. There is no guarantee that the applicant is ever going to do that project, so the conditions would still be applicable in the event they don't actually re- develop the property. It might be a temporary situation to have this parking pad out here; once it is re- developed parking then would be relocated within a carport and within a garage of the new residence. • It could be deemed in substantial conformance because the parking spaces are still being provided. If the reconfiguration is of concern, we . can bring it back for the Planning Commission review. • A carport would not comply with applicable front yard setback requirements, so a modification would be required in order to allow the structure in that setback of that area. • During the redevelopment of the West Bay lot there would be no parking for the Buena Vista lot. There would be a period of time when there would be no parking available until such time as they have completed construction. Deputy Attorney, Dan Ohl added that the City has an off site parking agreement template that we can fashion to fit the conditions that we feel are necessary that need to be corrected. The interior use would be between the owners and the people who occupy the premises; the City would not get into that. The agreement would include something to the effect that the City would have to give approval to any change in the agreement. If the conditions changed down the road, then perhaps the conditions that existed at the time the agreement was in effect would no longer be in existence and would be a basis to eliminate the agreement. The owner of the front property would then have to go back in and modify the properly to provide those two spaces. Chairman Tucker stated that normally we do not get involved with the terms of agreements between parties. There are a lot of questions on how this will work with the garage structure. If it is a recorded agreement and the rights are clear that the parking spaces have to be made available, it will be up to the applicant • to figure out all the 'what ifs'. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 Public comment was opened. Tim Collins, 412 Bellevue Lane, brother and spokesman for the applicant stated the following: • Added condition on the parking space width is acceptable but it might be problematic with the pie shaped lot with the two setbacks. • Agrees to modify the fence for site distance. • Regarding landscaping or screening, we will be happy to accommodate that as well. • My brother has been the owner of both properties that were acquired simultaneously. He has seven children and 14 grandchildren who frequently visit. With regard to the property at 604 W. Bay Ave., it is a substandard construction and they have thought about how to accommodate more kids and grandkids who like to come and visit. They want to build it to accommodate more family; this is not intended as a rental unit. • This is a family home and is intended to be a family home for a long time. • The property is free and clear, there is no lender's concern. • 1 see no need for a condo map; we believe that the obligation that would be recorded against both properties protects the City. • It was not known what the Coastal Commission action would take. The principal objective was to close in that patio area to give more first floor living space in the main home. Their objective was to add more bedroom space. • The construction will be done simultaneously and the added parking spaces could be done first. 1 would offer a condition that would require that the living room expansion not occur prior to the parking spaces being available. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Collins stated he would not have a problem with the parking agreement containing a covenant to hold in a single ownership. This would assure that the City knows of any change and that the next buyer of the property actually assumes a position and acknowledgement. He stated that the City has a document drafted by his brother that provides the City with the same benefits and protections as a covenant to hold that had been given to the City Attorney's office for review. He stated that the only occupants of the 604 property are his brother's children when they visit and is not occupied currently. It is a guesthouse. The only change to the Buena Vista house is to enclose the patio. The Bay Avenue reconstruction will start as soon as possible. Commissioner Kiser noted his concerns with this agreement down the road with regard to a change in ownership and the City being dragged into problems in the future. It would be instructive to have a copy of the agreement to look at and may answer a lot of questions. Where does our authority begin and end and should we have a copy of the agreement to look at as part of our review? Chairperson Tucker noted that usually we have a parking agreement in conjunction with some other action that we are taking that involves commercial INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 property. Maybe having the agreement we are reviewing we might want to consider, but that would involve looking at a legal document. That is our only action on this. Ms. Temple answered that the Code says the Planning Commission authorizes the off -site parking agreement. The agreement itself is as approved by the City Attorney. However, if the terms and specific wording of the agreement are important to the decision of the Commission as to whether it should grant or not grant the approval, then it is appropriate for you to ask for the agreement. We had hoped to have the agreement for you, but since it was not required for you to approve, we went ahead and moved forward with the project review. Clearly with these questions you have raised, I would suggest you continue this item and let us provide you with a copy of the draft agreement at the next meeting. Commissioner Kiser stated he is concerned that the City is liable for not only this one, but for setting a precedent for potentially multiple other off -site parking agreements being proposed. Even seeing the agreement would not necessarily solve that problem for me, but at least I would see what there was being proposed. There are too many questions right now and I propose to continue this item until we have the agreement in front of us. Chairperson Tucker noted that a release of indemnity is probably a good thing to . have in the agreement. I agree in this case it would be helpful to have the agreement provided. Commissioner Selich stated the right way to do this is to tie it with the Subdivision Map Act and then a lot of the problematic situations that we have posed here won't become an issue down the road. On the other hand, I can see if it is a one family situation that going through this is a lot of work and expense to do for two lots. I too would like to see what the agreement looks like to satisfy myself on it. Ms. Wood stated that it might be possible to use a use permit to modify the off site parking requirements. The Code says that a use permit could be used to modify or waive the number of off site parking spaces, but I think we could use it to modify the number of covered spaces required. Then you would need to approve a parking management plan and one of the things that could be included is a parking area design. The two uncovered spaces could be the ones for the lot on Buena Vista and then the two garage spaces could be for the 604 W. Bay Ave. property. Chairperson Tucker answered that the applicant should go ahead with what they want. We should not burden them with condominium plans unless we do not see any other approach. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of precedent setting and cleaning up the beach area to make it more conforming as opposed to stretching things out, especially across alleyways and a 42 -page agreement to do it. It seems very complicated. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 Chairperson Tucker answered that we ultimately end up with four parking spaces where we have two today. From that standpoint we end up with something that is a benefit and we ought to give the applicant the opportunity to at least present to us what they think achieves that goal. It is an unusual approach. Commissioner Kiser confirmed with staff that the one covered and one uncovered space requirement was not the proposal of the applicant, it is because of our Zoning Code. It could be okay with the applicant to have the Buena Vista parking spaces both be outside. If so, and we were to do a use permit, could we make the use permit expire on the ownership of the two properties coming in different hands? Staff answered that concept would have to be researched. Commissioner Kiser stated that it might be a way to solve a lot of the concerns raised tonight if that could be true. It could be made clear that if those were separated that changes would have to be made in the Buena Vista structure. Chairperson Tucker stated that perhaps it would be appropriate to continue this matter and let the applicant work with staff to decide which approach they want to do. Maybe the use permit is something the applicant would like to do, if they come to the conclusion. Motion was made by Commissioner KranzJey to continue this item to October 4, 2001. He stated he would like to have the parking agreement and the City Attorney's opinion. He added that his biggest concern on this site was aesthetically having cars parked on a lot like this. He has spent a lot of time trying to beautify the peninsula. He has less of a concern now with the understanding of what is going on by the property owner and is less concerned with public noticing. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agojanian, Tucker, KranzJey, Selich Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Newport Coast Child Development Preschool 2350 Ford Road • (PA2001 -129) Request to approve a use permit to allow expansion of an existing preschool by adding a 944 square -foot classroom for an additional maximum 20 students and 2 staff members. Mr. Campbell made a slide presentation noting the following: • Site from access road. • Existing facility was approved by the City of Irvine prior to the area being annexed by the City of Newport Beach. . • School presently accommodates 120 students and staff. 10 INDEX Item No. 4 PA2001 -129 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 • The additional classroom will be a separate building located on a triangular piece of the property and will be similar in architectural design. • The existing play yard area. • Condominium project overlooks the school property, but the project should not be a detriment due to the location of the proposed new classroom. • Project includes seven new parking spaces to accommodate additional drop offs throughout the day. Continuing, Mr. Campbell noted changes to condition 1 to read December 20, 2000 and the word Use Permit instead of Variance in conditions 2 and 3. The applicant is also requesting to add a provision to condition 9 that deals with fire alarm system and automatic sprinklers. The system is not in place at this time. Our Fire Department is requesting that a fire alarm and automatic sprinklers be provided for the new structure. The applicant would like to see it read, '....if required by the Building and Fire Departments'. Staff is amenable to include that in the condition and have that issue be resolved with the Building and Fire Departments. The property line separating the project site from the adjacent church is basically at the back end of the first row of parking stalls that are adjacent to the building. There is a shared parking agreement with St. Matthew's Church that was put into place at the time of development of the pre - school and the church. We do have a copy of that agreement in the file. • Commissioner Selich noted that the site is over parked according to our standards. Is there any potential for future expansion of this facility to have more buildings? Mr. Campbell answered that it would be limited by the amount of outdoor play space that is required for the school. The parking could support more building. Commissioner Kranzley, referring to page 4, quoted the 75 trips per day is not considered significant. If in the future, they wanted to build a larger school on this site, how will the added trips factor in? Ms. Temple answered that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance has a provision about staggering projects; there is a certain period of time within which the trips would accumulate. Commission and staff noted the following: • An additional seven parking spaces is proposed. • The parking is shared at all times, generally used by the school during the weekdays and the church on weekends and evenings. • Another parking lot is to be developed as part of St. Matthews. • The pre - school is not open on the weekend. • The Annexation and Development Agreement provides that the development within the Planned Community would not be subject to the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), provided that there . are no significant modifications. 11 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 • The level of significance for it to be subject to the TPO is 300 trips a day. • The reference on the plans has the exterior elevations dated as 2000; the next two sheets are called site plans and are dated 01 /23/2000. • Staff met with one resident from the adjoining condominium association who reviewed the file. No letters were received. • The number of additional trips generated by the increase capacity of the school is based on the children being picked up and dropped off. Public comment was opened. David Pfeiffer, project architect with the firm Domini and Associates, Architects noted the following: • Original facility was completed two to three years ago. • The owner approached his firm about adding an additional classroom due to the success of her school. • The addition is one classroom building for 20 students and will have two staff members; architecture will be consistent. • State Title 22 covers the administration of childcare facilities and licensing. It requires 35 square feet of indoor classroom area per child and 75 square feet of outdoor play area for each child, which would limit additional building. • There are no plans to add additional classrooms, as it would sacrifice not . only the play area but also the quality of the outdoor play area. • My firm is also the architect for the St. Matthews church. Both of these projects were master - planned concurrently as two separate projects that would share a parking lot. • Referring to the exhibit on the wall, he pointed out the locations of the proposed church parking that will allow in excess of 100 spaces to be shared by both facilities. • The shared parking agreement specifies the uses by both parties, times, amount of people and occupancy load. The preschool uses their portion of the parking Monday through Friday during the daylight hours; the church would then make use of the parking in the evening and weekends. • The conditions as modified by staff are acceptable. James Walker, president of Harbor View Knoll directly across from the school stated that his community has problems with traffic, parking and noise. He noted that the access road by their condominium property is used by people dropping off their children at the school; the guest parking spaces for the condominium complex is also being used by non - residents. He noted problems caused by Ralph's truck deliveries; traffic; congestion and noise. Referring to the exhibit on the wall, he noted that the wrought iron fence facing the access road across from the complex was supposed to be a block wall with trees and landscaping. Richard Hammond, 2769 Hillview Drive noted his concern of safety. The access • road to our property has a reduced curb, and if the standard road is blocked for 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 some reason, then emergency vehicles can't get through. There is an indentation in the curb and the road is supposed to be painted red not allowing parking. People are very aggressive and are rushing to drop the kids off and I am concerned that people have no regard for the fire hydrants, painted curb and in general the overall safety. Mr. Pfeiffer stated that the additional trips generated by this project would be very minor. As part of the original construction, we improved the extension of Ford Rood. The cul -de -sac, as part of the conditions of approval, has been leveled and extends further down as well as widened. Parking is almost double the standard. The operator of the school has assured me that she will ask the parents to not park in the red -zoned areas. The discussions on the original application were not about noise from the preschool to the Harbor View Knoll homeowners, it was the Bonita Canyon Road noise reaching the homeowners. Any discussions about block walls or berms was about the edge of Bonita Canyon Road and was never in any discussion talked about as a block wall for the school. He affirmed that there is adequate space for stacking for dropping off and picking up the children. The parking lot for both the Church and the school will actually be connected and can be shared by either. Mr. Edmonston noted that at the end of the access road is an access used by the Metropolitan Water District to their reservoir site. It is a public road and parking could be enforced by the Newport Beach Police Department. Chairperson Tucker stated that until the Church is completed, we won't know if there is a long -term problem next door. I know the churches and preschools are a good mix especially for the holiday programs. The homeowners ought to deal with Ralph's but I don't see it as something the preschool is causing. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kiser verified with staff that a block wall was not required to be built along side the property that is across from the condominiums. Staff answered that the discussion was on a block wall on the back side that would buffer the preschool from Bonita Canyon Road, as indicated in the staff report from the City of Irvine approval. That wall was lowered by the Irvine Planning Commission; no block wall was required to be built where the wrought iron fence is now. The issue of sound attenuation requirements when the preschool was first approved by the City of Irvine related to a berm that had been on the site on the Bonita Canyon Road side of the property. It was constructed as a temporary sound attenuation measure related to the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The proposal involved the removal of the berm and the homeowners association at that time was opposed to its removal and the replacement with a block wall, which in the end was approved by the City of Irvine. • Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit No. 2001 -023 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 and adopt Resolution 1538 as amended. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Absent: Gifford ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - no report as the City Council meeting of September 11 m was cancelled. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. 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 - Commissioner McDaniel asked if the Environmental Qualify Affairs Committee was supposed to review the negative declaration. Ms. Wood answered that the City Council . authorizes EQAC to review notices of preparation and environmental impacts. Other environmental documents may be forwarded to them by the City Council or the City Manager. e) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanian noted that five fiscal consultants were interviewed. Two of them were selected to prepare a detailed scope of work to be mailed for response. f) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted Commission requests sheet and gave a brief outline. Mice Chairman asked about a sign that was installed without permit by the owner of Lovely Nails on Coast Highway. After considerable time, the owner provided documentation that the sign face had merely been a replacement of an existing sign, therefore, it is permitted under the Code and no Modification Permit was necessary; a Building Permit has been issued. The Prudential Realty Signs and clock have been reviewed and it was determined that the addition of the phone number was not in compliance with the sign program approved by the Planning Commission. A notice of violation has been issued and was followed up with second and final warning issued on 09/17/2001 with seven -day notice to correct. The next step is to go to administrative citation. The product sign at Jiffy Lube was deemed not in conformance with the approved sign program; the owner has been informed to remove the sign or apply for a modification to the sign program. • 14 INDEX Additional Business i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 g) Project status - Commissioner Selich noted that the State Assembly and Senate passed a bill relinquishing Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. h) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Kranzley asked to be excused from meeting of October 181h. wrr ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 p.m. EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 15 INDEX Adjournment