Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/2003Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. is Page 1 of 13 file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\1204.htm 01/13/2004 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - Il present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, November 26, 2003. CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of November 20, 2003. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the edited minutes Approved f November 20, 2003. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\1204.htm 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Page 2 of 13 UBJECT: Cefalia residence (PA2003 -201) ITEM NO. 2 206 E. Balboa Blvd. PA2003 -201 The applicant proposes to demolish a nonconforming 6 -unit apartment Approved building located at 206 E. Balboa Boulevard and plans to construct three Ingle family residences. The site is comprised of 3 lots that are zoned R -2, o the development of three single family homes or three duplexes is ossible. The demolition of more than 3 units within a single building requires the approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) [pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code. mior Planner, James Campbell noted the basis upon which staff sugc in -lieu fee be collected for the demolition of four affordable uni )vernment Code Section 65590. After review of that Code Section, :lieves that the opportunity to collect the in -lieu fee is there and if we Ilect the fee the applicant would be required to replace four afford fusing units, either on site, which pursuant to the Feasibility Study ive is not feasible, or within the Coastal Zone, or within three miles o )astal Zone. The applicant would be required to replace those imewhere else within the City. The opportunity to avoid that requires through the collection of the in lieu fees. ommissioner Selich noted that looking at page 2 of the Feasibility St hat was prepared by Keyser Marston, their conclusion says if it is ultima etermined that it is not financially feasible to develop the replacement u n site the City has the right, but not the obligation to impose an in lieu __ n the proposed development. Your research shows that we have bligation to impose the in lieu fees if we do not require replacement u _:I_ Campbell answered correct; the only other option would be to not demolition and hence the units would stay. nissioner Selich then asked for an explanation of the $13,500 lable unit and how that fee was established. My understanding on ance that has been in place since 1989, this is the first situation wt one wants to get a Coastal Development Permit where we actL to collect the fees on it. im Campbell answered that the in -lie fee is based on negotiations with pplicant. Staff evaluated a 1997 study prepared by the same consultant ie City in conjunction with preparation of an affordable housing in -lieu rdinance. At that time, the fees being suggested ranged from $12,000 15,000 per unit. The fee would fluctuate depending on what income le Fas being targeted. We started with those numbers, and the other numl Fe considered was the City's contribution to the Bay View Landing Ser ffordable Housing project that the City is participating with. Throt egotiations with the applicant, we arrived at the $13,500 figure. s. Temple noted that we did have a CRDP on the Cannery Lofts pr lid we did charge an in -lieu fee, but not for replacement of units. We •of had this kind of demolition within the coastal zone where there ocumented affordable occupancies. Selich noted his concern on the equity and the way the file : //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 re applied. I know the City is working on an in -lieu fee ordinance, so I hope we get that done and have the chance to look at it and discuss it so . hat we are applying these fees equitably for all properties. 1 Commission inquiry, staff noted that in order to determine affordable nits, staff requests from the applicant information on the household size nd income of all households. Those two pieces of information are ompared to the state income guidelines to determine if the household falls rithin a low or moderate income category or not. We rely upon the iformation provided by the applicant and follow up with the tenants for erification. In this case, we deemed that four of the six units are ffordable. State Law has provisions that address evictions (within the prior 2 month period) for the purposes of evading this particular code section. to evictions occurred at this site for the purpose of evading the CRDP son McDaniel noted this appears to be driven by State statute, not Beach. Jim Cefalia, applicant, noted he has read and agrees to the conditions approval. comment was opened. comment was closed. •Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve Coastal residential Development Permit No. 2003 -002 subject to the findings and conditions of DDroval contained in the resolution. nes Campbell noted that section 4 contains the payment of the in -lieu condition. He asked that the payment be made prior to the issuance the demolition permit. maker of the motion agreed. Selich noted he will abstain from this motion citing law and application of in -lieu fees. Page 3 of 13 Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser and Tucker None None Selich Chevron Service Station (PA2003 -073) ITEM NO. 3 301 East Coast Highway PA2003 -073 Request to demolish an existing service station and construct a new service Approved station with a food mart (with off -site beer and wine sales) and quick service food outlet. The applicant also requests approval of modifications to the service station development regulations pertaining to gross structural square footage, number of parking spaces, accessory structure setback file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004 0 i Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 landscaping. Additionally, the approval of a Modification program is requested. Ramirez noted the following: . Condition 13 - hours of operation for Food Mart/Quick Outlet should read 5.00 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. Monument sign - height shown as 13 feet and 1/2 inch the actual height is 15 feet and 112 inch. Selich asked about the availability of color for the adjacent project. Ramirez answered that some are available. However, some of the hed paints and materials were changed after that plan was approved. :e that plan was permitted by right, the owner did not need to come in t( ige the specifications or color types used. A couple do match, one of food mart building itself, the number presented in the color renderirn s match the bulk of the building paint next door. The other item tha ches is the foam cornice at the top of the building that matches a simile Lire on the building next door. There are discrepancies in the windov sings and trellis. The paint numbers differ for those; however, upon sits ection the window framing color looks exact to me. The proposed trellis r looks close and the architect has been contacted for more information ommissioner Selich asked for a condition that states that they td be as close as possible, leaving it up to staff to determine w is feasible or not He was answered, yes. Continuing, he asked: Size of the proposed food mart signs as they relate to the Boat signs in the adjacent shopping center. Mr. Ramirez answered that Boat US signs upper case letters are two feet tall. The proposed f mart sign upper case letters are 1 foot 7 inches; the Subway upper case letters are proposed to be 1 foot 10 112 inches high. Are the Subway and Food Mart signs going to be similar type construction as the Boat US signs are? Mr. Ramirez answered yes. On the canopy design, how do the existing dimensions compare to proposed ones, particularly the roof and fascia /tile elements? Ramirez answered that the fascia is approximately a foot. The sli itself from the ridge down the sides is about twelve feet; whereas proposed canopy as about 4 and 1/2 feet. nmissioner Cole asked if the change in the height of the sign cY square footage as depicted in the plans. He was answered no, tt remains the same. The portion that was omitted was the 2 feet e of the sign, the square footage of the sign is 48.6 square feet. file://H:\Planconim\2003PC\1204.htm Page 4 of 13 01/13/2004 E 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 nissioner Tucker suggested that a condition that the truction and illumination match the shopping center project so that it looks like it was installed as one sign program. se is to take two properties and have them look like they were pla ier. He then noted: Referencing condition 43 - Point of Service signs (No. 6 on the plane are not permitted... what plan does that refer to? Sign 6 on tf signage plan appears to be the Food Mart sign. Are you referring to different plan? Ramirez answered: Clarified (No. 6 refers) to the last set of plans. Condition 43 she read, The Point of Service signs are not permitted and shall removed from all plans. ommissioner Tucker noted the following changes and asked the they agreed with them: . Signage matching the shopping center. Condition 1 - delete substantial but allow staff to determine substa conformance in order to allow project to move forward. Follo, discussion, it was determined to leave substantial in the condition, add, all painted exterior surfaces shall be repainted periodicall, needed with the same colors to retain a first class appearance di the operation of this property under this use permit. Temple noted she had drafted two additional conditions as reque this verbiage is best contained in the first one as it relates to ting and color of the buildings. Commissioner Tucker noted: Condition 3 - delete the word major as it pertains to operatic characteristics, hours of operation, expansion in area and add words, or any substantial modification to the floor plan. Condition 18 - add to the sentence, 'trash receptacles shall emptied before they overflow....' so we don't have trash on ground. . Condition 31 - following discussion, it was determined to leave drafted. Noduos, applicant, agreed to the changes to the conditions. McDaniel noted that an email had been received from regarding lighting issue. file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1204.htm Page 5 of 13 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Ms. Temple stated the additional conditions as requested: . Condition 75 - The colors of the buildings and trim treatment sl match the project at 353 East Coast Highway as determined by Planning Director and all painted exterior surfaces shall be repain periodically as needed with the same colors to retain a first cl appearance during the operation of this property under this use pen r. Ramirez noted that Conditions 27 and 28 deal with site lighting. pplicant will be required to submit lighting plans, which will be reviev nd subject to a night inspection once constructed. The Planning Direi has the authority to order the dimming of light if the site is found to xcessivelv lit. ommissioner Selich suggested the following changes to the landsci !an regarding size of the landscape material: • Three tree species be 36 inch boxed trees with the exception of Queen palms that are in the two planting areas adjacent on each ; of the building. • There are three Queen palms shown on the plan, two on Cc Highway side and one on the Bayside Drive side. . • Replace the crepe myrtle tree with another Queen palm on Bayside Drive side. • The size of the Queen palms are to be 48 inch boxed trees. Mr. Mark Rodriguez, architect for the proposed project, noted: • The 24 inch box size is called out as a 12 foot brown trunk height r to the Queen palms as a requirement of the Planning staff. • The two crepe myrtle trees also have two Queen palms as well. • In front of the store there are two small planters' and I don't believe can get palms any larger than 24 inch box. Commissioner Selich noted that the brown trunk height is acceptable asked if the ones adjacent to the buildings could be 15 foot brown tr height? You could use that in any box size. Do two on each side of building. I read the plan as two trees on the Coast Highway side and c ne on the Bayside side. Mr. Rodriguez agreed to two palms on Bayside Drive side and two on .oast Highway side and they will be 15 feet high in whatever box size 1 o me in. Page 6 of 13 file : //H:\Plancomm12003PC11204.htm 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 ommissioner Tucker referencing the paint color and design of the proje . asked where the blue Chevron band fits into that paint scheme. Half of t canopy is painted off -white and half is painted blue. I prefer to see painted all off - white, the blue doesn't fit with the rest of the canopy colors. Rodriguez answered the blue is also bordered by a gray, 6 inch r the top of the blue. The gray plus the blue is part of the Ct emark colors that are required. I would have to get a major exc i Chevron to change that. :ommissioner Tucker noted that in this particular case, the blue does no I. This project looks a lot different than most Chevron stations look it ;rms of color. It probably is not part of the Chevron standard color palette. am concerned about the width of the fascia, the plain band versus the til( )of element. It looks better than the original plan, however, the band couds e narrower by two feet and the seven inches added to the tile roo lament. The band is primarily the place to hang the signs. With the ignage right there next to Coast Highway, you don't really need that bic tittering to be visible. People will know you are there. . Rodriguez stated that with the minimum gray eyebrow and blus demark fascia Chevron has, in order to get the smallest Chevron sigr it is manufactured, that is the minimum height of the fascia. Ths evron sign that is on there is 16 inches, which is the smallest. The V hes drives the height of the fascia as it is represented between the sigr ng on the blue and the 6 inch gray eyebrow trademark goes with the e; that is how you end up with the minimal height that Chevron designs. go smaller than that, Chevron would have to make some kind of changs their trademark image. I would recommend looking at the other tws es of the canopy as an area where the building color could be applies I perhaps leave the blue alone. The height again is based on the tensional standards for the minimal size of the Chevron sign. Vakili, owner of the station noted: . There are only two gas stations on that side of Coast Highway Seal Beach to Laguna Beach. . People traveling during the summer do not know the location of gas station so we have to make the station visible. . If it is not visible, there will be a safety issue with not seeing station until they are right on it. . It is important to have those sizes of signs, especially since we lowered the pole sign. Sommissioner Selich noted that the gas station is open and visible an( oes not need that size of signage. He noted he would like to see monument sign and not the pole sign with the bulk on it that is proposed. file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\1204.htm Page 7 of 13 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Page 8 of 13 Monument signs on gas stations are low profile signs that are typically 4 - eet in height and are commonly designed. We have one on the Shel tation with a shell symbol on it. Most other cities with new service statiom ave the low profile monument signs and I would prefer to see one that is arallel with the face of the building facing the intersection or possibly two ne at each angle on the intersecting streets of Coast Highway an( Bayside Drive. I think they would be just as visible and would look muci etter. Looking at quality service stations done in other areas, they ar( irtually all using these low profile signs and not these tall signs. I don't see here the tall sign does any good and as far as approaching from the west I don't see where you would lose any visibility going to a monument sign. This is a triangular shape piece of property and that nose of the property i; really visible. I think this site is ideal for this type of sign. ssioner Eaton noted that the monument sign seems off balance. if the applicant would like additional footage for width so the s it could be used on both sides of the sign without reducing the Vakili answered yes. As long as the requirements are met for would like to accommodate the City. Mr. Rodriguez answered that there would not be a problem with the additional stone element; however, he would not recommend it. Physicall) n the street it would be a monolithic view blocker. The pole sign withou architecture is the leanest thing you can put in the sky, but it is ugly. Reducing the height of the sign and putting architecture on it would conver he pole sign into something palatable. To make it wider would impose ore view restriction on the area. ommissioner Eaton asked what sign elements would be kept if there low profile monument sign. imissioner Selich answered that it would be up to the applicant gn the sign and come up with a low profile sign (4 -5 feet) that could signs, or a wrap around sign. There are enumerable ways to arrar e elements. Vakili answered that the pricing would not be visible to the custc are putting one sign for both streets, with two it would add one i which would not be architecturally pleasing. on followed on how other stations do their signage program of sites, visibility of signage, and safety for customers. ommissioner Tucker noted he was not suggesting that the 16 inch sign or he canopy fascias be reduced, he is suggesting that the band be reduced. They can still figure out how to mount the 16 inch sign on a smaller band. would like to not see it be blue and I would like to see it at 2 feet and ad( another 7 inches to the the element; but the 16 inch sign I am okay with. file: //14: \Plancomm \2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004 • • 9 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 y say it needs to be 2 feet 7 inches to mount the 2 foot sign, I am exactly, they can figure out how to mount the 16 inch sign on a Rodriguez added that when we were discussing with staff this concerr t came up at the last Planning Commission meeting, we did submit plan, Chevron with a shortened fascia, I believe it was about 16 inches. evron rejected it and told the applicant that no gas station would be buil h that kind of design. He continued, noting: . The two long sides of the canopy are not blue, they have the color on them. . The size of the characters that you can have on a five foot sign are small, about 51/2 inches. . You can not read that pricing from a 50 mile an hour street. . Agreed that in most cities the sign heights are restricted to 6 feet the average. . At Commission inquiry noted that he could get it down to a little 8 feet. mmissioner Kiser stated that if someone is looking for a gas station ast Highway they will be in the right -hand lane. Coming over the B V bridge they can obviously see the new station that is much more vis n the old station with the Food Mart and the new roof element that more visible. The triangular location makes it easier to see. Every of teloped gas station in an attractive city that cares about what the ks like, all the monument signs are low, about 4 to 5 feet high. I am s re are ways to figure this out and Chevron can make this work if it N decision of the Commission to make it a more attractive sign; comment was opened. Linda Roscoe, 20 year resident and property owner in Newport Beai imented that she appreciates and thanks the process that 1 nmissioners go through, the time, the detail, the conscientiousness r consideration of a use permit. arge Austin, resident of the City, noted her concern of the signage am Ihting. She asked that as many signs as possible be unlit and sedate a: )ssible. There is a lighted logo above each pump and we all know this is Chevron gas station. There are no signs on the canopies now, yet peoplf ave stopped there since 1967 without lighted signs. I ask that you get the anopy quiet. Less is more, particularly when it comes to lighted signs. I :ople need gas they will stop and get the gas regardless of the brand. its neighborhood is not the beginning of Mariner's Mile and I believe ou file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\1204.htm Page 9 of 13 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Page 10 of 13 should be as understated as possible. . Public comment was closed. ommissioner Kiser stated he would like to see a monument sign eith( )uble faced, triangular; or two separate ones on the two streets that are -5 feet high. I can't imagine that wouldn't be adequate for the station an ake for a more attractive development. If someone is looking for gas, the •e traveling slowly and as soon as they spot the gas station the consume ?comes less price conscious if they are running on empty and you ca ?rtainly turn into a gas station and if the prices are outrageous, they ca on down the road. As far as the signage on the canopies, if th )plicant were able to do something like Commissioner Tucker suggests, we no problem with another identifying name on the top as long as it ?Dt to a reasonable size. imissioner Eaton noted that there is an uphill grade on that bridge s don't see the station until you are over it if you are a new driver i i. I would approve the 13 foot sign, but not a 15 foot sign. I would b ig to go with a 6 - 8 foot monument sign if it was limited to the Chevrc lent. I would like to see what the monument sign would look like as hearing a wider monument sign. As far as the signs on the bands t have a problem, I agree that it would be better if they were not lit. ce hairperson McDaniel affirmed with staff that the signs on the canopies lit. nmissioner Selich noted that if we want to go with the monument sig could always approve the project with the condition that the monume i come back to the Planning Commissioner for final review. imissioner Cole stated that he agrees with Commissioner Eaton iments. The meeting at which the applicant originally presented th )osal, we gave the applicant direction along the lines of what they hav ie back with, so I believe we are a little remiss by coming back to thei a completely different idea. The original proposal was a 20 foot pol which is there now and following a straw pole we asked them to corn k with what they have tonight around 10 to 13 feet high. I am okay wii original proposed 13 foot sign. I believe staff properly has approve this sign is acceptable because it is one sign versus two, which the a right to. I agree that 15 feet is too high. As far as the band signs, ?e with Commissioner Tucker to reduce the width of the ban itself bi allowing the size sign they would like to have; and I have no problei the blue color. ommissioner Toerge stated with regard to the monument sign or stand t ign, I prefer a monument sign. I don't think a monument sign of 6 feet is onument sign, it becomes more of a placard and is a view obstruction. m more supportive of a 4 foot tall monument sign or multiple signs e pposed to a 15 foot sign. Regarding the banding or fascia, I agree wi file: //H:1Plancomm12003PC11204.htm 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Page 11 of 13 Commissioner Tucker in terms of removing the blue. If the blue band k .emoved, then I am not so concerned with the width of the fascia or the eight, but I do think the blue conflicts with the colors somewhat. Looking a he exhibit for the canopies, you don't list the northwest elevations, so presume it is the same as the southeast elevation. I think it should all be an (building color) instead of blue. With regard to the illumination, conditior 8 has a provision that allows the Planning Director to order the dimming o ight sources and review unacceptable negative impact on surrounding Ian( ses. I would like to add that language to condition 11 that deals with noise s that would make it more discretionary for the Planning Director review. hat way, if a member of the public complains about noise, the Plannin< Director can make a determination. 0 imissioner Selich noted his agreement about the width of the fascia a color issue, a 4 -5 foot high monument sign and the applicant can bri k some further designs for it. The people here promoting the high , that is what they get paid to do. These monument signs are state art and the oil industry lives with them in the cities that require them. s like ours that allow discretion, they will always go with the higher a ler sign. Virtually every oil company has monument signs in some citi iewhere and seem to do just fine with them. ommissioner Tucker concurred with Commissioner Cole. We sent the pplicant back to the drawing board in terms of the pole sign to have more rchitecture associated with it and told them to bring the thing down. gree to 13 feet; 1 would like to see the band painted out to a non -blue colo nd in terms of the noise, I think we need to stay with what is in the Code. he people who live next to a commercial district really shouldn't be hocked when it is operated like a commercial district. If the majority of the ommission want a monument sign, I believe 4 -5 feet is not really much o monument sign. There needs to be a certain level of visibility. MI uggestion on moving the canopy band width down to 2 feet was also to dd 7 inches more to the canopy tile element. iairperson McDaniel noted that it appears to be 100% vote with the I: ith and tile, and 4 votes for the single monument at 13 feet. I would reduce this as much as possible, but we did tell them to come back mething and this was the direction we told them. They have done smaller monument is one you would get in a residential area. Cor wn from a 55 mph thoroughfare one sign resolves all of the visil ues. If this is approved, it will be approved at 13 feet total and nlicant will have to make it so. Temple stated the additional condition related to how the signs strutted and fabricated similar to the property next door. The iition would read, 'The construction type of the signs shall n project at 353 East Cost Highway, as determined by the Plat Kiser stated that he heard the four votes for the file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 ign at 13 feet 1 inch; the project is a good one and the applicant has g •long way to respond to our comments. Motion was made Commissioner Kiser to approve Use Permit No. 2003 -012 and Modifica Permit No. 2003 -008 (PA2003 -073) with all of the revisions made for • the revisions to conditions 13, and 43; and, • in the resolution, section 7 remove duplicate phrase, 'requiring this, • condition 3, the word major would be deleted and the word a inserted before substantial; • condition 13 permitted hours of operation changed to 5:00 a.m. for t Food Mart; • condition 18, add, Trash receptacles shall be emptied before th overflow; • condition 23, remove, 'maximum number of code' and read, to enst that required trees specified in the planting plan as modifi tonight; • condition 24, add, '..submit a landscaping plan approved . modified.....; • condition 29, remove as it is a duplicate of condition 28; • condition 43, delete (No. 6 on the plans); • condition 65, replace the word, 'as' with and and insert the word, w the approved......; • additional two conditions prepared by staff; • revisions to the landscape plan regarding tree heights and number trees - three tree types at 36inch boxes, two Queen palms on Baysi Drive side and two on the Coast Highway side and they will be 15 fE brown trunk height in whatever box size they come in; • thinning the band around the canopy from the 2 feet 7 inches down 2 feet and adding the 7 inches to the tile mansard above; • eliminate the blue color on the band and be the same color as t other two sides; and, •• the monument sign shall be maximum 13 feet 1 inch in height. • condition 75 - The colors of the buildings and trim treatment sh Page 12 of 13 file: //H:\Plancomm \2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004 I,J 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Page 13 of 13 match the project at 353 East Coast Highway as determined by the Planning Director and all painted exterior surfaces shall be repainted periodically as needed with the same colors to retain first class appearance during the operation of this property under this use permit. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the Council considered amendments to the Zoning Code to change the standard of review for the Modifications Permits, and decided they wanted an expanded analysis related to how the applications might have been dealt with under the revised standards and want 4 months of additional information; the clean up mapping amendment for 3450 Via •. Oporto was approved; and there was the 2nd reading and adoption of the Ordinance establishing the procedure for the Special Circumstance Variance b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - the meeting will be on December 8th. A Commission request a schedule will be provided to the Commissioners. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - the next meeting is December 10th. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. h. Project status - none. i. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //H: \Plancomm \2003PC\ 1204.htm 01/13/2004