Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/03/2002CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley- . All present Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director -- Robin- Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Patrick Alford, Senior Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Todd Weber, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Ms. Temple noted that Mr. Edmonston went home sick earlier in the day. There • are two staff members from the Public Works Department, Mr. Hoffstadt, Subdivision Engineer who can address issues regarding street design and drainage and Ms. Divan an Associate Civil Engineer of the Traffic Engineering Division. Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser, and voted on to approve the amended minutes of December 6, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Abstain: Kronzley Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: • The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, December 28, 2001. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 SUBJECT. Cannery Loft 501 -507 & 500 -512 30th Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue (PA2001 -128) Request for a Site Plan Review, Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Residential Development Permit and Traffic Study for the construction of 22 commercial /residential buildings on 16 lots that encompass approximately 1.44 acres in the Cannery Village area. The Use Permit involves the request for the buildings to exceed the base height limit of 26 feet by 7 feet. The project also requests to subdivide one lot, which was the result of a previous merger of 7 lots, recreating the previous subdivision pattern. Chairman Tucker stated that this is a continued hearing on the project. Tonight we are going through the environmental document. This matter will not come to a vote tonight, as there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved. At the end of the discussion on the CEQA matters we will go through what is outstanding and then we will attempt to reach a date for this matter to be continued to. I am hoping that the next time we meet on this item, the Commission will be in a position to act, but that is not going to happen tonight. We are going to focus on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments that we have received to that document. We have received three comment letters, one from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) of the City, one from Lucille Kring and one from the Coastal Commission. I would like to start off with the EQAC representative. Commissioner Kranzley stated that though he was not at the last meeting, he listened to the tape and has met with the developer and several residents in the community. Robert Hawkins, Chairman of EQAC speaking as their representative noted he was at the meeting at the request of Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood and Commissioner McDaniel. He noted that he has not prepared nor did the Committee authorize any separate presentation other than the written comments before you. Chairperson Tucker explained he would like to go through the letter to be sure that the Commission and staff understand the points made. He then asked about the type of environmental document that should be used. You have cited part of the guidelines that an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) is the type of document that should be used as opposed to a Mitigated Negative Declaration whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. I wanted to clarify that there are other things in the guidelines that indicate that if you can mitigate those impacts to a level of insignificance then the proper document is a Mitigated Negative Declaration. One of the things we are going to be looking for as we go through the comments is whether a fair argument has been made that the applicant can not mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. That is what the standard is. n LJ Item No. 1 PA2001 -128 Continued to 02/21/2002 • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Mr. Hawkins answered that the fair argument standard is understood as has been stated both with respect to impacts as well as mitigation. Chairperson Tucker noted the key is the substantial evidence in the record. The guidelines also say that arguments, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous or evidence that is not credible shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by fact. That is the standard by which we will evaluate the propriety of using a mitigated negative declaration. Mr. Hawkins noted that these comments are meant to focus the issues on the environmental documents that the EQAC reviewed. Chairperson Tucker noted that one of THe things mentioned was the project description was ambiguous. The project issues noted were the trench drain and the use permit application. What do you mean by ambiguous? Mr. Hawkins answered that as the comments develop, we had a concern about the capacity of the drain. It seemed to the Committee that if the project • description was full and complete, we would have a sizing for that drain to understand whether it was adequate or not. We are losing in this project the two side gutters that are typically present on most city streets and we are relying solely on one center drain. Obviously it is in the applicant's best interest to make sure that it is correctly sized and we were hoping to see that. Chairperson Tucker noted that curbs of some type would still be there. Discussion followed on the shape of the drain and sufficiency of size, as well as the Committee's apparent confusion on the height of the buildings requested in the use permit application. Continuing, Chairman Tucker stated that the aesthetics issue raised is the primary issue for the Planning Commission to decide, whether this project architecturally fits. How would these issues be different if there were 22 separate projects with 22 separate architects? How would the environmental impacts be any different with 22 separate projects, yet probably none of those separate projects would have come to us with a CEQA document like this. This is a subdivided, zoned, general plan location where some architectural decisions were made and therefore a use permit is required because the applicants chose to take advantage of a code section that allows one to go over the basic height if they can come forth and show that they have the requisite architectural justification for it. That is why I have been grappling with the comments that we have received. If the property were developed with 22 separate buildings with 22 separate owners, all built to the maximum, how would this be different from an environmental standpoint? • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Mr. Hawkins answered that the Committee understood that sort of concern. As I understand it as a result of the presentation made to EQAC, it is my recollection that they could also be entitled to massing and build a massive structure that covers the entire block but does not require the height and there would be no CEQA documents as well. There are two concerns before you. I think that the environmental review process is one of those where the City and the Commission negotiates with the applicant and the land owner to develop a project, which is really the highest standards for both. When we start taking this and look at 22 different property owners and each can build a unique little building, I still think that you are going to have that negotiation, but in this setting, you have the opportunity to address it in a better fashion. Chairperson Tucker asked about the comment made that the Negative Declaration should discuss the architectural guidelines in some detail. The guidelines are a paragraph in the Zoning Ordinance. Is there further guidelines that I am not aware of? Ms. Temple answered that the Design and Development Guidelines of the Cannery Village is about half a page within the Specific Plan Zoning. Chairperson Tucker added that it is discussed in the Neg Dec on page 39 but it is more a repetition of what is in there. There is not a lot in the way of guidelines. Mr. Hawkins noted that the concern of EQAC is that the document could be enhanced and better able for public review if something as easy as a paragraph was inserted in the document. Chairperson Tucker then asked about the comment on geology that there was a concern that the Neg Dec does not really talk about the mitigation measures for subsidence or,lateral spreading. Actually it does address it. The lateral spreading from liquefaction is just like putting ice cream on a plate and then when it melts it will spread, which liquid does versus a solid. That is going to happen whether this project happens or not. There is no mitigation measure other than a structural engineer designs the structures to take into account that liquefaction might happen and that is on page 28 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Hawkins answered that lateral spreading and subsidence are terms of art. However, those terms of art are not carried through on the mitigation measures. It may be that there is a mitigation measure that addresses these concerns, but the document doesn't say that and that was the point of the comment. Chairperson Tucker then asked about hydrology and water quality issues. It is indicated that the Neg Dec repeatedly notes that the project will increase the pervious surface area. The water quality requirements are in transition now. What I am finding in my developments is that you almost need to increase the pervious areas. It will increase the percolation rates but I am not sure the groundwater issue is one that is a major issue in this setting. INDEX • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Mr. Hawkins answered that he is not aware of any groundwater production facilities in and around the area. I am not here to withdraw or modify any of the comments that are written, I am just responding to the questions. Chairperson Tucker then asked about the land use planning comments and that the project is more residential than commercial, which is true. The way the zoning is set up, that is actually what is allowed. You have a .5 FAR for the commercial and then 1.25 with the residential. By statutory definition, it is not surprising that if somebody built out to the maximum FAR they are going to have 60% residential and 40% commercial. That is what is allowed. Mr. Hawkins answered that the core of this comment is inserting this predominantly residential project in an existing and planned commercial area could divide the existing and, proposed _ commercial_ district_ We_ have made that point with respect to the aesthetics as well. Any project redeveloping existing structures is always going to have this blending. problem. We are pointing out that will be an environmental impact and the question is, what if anything is anybody going to do about it? Chairperson Tucker noted these are rules, nothing can be done about it and we 191 are stuck with them whether we like them or not. Continuing, he noted that the public services issue is a work in progress now, so we will put that in abeyance until we see what staff and the applicant comes up with. The same thing with what is going to happen to the street to the extent that it ends up with a materially different design of the project then we will have to figure out what to do. We have to see if there will be mitigation measures. Mr. Hawkins noted that the core comment we have is simply the deferral of the mitigation measure. I think that is a legitimate concern with respect to the document. I understand what your point is that these are issues still being resolved internally. Chairperson Tucker noted that the traffic is at a Level of Service A in the intersection that has been studied that could be impacted nearby. It seems to me that some of the comments that EQAC had as well as some of the comments that Ms. Kring had, are in large measure, comments on what the present zoning allows. The comments seems to indicate the project should be less intense than what the zoning documents really say that it can be. Maybe that is where the conflict is. Mr. Hawkins noted that the issue with traffic is parking, not the circulation. With respect to the traffic, there are some mathematical and numerical problems that can be easily resolved in your responses. • Chairperson Tucker stated that they would be. He then thanked the speaker for his comments. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 INDEX Commissioner Kiser asked when the written comments to the EQAC letter would be ready? He was answered that those comments should be ready within a week to ten days. Chairperson Tucker then stated he would talk about the Lucille Kring letter. Lucille Kring, at Commission inquiry, noted that she lives in Anaheim and. sloes not own property in the Cannery Village area. She is helping friends who live in the area who feel this particular project is not right for the neighborhood. Continuing, she noted that none of them feel that this property should not be developed; they just feel that this development is too massive for the Cannery Village. Chairperson Tucker stated this is not the issue, actually what is being proposed by the applicant is consistent with what they are allowed to do. The massiveness really is not, except for the aesthetics, what we are considering. How many people are you speaking for? Ms. Kring then faced the audience and asked how many were against the project whom she represented. Four people raised their hands. She then stated that today she received several letters that were presented to the Planning Commission, from Dr. Vickers, Dr. Morgan and Roy Jackson. • Chairperson Tucker then stated that the purpose of this hearing is to address the details of the environmental document. Commissioner Gifford asked the speaker to clarify whom she is representing. Ms. Kring answered that her group, ORACLE, is a grass roots organization that do not support the project even though it is okay with the zoning. The objection is they do not want something -like this in their neighborhood. She has gone to many businesses and residences in the community. She has some signatures and did ask for some to speak at the meeting tonight. She stated that a number would be around 30 that she represents who occupy and /or rent businesses. None of them are occupants of any of the structures that are going to be demolished in answer to Commission query. Chairperson Tucker thanked the speaker for her letter. He noted that the standard for review is credible evidence, not arguments or speculations or unsubstantiated opinion or, narrative. The first comment you had dealt with the length of the public review period. Commissioner Tucker noted that the review period rules are the some for everyone. There will be a response to your letter. Continuing, he noted the following issues: • Propriety of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as opposed to an Environmental Impact Report. As we go through your letter, I am going to be asking what is your substantial argument. • The nature of crediting the project with what existing development is City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 there already. Your position is that if something has been vacant for a period of time, it should not get credited. That is not standard operating procedure in any jurisdiction that I am aware of. There is not a lot of difference between something that is occupied month to month and something that is not occupied at all. Someone has a right to use it and whatever credits are available, are available. The project should be marine oriented and coastal dependent. That pertains to the four lots on the water as opposed to the other 18 lots. The other 18 lots are not bound by the same limit. He then asked about incentive use requirement along the water information from staff. Ms. Temple answered that neither the General Plan, LCP or the Zoning Code actually mandate a limitation just to coastally dependent or marine related uses. The incentive use provisions were intended to provide a modest incentive to maintain a portion of the waterfront areas with those types. of uses. It is not-an absolute requirement. Within our system, there is only one use that mandates the provision of a coastally dependent or marine related use and that is general tenancy office development. Any other form of retail, even non -marine related retail and other marine related uses such as yacht brokers, etc. are all permitted and do not require the provision of the coastally dependent or marine related. It is a goal, not a mandate. . Chairperson Tucker asked if this project was built as 22 separate projects with 22 separate architects and looked totally different, would there be an objection to the project? Ms. Kring answered that she believed there would not be because each architect would have its own distinctiveness and each property would be viewed differently and there would be the eclectic charm and aesthetic value that the Cannery is known for. When you walk around this area now, each building is different. But when you have 22 that all look alike, it is too massive, uniform and homogenous. If there were 22 different buildings, they would not be built all at the some time and would be phased in. I don't think there would be as much concern if that were the case. If you phased in 22 individual buildings with the same idea of commercial /residential, each one would have its own individuality where we don't believe that this project does. If they wanted the height variance for each of the 22 buildings, we would have a concern with that. Chairperson Tucker noted that the property is not cheap there and people would try to maximize what they could have. Our charge under the Code is to look at the design trade off. That is one of the things the Code allows an applicant to do and we respond to that. Continuing, he asked staff about tandem parking. Ms. Temple answered that tandem parking is allowed under the Code. • Ms. Kring answered that just because tandem parking is allowed under the INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Code that does not necessarily mean people are S as it may create problems for parking on the street. use it. It is a concern Chairperson Tucker answered that it is allowed and went on to the next issue noted in her letter of Coastal Residential Development permit, which The Commission has not seen the analysis. One of the alternatives available for projects is that affordable units are put somewhere in the City. It is not necessarily the case that the affordable housing has to be in the development and in this particular case, it may not be. That study will come back and analyze what the alternatives are and make recommendations to us. Another issue that was raised in the letter was the aesthetics and public visual access with the three -foot side yards. A lot of these buildings are up against each other in this area today with no open area in between. Ms. Temple noted that the only. setback requirements on these lots in Cannery Village are a front setback and an alley side setback; there are no side yard requirements. . Continuing, Chairperson Tucker noted the comments on the issues raised by Ms. Kring's letter: • The architecture and the same theme for all 22 units - really is the key issue for the Commission to decide; . The question is, has the applicant carried the burden of coming up with a design that at least four of us believe accomplishes superior architectural quality to justify exceeding the basic height limit. As indicated, the applicant's choice is to build within the 26 feet if we don't approve of that. • Intensity of development - that really is part of the air quality discussion. The applicant is proposing a project that does not require any floor area ratio variances. The -air quality analysis is based upon a general plan analysis with an air quality management plan that assumes a certain intensity and based upon our general plan and as long as the applicant is not increasing above that, that issue has already been resolved. I don't see that as something that requires any additional analysis. • The cultural resources - the area has been graded and developed, this is not going to be a deep excavation project. I don't think we will need to have any paleontologists out there while this is going on. • The issue of Newport Plating and possible contamination - I am not sure that we have anything other than speculation. • The Water Quality Control Board comment - the board for our region has not adopted anything yet, so it is hard to force somebody to comply with something that has not been adopted. This applicant by increasing the pervious areas significantly, landscaping and turf block, meets the goals that typically the Water Quality Control Board tries to implement, which is to have run off water flow over landscaping to allow it to percolate and cleanse before it ends up where it ends up. This applicant is also proposing a filter in the trench drain. Right now, that water goes straight to the bay. INDEX • E City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 • Marine oriented and coastal dependent uses - the Planning Director has discussed that one. • Environmental analysis on a re- design - a valid concern if it gets redesigned to the point where that is necessary. Sometimes redesigns are not real significant in terms of what they look like and environmental impact. We do not yet know if this will happen and will have to wait and see how that ends up. • Parkland issue - This will probably be handled one of two ways, payment of a fee or the applicant is willing to spend money for the end of 30th Street barring any technical reasons. The public might want to let the City know if they are interested in some parkland there. • The traffic analysis - your comment is that the traffic analysis 'drastically' underestimates the potential traffic and circulation system. We have the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, which includes a detailed set of rules governing how traffic studies are to be conducted. Whether you are for or against a project, you should be for a consistent set of rules. In this case, the applicant has followed the rules and to ask him to do something beyond them is not fair nor justified. • The timing of the project with a completion date in 2003 - this is probably realistic. Assuming the applicant can get going by the first of next year, I am assuming it will all be done in one phase and it will take • a year or more for processing the permits. It might be tight, but it could happen. • The analysis considering other major developments that may occur on Balboa Peninsula would be additional traffic impacts - the reality is the way our traffic analysis system works everything is computed in based upon the intensity allowed under the General Plan and is already in the traffic model. This project is not intensifying what is in the General Plan today; it is intensifying what is physically there today. I don't think there would be any cumulative impacts to look at based on the fact build out is already computed in the model. Ms. Kring stated that the comments were very helpful. However, this community is built on a village atmosphere and is very unique and unusual. There are so many people who have been here for years, residents and investors and business owners, and they want to maintain the same aesthetic values. The aesthetics are things that should be of concern to the Commission. Chairperson Tucker requested that the speaker confine her comments to the CEQA issues, as there was public testimony from the residents at the last hearing about the other merits of the this project. Ms. Kring answered that the City is just starting the General Plan Update and we feel that perhaps any change could be put off until the General Plan is updated for the whole City since the Cannery will be part of that. Since you ask for input from all citizens in the area for the update, and a lot of people are concerned . about the village and the city, then you could put this decision off until the General Plan has been satisfied. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 INDEX 0 Chairperson Tucker answered that the General Plan update process is a vision and blueprint for the future; it is not a moratorium. This applicant has come forth with a plan based upon the General Plan. When that update gets completed, I suspect could be after the applicant plans to be finished with this project and Will be approximately two years away. Commissioner Kiser asked how the update would affect a Specific Plan for the Cannery Village that is already in place? Ms. Temple answered that there is a possibility that through the General Plan update process, issues related to this project could become policy points for discussion and potential change in the General Plan. It is unknown whether that outcome would come to fruition or not. We all know height is a sensitive issue in Newport Beach. Once the General Plan update-is completed, there is still a tremendous amount of follow up work to update the Zoning Code to implement those new policies, so we are talking about quite a lengthy period of time. Frankly, right now we are dealing with a project that is consistent with the General Plan. You can't deny it on the basis of something that you might do in the future. Commissioner Gifford commented that it is her understanding that some specific area plans contain some elements that are not the same as the General Plan. When you say it will be accomplished by follow up, does that mean that specific area plans will be adjusted to conform? Ms. Temple answered that no, we are consistent now. If there were policies that were adopted that would further limit heights in certain areas or call for a different palette of land uses in say a specific plan, then we would have to follow up immediately through implementing ordinances and that could mean amendments to the Specific Area Plans. Ms. Wood added that one of the things that staff is hoping to accomplish through this update is to make it more of a general policy document and guide for the City then what we have today, which is more specific then you would see General Plans in a lot of cities. If the height in Cannery Village or on waterfront properties were to become an issue in the General Plan, I would think we might have some policy direction to reduce height limits. The General Plan would not say the height limit in Cannery Village should be 26 feet; it would be a more general thing. As noted, we would then follow up with implementing ordinances and the Commission and Council would then consider exactly how much of a reduction in height would be appropriate and that would be put into the zoning for the Specific Plan. Commissioner Kiser then asked if the General Plan does get updated, that it probably would not mandate zoning changes for areas that already have existing Specific Plans like Cannery Village? Rather it would just give a policy • direction to potential changes in zoning? 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Ms. Wood answered that you would not want to amend the General Plan, so that you immediately have throughout the City a number of inconsistencies between Zoning and General Plan. So if there were changes in land use that come.out of the General Plan, those would be the highest priority to address with Zoning Amendments. Things like the height limit I think, especially since that is more of a policy issue and the General Plan would have less specificity to it, we could take a little bit longer to make those changes. Chairperson Tucker noted that there is a Vision Festival going on next weekend and if you have a different vision for Cannery Village than what is being suggested by the applicant tonight, you should show up and express your vision. Tonight we are proceeding with the General Plan in existence today. Public comment was opened. Dennis Overstreet, 128 Via Trieste noted that he recently acquired the property at 2816 Lafayette, which was a restaurant on the waterfront. He noted he is not that familiar with this project. However, he believes as a retailer and businessman, that the design does not enhance retail or a commercial environment even though being of mixed use. Doing away with the street and the disappearance of curbs, it looks residential and will discourage people from the surrounding area from believing this is a place to conduct retail business. Where is the commercial coming in? Additionally, there is not enough parking. Chairperson Tucker answered that in the environmental document there are certain things we are looking at tonight. If the applicant had not come in for the Use Permit, we would not see or have the ability to talk about the architecture at all. I think those uses are what they are going to be, there is a lot of uses in that area and properties that do look like residential that have office below. Tom Bluerock, 3000 Newport Boulevard stated he has followed this project as it has been submitted to the City. He asked the Commission to consider one thing and that is the height of the project. Most of the projects there have not needed a height variance, this much building is going to change the scale and urban character. I would urge you to consider that height limit. You can get the same area without the height variance and I don't know why he needs to request additional height. Commissioner Kiser asked about the need for a use permit for height for other structures that have been constructed in Cannery Village. Have others come in and received conditional use permits to increase the height over 26 feet for projects that have been constructed down there? I am not sure that the statement made about others not needing a use permit for height in that area, ... I believe is not a true statement. Ms. Temple answered that there have been projects; I would not say the 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 majority of projects that have requested to exceed the basic height limit. Probably the most recent and significant project that requested that relief was the 28th Street Marina project. It has been many years and projects have availed themselves of the relief through a use permit. Frits Hawser, 608 St. James Place stated that he supports the project. He has reviewed the plans and notes it is a good addition to the area. This type of project should encourage more redevelopment and refurbishment in the area. I have no comments on the environmental issues. Brent Delvalle, 1201 Estelle Lane noted he supports the project and that the architectural theme looks good. Public comment closed. Commissioner Selich, referring to the revised staff report and the occupancy separation walls and fire sprinklers, asked if those aren't building code issues? The fire sprinklers are requested to be included as a condition of approval. What is the difference here that we are requiring them? Ms. Temple answered she would have to go back to the Fire Marshall for the specifics as to why he is requesting them. Specifically, the fire separation walls are code requirement. I believe that the discussion for the need of the fire sprinklers is related to the possibility that some of those fire separation walls might be able to be modified or eliminated. The only reason they were included is because the separation walls will have an impact visually from the outside of the structure of the street and so it could possibly affect the judgment related to the height limit findings. Commissioner Selich noted that on the sprinklers, again if the buildings were to come in individually and not be required to do sprinklers, based on what I have seen so for I fail to see the reason that we would require 22 buildings to do it because they are coming in at the same time. I don't see why you would treat one different than the other. Ms. Temple answered she would try and get further information on this question for the Commission. Commissioner Gifford stated that she is seeing some possible potential that the requirement /conditioning for fire sprinklers is not simply, 'okay you don't have to have them', but we are going to decide that we want them. Rather the reverse of what Chairman Tucker has been talking about, this is what the requirements are, so don't be talking about what you wish for. We are going to operate under the requirements. Here there is not a requirement for sprinklers but someone is talking about what they wish for. Is the idea here that if there are sprinklers there could be a trade off with the height of the fire separation wall and we could be talking about a way to potentially not require a height limit increase? The result of not requiring the fire separation wall at all would be what 12 INDEX 0 9 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 •7117:/ in terms of height and the issues we are dealing Ms. Temple answered that one of the comments the applicant made to staff is that the breezeways through on the ground floor provide part of the visual openness that would justify exceeding the height limit. To the extent those breezeways are obscured by a solid, full height fire separation wall, that argument may hold less weight with the Commission. The plans that the Commission has been shown show the fire separation walls. If they were to be eliminated there would probably be a little bit more open visual view through the project between the street and the alley. To the extent that became important in the consideration for making the findings on the height limit, then may be there is a slight tie between those issues. It is not that the fire separation walls and the placement of the mechanical equipment would affect the actual height. Ms. Temple clarified that the separation walls are unrelated to the ___ proposed height ot_the_buildings. Commissioner Kranzley stated he knows that tandem parking can be used to satisfy parking requirements; one comes to mind on Coast Highway. Because it is allowed, does it mean that we need to accept it as a mitigation for sub- standard parking? Ms. Temple answered that it is not a substitution for substandard parking; it is just the way to achieve the greatest amount of on site parking supply. Commissioner Kranzley noted that we historically discourage tandem parking and in fact where we have allowed tandem parking, I would say that it is not utilized. My question is, are we required to accept tandem parking as a fulfillment of the parking requirement? Ms. Temple answered that the Code does allow it. I believe that you can not not allow it. Commissioner Kranzley stated that if we see a shopping center come in and they say that in order to satisfy the parking needs of a shopping center, we are going to have X number of parking spaces. The Commission does not have any discretion over that? Ms. Temple answered that we do in that kind of parking pool arrangement have the ability to require and review valet parking plans. Chairperson Tucker noted that with a larger scale use where people do not know each other, tandem parking is a recipe for a disaster. It is not something that I am enthused about in any circumstances, but when you have 700/800 square foot commercial use where you will have a person who owns the property, the chances for utilizing the tandem parking will be greater, especially in an area where you have parking meters on the street. They are going to figure out how to use tandem spaces because it will mean money otherwise. 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Ms. Temple added that the accommodation of tandem parking particularly in areas like the Cannery Village is just that, an accommodation on a 30 -foot wide lot on an individual property. It is virtually impossible to get new Code required parking without the use of tandem spaces. I think the City is realistic, we understand many times they are not used but at least there is a potential for use. If the parking situation got difficult enough, people would start using them. we agree it is not an optimal arrangement, but in these older subdivided areas, it really has been the only way to achieve on -site parking without waivers. Chairperson Tucker then stated he would like to get the response to comments before discussing the Coastal Commission letter. He then asked if members of the audience wish to speak on the Coastal Commission letter. There was no response. Mr. James Campbell noted that the staff reports.lists by that are outstanding and high lighted the following. Planning Department: • Responses to comments - expected to be ready within week to ten days. • Coastal Residential Development Permit - expect completion of the study by late January. Building Department: • One occupancy separation wall not on plans that has to do with the trellises at the interior property line. Additionally, there is ongoing discussion about use of fire sprinklers as protection to remove some of the occupancy separation walls in the interior. No verification from Fire Marshall or building official as to what will be done with this. Expect this to be resolved within the next two weeks. Public Works Department: • Concerns with hydrology /drainage and would like the preparation of a study to ensure that the proposed drainage concept is feasible. The applicant assures that this can be prepared within the next two weeks or so. • Pedestrian interface within the public realm out front would work, as there are non- standard improvements there. We want to have further clarification and details of where the cars and pedestrians will be. Additional exhibits are being prepared by the applicant to show possibly some protective devices to better assess the path of travel to ensure safety. I do not know when those are coming, although we hope to have them shortly. • Maintenance of these non - standard improvements, discussions are ongoing. An Assessment District option is being discussed whereby the owners would pay into a fund that the City would control and the City would then maintain the improvements as necessary. • Some minor details with street improvements and we hope to have 14 01670 49 • u City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 those at least addressed by the applicant and reviewed by the appropriate staff and recommendations brought back to the Commission. I would anticipate, given the complexity of the issues we have here, and the length of time necessary for the Coastal Residential Development Permit and the Hydrology Study, I don't see being able to bring this back to the Commission before the second meeting of February. I recommend we continue this item to February 21, 2002. Commissioner Selich noted you are talking about the design of these non- standard improvements and pedestrian separation. We already have an example of that in Lido Marina Village, are we having problems there that necessitate a different standard. - --- -- . ................. .......... Ms. Temple noted that during discussions with the applicant and Public Works staff, we did talk specifically about the non - standard improvements in Lido Marina Village. Based on personal experience, we discussed how there is very little traffic on that street, there is also not very much traffic going to be on this street as well. However, the pedestrians seem to have the greatest amount of problem understanding where the cars are supposed to be versus where they Oare supposed to be walking. There have been some conflict issues. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that most of the people walk down the street and this is something that the Public Works Department wants a greater understanding of; this is an area with a more conventional layout. It's a grid system, a type of pedestrian environment that people do tend to traverse on and all the other surrounding streets are conventional curb /gutter sidewalk arrangements that are very well understood by the pedestrian._ The Public Works Department is concerned that there may be some extra problems and wants to be careful. Commissioner Gifford noted her concern that in seeing this project, this is not something that just came up, this is not an issue that just arose. I wonder why we are just getting to look at this or really trying to understand it at this moment. Ms. Wood answered that we became aware of the extent of the Public Works Department concerns later than we should have. In addition to things mentioned by Ms. Temple, I think that in this area the drainage concerns are greater than they are in Lido Marina Village. They were also concerned with whether the proposed improvements would meet accessibility requirements for the disabled and since the City has had claims filed against us for those kinds of issues in the public right of way, the Public Works Department wants to be careful about that. Commissioner Kiser asked about the disabled parking for two of the Lafayette • lots not provided. Could the requirement to provide handicap parking or disabled parking necessitate a change in design of the buildings once that is 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 complied with? Mr. Campbell answered that might be the case because there really is not enough room to squeeze the maneuvering area for the occupant to enter /exit a vehicle. The way the design is laid out that extra five feet can not go in there. We pointed this out to the applicant, but they have not addressed it, so I am not sure how it will be resolved at this point. Commissioner Kiser noted his main concern in the interest of not having everyone to waste time on the project and be able to make comments that make sense, we need to get everything in front of us that shows the design of the project as it is to be approved. Even though the revised staff report is short, I see several things that as far as I am concerned could have a significant impact on the look of the project. Many of the concerns I have heard raised by the public and Commission have to do with architecture, views and such. I that all changes, we may be starting over. Other things noted in the staff report, such as separation walls for the interior stairways, they too could have a fairly significant visual impact on the project if those change. The point I am trying to make, the last time it was the trellis wall being apparently not to Building Code setback standards and there being a requirement that they not be combustible and have no vines growing on them. We were under the impression at the last meeting that there was going to be a wall there with a trellis and plantings on it. I really would like to see this project in a complete form at the next meeting. I don't want to have to piece meal this and make changes later or have to approve something that is a fairly significant project particularly for this area and then have to guess at what other elements the Building Department or Fire Department gets done with their approval. So, if we even need a longer continuance to get everything together so we can finally consider this, I would be all for that. Chairperson Tucker stated that the next time we see this, it is to be in a position to vote on it. Because the Use Permit is a critical element and it is tied into making required findings that the project represents a superior architectural product by allowing the height to go above the basic height, we actually have to tie any approval to a specific set of elevations. What you say is 100% accurate and we need to know what we are voting on and to the extent there are design changes, those need to come back to us. At some point, the staff will tip us off if significant changes occur, and we will have another presentation. If minor, staff can point them out to us. No matter which way it goes, we have to have in front of us what is being voted on, not here's the old plans and here are the changes. Commissioner Kiser asked the applicant for more renderings of the way the landscaping is intended to look. Also, because of the comments heard from the meetings, one of the big concerns is how this project all built at once will fit in and how it will look afterwards. It would help to have something to show how it will look, not only from street side, but even from the alleys and how it will look when the landscaping has matured. 16 INDEX • 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Chairperson Tucker noted that the next time this comes back, we will re -open the public hearing and anybody who wants to make comments about the project can do so. Tonight I tried to limit the testimony to the CEQA documents because that was the purpose of tonight's hearing and we wanted to gain that information. The Commission's feeling is that we need to have everything at the next meeting so that we know what we are voting on. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to February 21, 2002. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanion, Tucker Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None SUBJECT: Brown Duplex 405 Dahlia Avenue (PA2001 -173) Request for a variance to permit a duplex to exceed the 1.5 floor area limit . applicable within Corona del Mar. The request .includes reduction of the front yard setback from 15 -feet to 74' and the reduction of the rear yard setback from 10 -feet to 3' -6 ". Chairperson Tucker noted this item was before the Commission in November 2001. The application was for a variance of the floor area ratio. There was no majority apparent on the vote at that time, therefore it was continued. Commissioner KranzJey noted that he is not in favor of a modification of the front yard setback and would like to maintain the 15 feet. He met with the applicant and visited the site. He asked for clarification of the carport/garage area from staff. Staff answered that the minimum vehicle space width is 8 foot 3 inches. If it were up against an obstruction like a wall or post, it would be increased by 6 inches. In this particular application 17 feet 6 inches is the minimum width for two spaces with obstructions on both sides. On the revised plans there is no dimension given. Commissioner Kranzley reiterated he would like to retain as much of the front yard setback as possible and he is concerned about the view corridor into the street. He is also concerned about anything less than a three -foot setback in the back yard area. I would consider a variance with certain parameters that I just mentioned. Chairperson Tucker noted there might be an assumed variance or a reasonable • setback for computation purposes. We then have the City's Ordinances that mandate what the setback is that we can then look at changing by way of 17 INDEX Item No. 2 PA2001 -173 Approved with modifications to the project City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 INDEX modification. The threshold question is square footage; did you see any of the 5 or 6 computations that the architect made that would meet your requirements? Commissioner Kranzley answered that he was less concerned about the square footage than how the bulk was placed on the lot and what view corridors were impacted. Commissioner Gifford stated that the revised plans have made a good effort to meet our requests. The only piece that I see is not practical is the point where there is a 2 -foot setback in the rear yard at the western end of the property. It then expands quite rapidly and I wonder if we could move the carport garage segment forward another foot without messing up the upper floor. This way we could have 14 feet in that particular portion, which runs along the front property line and leave the remainder of the structure at 15 feet. Commissioner Kranzley noted that we are under the impression that carports and garages are required by Code and I am getting a different answer from staff than I got from the applicant. That may take care of the main issue that I have on the current new plans, which is the two -foot setback at that one corner. Maybe the applicant can help us with that. Commissioner Gifford noted that it may not be in the best interest as a community to have the carport be the very minimum, there is a whole functionality feature . that goes with it. Commissioner Kiser noted that he received only two sheets with his current staff report. He was answered that the applicant was unable to revise all the elevations, those are the other two sheets. (Site and Floor Plans) Continuing, Commissioner Kiser asked if it was a 15 -foot front yard setback at this point? Mr. Campbell answered that the revised plan does show a 15 -foot front yard setback on Dahlia, which complies with the zoning requirements. Commissioner Kiser clarified that the revised plan does not require a modification to the front yard setback. Did we get any comments from the owner at 407 Dahlia? It is important to hear from that owner about the plans. Mr. Campbell answered that just before the meeting he was informed by the applicant that the owner of 407 Dahlia had some concerns about the proximity of the proposed carport on the new plan at two feet. Additionally, there is a concern that it is a carport and not a garage for aesthetic reasons. There was some discussions ongoing in the lobby about whether the abutting owner was going to support the project or not. Commissioner Kiser noting the Resolution at the end of Section 1, the application includes requests for reduction of the front yard setback, is that still true? My is • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 concern was also with the 2 -foot setback on the northwest corner; it appeared that it might just be from the deck bn the second floor. Is that true? Would it be a big deal to cut that deck back to increase the setback? Staff answered that Section 1 was the old description. The wording on the resolution will be revised to reflect what plan the Commission chose to approve. That is correct, the deck could be pulled back, however the question would be if a portion of the building would require a structural support in the carport below; that issue would need to be addressed by the applicant. Commissioner Kiser then asked about the turn around and maneuvering space to get into the carports, it seems such a narrow space on the north side of the property. In the revised project, I am not concerned about the various square footages that are shown under Exhibit 1, it is more the project and setbacks and how the whole thing is going to fit in. It looks as if the current proposed. plan,. building square footage wise, I have no problem with. Commissioner Tucker noted that the findings for variances are not here. It didn't strike me that this resolution was perfected. Public comment was opened. Jeff Brown, owner /applicant of 405 Dahlia stated he had several meetings with staff and has made changes to his plans. He has been in contact with Ms. Hirsch owner of 407 Dahlia and she would like to speak tonight, as she is concerned with a couple of changes that have been made recently. Don Monteleone, architect for the project noted that the w dth of the two garages that are enclosed is 20 feet. One of the spaces in that garage is for the front unit and one is for the back unit with a wall in the middle. Each of those spaces has to be 9 feet 4 inches clear inside. The carport behind the garages could be reduced a foot. I believe the required width if there are no intervening walls for two spaces is 17 feet 6 inches. We could reduce the carport to 19 feet, bringing it 3 feet away from the rear property line. Commissioner Gifford clarified that the minimum between the walls separating the garage from the carport could be 17 feet 6 inches, how much would the post take up? Mr. Campbell answered that the post as shown on the plan would take up 1 to 11/2 square feet approximately. In answer to the previous question, the space scaled off on the plan shows 19 feet for the carport and the interior garage space width appears to be 19 feet 6 inches. That carport space could be reduced and the post could be moved to make approximately 4-4'/2 feet for the setback.. Ms. Hirsch, owner of 405 Dahlia stated she needs to reject the plan as she has • become very uncomfortable with the setback. Jeff has worked very hard, because we are so close to each other. The original plan I had accepted 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 INDEX because it did give me some positives, but I feel like 1 am now giving up a driveway into my area and creating an easement that will service two more residences. I was willing to do that because I saw an advantage to opening up my view to the street and a nicer walkway to the street. Now, the idea of walking in front of carports it no longer became very exciting to me as they can become collections of anything but housing a car. I feel I need to be stronger about this. I want closed doors on those garages. I am creating an easement where most of the property owners in Corona del Mar have an advantage of having an average lot that goes out to the alleyway and the City provides that driveway. Now, I am providing that for this other property, which I would like to help Jeff out on and make it work for both of us, but I do not see a win /win situation if I have to put up with the fact that I do have 7 feet from my front area on the first plan and now it is shoved back to 2 feet on these new plans. Moving the property forward was an advantage to me, but now that is not the case. Commissioner Tucker asked if there were garage doors on the carports, would this plan be acceptable to you as modified moving the setback to 3 feet? Ms. Hirsch said she would like to see the 7 feet setback with garage doors. These are both important issues to me. This is my walkway and I have to go by these garages. Commissioner Selich asked that if we were to move that comer post back a foot, we would have a 39 -foot run across the front of the two garages and carports, would it be possible to get 4 enclosed parking spaces in that 39 -foot run and meet our Codes? Ms. Temple answered that the major implication to keep in mind is that would increase the magnitude of the variance by that approximate ±400 square feet because it becomes floor area. Commissioner Gifford asked if the architect felt it would be possible to move that whole segment forward, if we wanted to have that ability to have the garage /carport segment forward? Commissioner McDaniel noted that if we made the structure smaller, you might be solving some of these problems. That has been my major concern, the size of this project being built. It is 938 feet extra over what was approved for this lot and I think we ought to start considering cutting into that. I would then be much more interested in approving this, but we are trying to put as big a structure on this property and if we skinny this down, it may solve some of the problems, mine as well. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the issue is whether we want the garage structures facing the front or facing the side. That is what we have been going through on the calculations here on how narrow we can make the four garage spaces or two garage spaces and carports. That is the biggest issue with the length from the front yard setback to the rear yard setback and there doesn't • 20 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 seem to be much play in that. Mr. Monteleone stated that the garage sizes, if the carport was enclosed into a two car garage, then the garage that is already in the front could become a two car garage rather than two, one car garages. All of that could fit into 39 feet. We could take the easterly segment of the properly that houses on the first floor the garages and carports and have that come forward a foot without affecting anything else. Discussion followed on the potential layouts of the enclosed garages and /or carports. Ms. Temple stated that two side -by -side enclosed garages at the minimum inside clear width is approximately 37 feet. The plan presented showed that run of garages and carports to be 40 feet, so if the other dimensions on the _plan ,_ are . correct, you could achieve an approximate 5 foot setback from the rear property line with the garages in this basic configuration without an encroachment into the front yard setback. You would end up with one less wall. Chairperson Tucker then asked the Commission about the concept of increasing the floor area by enclosing both the garages. Commissioner Kranzley stated he has no problem with having both garages enclosed and increasing the square footage. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kiser noted that the applicant needs to get an easement from the neighbor for a driveway access plan in order for this project to be built. If Mrs. Hirsch does not like the project as it is, which she has just stated she does not, it does not matter what we approve or disapprove here. In practical terms it does not get built until Mrs. Hirsch agrees. As much as we are trying to arrange things for this project to get built, we need to continue this to let the applicant demonstrate to Mrs. Hirsch that this is a good project. Until this happens, I would suggest that we continue this. Commissioner Kranzley noted that we have approved projects with the condition that they get off street parking agreement with other property owners. I would not have a problem approving a project that may be as specifically as what the other property owner wanted, but this is the best. I am willing to move that we have the project with the 5 foot rear yard setback, Commissioner Kiser stated that the front yard setback is important. I would accept the additional square footage for the garage and approve the project with the 15 -foot front yard setback as long as there is an easement. Commissioner Gifford stated she is not flexible about the 15 -foot front yard setback with enclosed garages and a 5 -foot rear yard setback. I would like to 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 INDEX hear if this is a mutual benefit from the neighbor and applicant. Ms. Hirsch accepted the 5 -foot setback and Mr. Brown said he would agree with enclosing the garage with the 5 -foot setback. Ms. Clauson stated that the conditions as they are and the easement being recorded to provide that access is sufficient. Ms. Temple noted that the plan with two carport spaces constitutes 5,100 square feet. That was what the new plan represented with the two carport spaces so I suggest that the motion be as redesigned with a 15 -foot front setback, a minimum 5 foot rear setback and with the building allowed to be 5,100 square feet plus the square footage necessary to enclose the two carport spaces. Ms. ,Claus on-added that the__additional information on the resolution is that the findings talk about the factors that would support the findings that are required for a variance with the 5,100 square feet. Some analysis will need to be made on the additional square footage resulting from enclosing of the carports to be included as a factor to support that finding. Additionally, I know the Commission has seen the findings required in the Code, these factors go a long way towards supporting those findings. It provides for the increased visual enclosure of the building that helps with the adjoining property owner who is required to provide the easement. It is a unique situation so a recitation of those factors and the factor of allowing for the additional space to be able to move it back to help with the increased setback for the garage, as far as that increased variance is necessary because of the setbacks. Ms. Temple added that the foundation for the floor area variance still remains the fact that it is an unusual lot with non - typical configuration and setbacks, which have greater impact on the floor area than in a typical case. That is the same, regardless of whether the garages are enclosed or not. In fact, it is probably one of the reasons why the project was designed with carports in the first place. Chairperson Tucker noted that the fourth finding for a variance is what the applicant is applying for, is not going to materially adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and won't be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. It is almost like in order for it not to be that, we are requiring that second garage to be enclosed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Variance No. 2001 -004 and Modification No. 2001 -098 by adopting the following findings: a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by • other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 22 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 The location of the property without alley access and its larger width creates a larger rear yard and front yard setback area that has the effect of disproportionately reducing the buildable area of the property below that enjoyed by identically zoned properties in the area. The typical Corona Del Mar of comparable size to the project site has a percentage of gross floor area to lot area of 100.4 %. The same percentage for the subject lot without approval of the variance is 81.87 %. Due to these factors, the property is deprived of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The granting the additional floor area is necessary for the applicant to enjoy a similar and substantial property right which is to develop a residential project that is proportionately consistent, based upon lot size, with other properties in the area and under identical zoning requirements. c) That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with • the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. The approval of the additional floor area is consistent with the intent of the code that is to preserve property values and create design compatibility of proposed projects with surroundings. The increased floor area is necessary for the applicant to create a residential project that is proportionately consistent in size, based upon lot size, with other properties in the area and subject to the same zoning requirements. The typical Corona Del Mar lot of comparable size to the project site has a percentage of gross floor area to lot area of 100.4 %. The same percentage for the subject lot without approval of the variance is 81.87 %. The application proposes a 5,100 sq. ff. building which has a gross floor area to lot area percentage of 97.9 %. The approval of this increase in floor area is below the percentage of gross floor area to lot area enjoyed by other properties and therefore does not constitute the granting of a special privilege. The additional area approved for the enclosure of the carport creating a second two car garage is necessary for the project to be compatible with and not detrimental to the abutting property located at 407 Dahlia Avenue. This is due to the close proximity of that portion of the building if designed as a carport and a belief that it would negatively impact the entry area of the residence located at 407 Dahlia Avenue. This additional area for the carport enclosure is non - habitable. Due to these factors, the granting of the additional area for the second garage does not constitute the granting of a special privilege. . d) That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of 23 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 INDEX persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The granting of the variance for additional floor area will not be detrimental to surrounding property or the city as it does not increase the density of development permitted by the General Plan. The project will provide the required off - street parking spaces in accordance with the Zoning Code. A portion of the floor area increase is necessary to avoid a potentially detrimental situation with an open carport located in close proximity to the entry of the abutting residence located at 407 Dahlia Avenue. The portion of the increased area is devoted to garage spaces will not increase the occupancy of the structure as it is non - habitable. e) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: The rear yard encroachments, as depicted on the revised plans, is similar to a side yard relationship that is allowed to be setback 4 feet from the property line and 8 feet between buildings. The proposed encroachments that are not less than 5 feet from the abutting properly and are limited in area. The proposed encroachment of parking spaces are required to be enclosed garage spaces as opposed to being open carports. The enclosure of the spaces eliminates a potential detrimental situation due to the close proximity of the spaces and the abutting property. The proposed encroachments do not effect the views from nearby properties and the project complies with applicable height limits. Chairperson Tucker added to his motion several changes to the conditions of approval and directed staff to restate them as follows: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Variance No. 2001 -004 & Modification No. 2001 -098 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plans revised and dated December 19, 2001 except as revised by other conditions of approval. The architectural style and quality shall be substantially as set forth in the plans dated August 21, 2001. 24 0 9 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 2. The Variance No. 2001 -004 and JVloclificatiton No. 2001 -098 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 if the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The project shall comply with applicable structure and building height regulations contained within Chapter 20.65 of the Municipal Code. 4. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from the Building Department. 5. Stair access within the side yards is required to bedroom windows if required by the Building Department. 6. The lower level shall comply with the Uniform Building Code definition of a basement otherwise the project shall provide 2 stairways for exiting purposes for each unit from the third and fourth floors to grade. 7. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system as the building exceeds 5,000 square feet in area. • 8. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 9. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 10. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 11. Each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 12. On -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. • 13. The owner shall provide the City Building Department with a recorded reciprocal access agreement between the subject property and the 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 abutting property to the w_ est. This agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of Newport Beach and shall be recorded prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. 14. The footings for the proposed property line retaining walls shall be designed so that their footings remain on private property and will not encroach into the public right -of -way. 15. The existing unused portion of the drive approach on Dahlia Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 16. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department for the on -site improvements_prior_to_. issuance of any building or grading permits. 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 project shall be consistent with the design originally submitted in terms of material and style as depicted on the elevation drawings dated August 21, 2001. 19. The carport depicted on the approved plans shall be enclosed creating a garage. The width of the garage, in conjunction with the approved site plan and floor plans shall be no larger than necessary while providing a 15 -foot front yard setback and a 5 -foot rear yard setback. The depth of the garage shall not exceed the depth depicted on the approved floor plan identified in Condition No. 1. 20. The second level deck located above the carport depicted on the site and floor plans dated December 19, 2001 shall be reduced in size or eliminated. A reduced deck shall not extend father northwest of the adjacent bathroom depicted on the approved plan. 21. The gross floor area of the project shall not exceed 5,100 square feet plus an additional amount of floor area necessary to enclose the 2 -car carport as described in Condition No. 19. The garage depicted on the site and floor plans dated December 19, 2001 shall be included in the 5,100 square feet figure cited in this resolution. Commissioner McDaniel asked if for any reason Ms. Hirsch does not provide this easement, whatever we do tonight has no affect, is this correct? He was answered yes, nothing decided tonight will be implemented. 26 INDEX 0 • 0 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 • INDEX Commissioner Agajanian noted he would not be in support of the project, as he sees no special circumstances that warrant the approval of a variance. Commissioner Kiser noted he would be in support of the project due to the changes that have been made by the applicant with the understanding that the neighboring property owner is here and has seen these plans as for as they go and believes that she will be given the..reciprocal easement that is needed. I want to make sure that Ms. Hirsch understands that no matter how much deliberative effort we put into this tonight, she is giving a very significant properly right here in the reciprocal easement and should feel no hesitation whatsoever to make sure the project exactly meets her needs before agreeing to give that reciprocal right. It is not something that needs to be acted on hastily and she should feel no compunction whatsoever to make sure the __project exactly_ meets„ her.needs.. I am comfortable with what we have in front of us tonight in the way of plans and information in the way of approving this project, I no longer feel with the revised project that it is giving special preference to this property. I am somewhat uncomfortable that we only have two sheets out of the four of the plans in front of us tonight, we don't have elevations. With the amount of time I have spent at looking at the property, the plans and reviewing it at the last meeting, I am marginally comfortable approving it without those two sheets. I would like to see a site plan on what this final revised project is, but in the interest of not having this back again and because I don't think that with all the considerations given we have to have those things I will be voting for it. The following vote was recorded on the application: Ayes: Kiser, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: McDaniel, Agajanian Commissioner Selich noted his concern of the setback for the property at 407 Dahlia. He then submitted a sketch of the two parcels that was prepared by staff. He stated that this points out the reasons why we need variances on these lots that are reconfigured from the original subdivision pattern. Basically what you see are two interpretations on what the setback would be in the rear property. Discussion then followed on the need for independent judgment and discretion per lot and not just a strict application of the Zoning Law. The Planning Commission took a five - minute break. Y Y Y SUBJECT: The Cannery Restaurant Item No. 3 3010 Lafayette Avenue PA2001 -204 Modification Permit No. MD2001 -113 (PA2001 -204) Request to permit the installation of a 52 square foot wall sign over an entry Appeal Upheld 27 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 portico. This will be the fifth wall sign on the building where the Zoning Code limits the site to a maximum of three wall signs. Existing wall signs are located on four separate faces of the building. The proposed sign will be the second wall sign facing the on site parking lot. Ms. Temple distributed a picture of the front of the restaurant as provided by the applicant. She noted that the sign in question is the one on the left, which says 'The Cannery Restaurant' in block lettering. Continuing, she gave a brief summary of the staff report adding that the applicant is asking for a new wall sign. The existing sign program for the restaurant consists of four wall signs, where the new Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations allow no more than three. In making their action, the Modifications Committee thought that in approving a new sign over the main entrance, that the total number of wall signs should not be increased. Therefore, the other wall sign on the same fagade is the new wall sign was required to be removed by condition. What is being proposed by the applicant is_ a different sign over the entry, which is depicted on page 15 of the staff report. Commissioner Agajanian, referring to page 16 of the staff report, asked for and received clarification of the siting of the signs. Chairperson Tucker clarified that the applicant previously had four painted on wall signs, a painted on sign above the entry as well as another sign above the entry for a total of 6 signs while the restaurant was opened? Ms. Temple answered that there was a total of 4 signs and they have a right to add a monument sign for the property in the front. Mr. Campbell stated that the last page of the Sign Program has the colored renderings, there is a schematic of the building locating the positions and types of each of the existing signs. Mr. Jack Croul, 1901 Bayadera Terrace stated that he bought the Cannery property two years ago because the owner of the property was planning on tearing it down and building residential units. I thought it would be a tragedy for the City to have the Cannery disappear. It is a symbol and icon of the old days of Newport Beach. Newport was at one -time an active fishing village with four canneries. There are very few reminders of the old days in our City today. I don't want the Cannery to disappear from the City and I am planning on placing it in a foundation so that it will remain for future generations to enjoy. For the past year, we have been remodeling the Cannery. It will be a beautiful restaurant and outside we are trying to change it as little as possible to keep its existing character. We have been required to make a few changes to the outside to meet current building codes. For example, for seismic protection the outside stairway on the side facing the Bay is now a structural member to support the building along with a large steel framework that had to be installed inside the building. The photo I gave to you is the way the Cannery has looked for almost thirty years and up to the time we started the remodel. Regarding the signage, historically there has been a sign on each of three sides of the building and the fourth side, which is the 28 INDEX • • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes front, has had two signs. There has always been five signs. We are simply asking you to let us continue this practice of this signage pattern. One change to this is that we want to replace the sign over the entrance with a fresh sign. I ask that you keep the outside of the building the same with one updated sign. The key is we are not asking for an additional new sign, just the same old number of signs that we have always had. If it has been acceptable for almost 30 years to have two signs on the front of the building, we would hope you would let us continue to do this particularly in light of the fact that we are trying to continue a historical tradition. I feel the signage on historic buildings is an important issue for the City. There has to be some flexibility for historic buildings. Commissioner Kiser clarified with the applicant the proposal is to eliminate the large red circular sign with Western Canners Co. and the small dark sign below it and replace them with illuminated channel letters sign. Commissioner Selich asked why the circle was going to be removed. Mr. Croul answered that the circle will be continued on the water side, but we thought we needed some sort of change to show that it is a new operation and things are going to be different. • Public comment was opened. Steve Herbert, operator of the Cannery stated he has worked on this project for a year and a half. He noted that the Western Canners sign has been removed because the structure was unsafe and had to come down. That is the only reason we added a new sign. There is a red Western Canners sign on the oceanside. That is the only new feature on the outside, even the paint will remain the same. Ms. Temple stated that when the City adopted the Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations included, among other provisions, were specific limitations on the number of wall signs per building. Whenever a sign is removed that is legally non- conforming you lose the right to that non - conformity. Adding a new sign means that the applicant has to come back for an approval. In this particular case, the Modifications Committee did take a conservative view that there were at the time 4 wall signs and that the applicant should not increase that number. It is documented that there have been more signs on the walls in the past. William Bluerock, 611 Lido Park Drive spoke in favor of the project. He noted the Cannery is an icon in the community. He asked that the Commission approve the application. Bill Hamilton, 3620 Fifth Ave. spoke as the past owner /operator of the Cannery for 26 years. After he sold the property, he was so enthused that Mr. Croul was going to save the building that he gave him the name Cannery Restaurant. The wall lettering is part of the architectural significance of the building and adds considerable value to the property. Many local artists have painted this building signs and all. The public would give overwhelming support to a decision to allow 29 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 all existing wall signage to stay and it certainly receives my support. I hope that you allow them to keep the signage to represent the historic significance of the building. Kevin Weeda, 429 30th Street spoke as the majority property owner surrounding the restaurant. He urged the Commission to approve this sign as it is a nice landmark for the community and the owner has made a commitment to the property. Jeff Rooter, representing Corporate Designs clarified that there were six signs on the walls originally. The size of the red sign is immense and they are significantly reducing the overall square footage of signage by taking both those signs down and putting up a smaller one over the entrance. Russ Fluter, 2025 West Balboa Blvd. spoke in support of the application and asked that the signage be allowed. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kiser clarified with staff that the Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations includes this properly. If this signage is approved, will it be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance? Ms. Temple answered that an approval of this application is for a modification for an increased number of wall signs pursuant to the Code. Commissioner Gifford noted that she does not support this application. She applauds the owner for his concern about the community and obviously putting his money on the line to support that, however, he has clearly recognized that there have to be changes. The interior is being remodeled, the Western Canners Co. sign although it may not count as a sign under. our Sign Ordinance, has been removed and if there is anything in my mind that creates historical significance it would be the reference to the Western Canners. There was a great deal of effort to establish a Sign Ordinance to bring Balboa Peninsula into a place where we would not be 'over - signed,' and have well designed signs and sufficient signage for buildings. I don't think that there is a need for an exception to be made here. There was a mis- statement about signs that don't have to be removed for fifteen years. If they are taken down, then you start from ground zero. Malarky's has its signs in place. This sign would now be an exception to the Sign Ordinance and I just don't think there is anything particularly special about the nature of that signage. The restaurant is very visible, nobody is going to miss it because there is a smaller illuminated sign and not this wall sign. I am in support of implementing the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Selich noted his support of the application as he doesn't consider these wall signs, as signs in the typical way we consider them. This is a very unusual building and they are as much a part of the architectural style of the building as they are a sign. The one that fronts on the Bay that has Western Canners, even though it makes reference to the restaurant, may not be considered a sign. I think 30 INDEX • • u • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 a significant investment is being made in preserving a significant part of the City's heritage. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to uphold the appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2001 -113 by eliminating Condition No. 5. He stated he is very sensitive to signage, however he looks at this as a historical part of Newport Beach. The signs fit the building so well. Commissioner Kranzley stated that these are signs. We will probably be hearing something from another merchant in the near future and whether that is a sign or not. If we sit here tonight and talk about Western Canners on a side of a building not being a sign, I don't think we are serving our purpose very well. I am supportive of the appeal, somewhat reluctantly because a lot of time has been spent on the Peninsula and on the signs. This isn't technically a historical buildi.ng,.because_I think.the. buildingwas only built in 1972 ,__._.._._.__ ................_ .:. Commissioner McDaniel noted he was going to support the motion. He noted however in the testimony tonight that it was going to be kept the same but we are going to change it by making it smaller and a different sign. I am confused on some of that but this is the Cannery and I would like to support it for all the reasons. There are concerns here, but I will support the motion. • Chairperson Tucker noted that there are too many signs on the front of it and I would have done it the opposite way. I don't think the illuminated sign that is going up should have been approved. I like the sign that is on the exterior of the building that's not illuminated other than by a spotlight. However, that is not the issue before us. I am supporting the motion. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kranbey Selich Noes: Gifford ssr SUBJECT: Beacon Bay Auto Wash, Newport Place 4200 Birch Street • PA2001 -200 Request for a Use Permit (UP2001-035) to reconfigure and improve an existing service station and auto wash. The improvements include demolition and reconstruction of the detail building as well as redesign and replacement of the gas dispensing islands and canopy. The proposed project also includes the partial conversion of an existing landscape buffer into additional tandem parking spaces. Commissioner Kiser asked if there were any concerns about the reflectivity of the roofing materials. Mr. Weber noted that this was mentioned to the architect and while it had not finalized, a condition has been included regarding reflectivity , that there be no bare exposed metal and is subject to the Planning Director's review and approval. 31 INDEX Item No. 4 PA2001 -200 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 INDEX • Chairperson Tucker noted the condition related to the removal of the existing trees and their replacement. Mr. Weber answered that the applicant was not sure if the trees could be relocated, so this is the best wording for retaining the mature landscaping. Commissioner Kranzey, referring to page 4 of the staff report, asked about the staff recommendation that the project involves the replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose and capacity. The existing building is 1,221 square feet and the new one is 4,800 square feet. Mr. Weber answered that the way the operation is now, there are several drive aisles that are serving the some type of function. What is being proposed is to enclose a couple of the drive aisles to the north of the existing detail building. This would be an expansion of the detail business and enclosing an area with roll up walls. Commissioner Kranzley then asked about no conflict with the property next door because it is a restaurant and the carwash closes by 6 p.m. There is no condition for closing time, and I wonder if we can do that to ensure that there is no conflict. • Mr. Weber answered that the Commission has the ability to do that. Ms. Clauson noted that if the car detail function is being enclosed, it might leave an opportunity for getting a car washed after hours. Commissioner Kiser asked about the height to the top of the structure. Mr. Weber answered that the staff report indicates that the top of the roof would not exceed 18 feet. At Commission inquiry, he added that not all of the trees are shown on the landscape plan. They just show two additional trees on the Dove street side with the majority of the landscaping that was there because that is where the tandem parking was going to be placed closer to the roadway. On both sides of the mechanical wash building there are large mature trees there on site that are not shown on this landscape plan and are expected to remain. Condition 8 regarding mature trees is intended to be all encompassing but was mainly pertaining to where the tandem parking was going to be eating up some of the landscape buffer towards Dove Street. Chairperson Tucker stated that in looking at the site and the moving of the parking towards Dove Street, it wasn't clear that the screen wall was going to have any dirt up against it. It almost looks like it is going to sit on top of the berm area instead of screen by the berm area. Has a requirement been placed that vines be placed on this wall? Mr. Weber answered that if you are concerned about screening the wall, that is • 32 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 definitely something that can be added. Patrick Shea, President of Beacon Bay Enterprise stated that the trees were planted in approximately 1972, they are now 30 years old. What is the definition of a mature replacement tree? We are not going to be able to find exact replacements for these mature trees that we will have to remove. Mr. Weber, noted that a mature tree, as defined in the Code, is defined as any tree with the trunk diameter of 10 inches or more measured 24 inches above the existing grade. Mr. Shea stated he would be happy to replace any tree that he is required to remove with a 36 inch box tree. That is the way tree sellers define the size. There are 32 mature trees on that property. Chairperson Tucker asked where the wall is proposed to be situated? Mr. Shea answered that the wall we are proposing, except for the middle, is a retaining wall. There is quite a berm on that property with the sidewalk on Dove Street up to the parking area. We will cut into the berm and build a retaining wall for our second tandem parking. You are not going to see that wall as it will be at • ground level. In order to make the interior parking place closer to Dove level with the existing parking place, we are going to have to cut into the slope. The wall in front will be a retaining wall rather than a free - standing wall except in the middle where the berm comes down naturally. The area of the wall that is showing is presently planted with Lugustrum vines. He agreed when asked by Commission to a condition that the roof will not exceed 18 feet. He noted that there are approximately 3 mature trees that will have to be removed out of 32 mature trees on the lot. Following a brief discussion Commission decided to add another condition capping the amount of matured trees to be removed and replaced with a certain size boxed trees. Commissioner Gifford suggested that the dimensions for the approximately 3-4 trees to be removed would be a 36 inch box with a tree of a minimum height of 14 feet. Mr. Shea noted that the car wash operation is not changing. What is being added is an interior detail shop that will be closed on two sides with roll up doors on each end. Public comment was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit No. 2001 -035 (PA2001 -200) subject to the findings, mitigation measures and conditions of approval attached to Resolution with Condition 8 to define the dimensions of the trees to be used as replacements for the 3-4 trees removed is a 36 inch box 33 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 with a tree height of 14 feet. The roof is not to exceed 18 feet and that any wall that is exposed over two feet high will be planted with vines. Mr. Shea accepted these conditions. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None SUBJECT: MFR District Height Limits in Corona del Mar • PA2001 -209 Initiation of an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise the height limits for Multiple Family Residential (MFR) District properties in Corona del Mar. Chairperson Tucker noted that this item came up a couple of months ago. I am interested in hearing what everyone has to say, as I am interested in adopting the resolution and have staff prepare a report. The concern that I have is that by doing this change, that we are not effectively benefiting private property interests at the expense of other private property interests. I am only going to be supportive of this if there are going to be good public policy reasons that can be articulated for doing it. Just to help someone's view at the expense of somebody else' property, then I will not be in favor of it. As far as the direction to staff part, there were two choices that were offered, to bring it down to 24/28 like the R -1 or have the back half of the building be 28/32 and the front half of the building be 24/28. 1 guess that I would not be in favor, unless someone comes up with a good reason, for having the split height limits. If we are going to do anything, I would prefer to see the 24/28 but only if there is a good public policy reason to do it. Commissioner Selich asked when this issue came to Council, wasn't the primary focus on Marguerite and the properties on Carnation and Bayside Drive? Ms. Temple answered not on Marguerite, those have not been discussed, at least at Council level but definitely on Camation and the rest of the MFR properties in Corona del Mar that could be viewed for this type of consideration. There was no direction from Council to include the Corona Highlands area or The Shores area. Commissioner Gifford noted that based on earlier discussion about the visioning process in the General Plan update and its potential affect on height limits, I am not inclined to get into this at all. Commissioner Kranzley agreed with Commission Gifford. Commissioner Agajanian noted he is inclined to go to the split of 28/32 because height needs to be retained on those MFR properties. However, I am inclined to let this subject drift a bit and not address it at the moment and let the General 34 INDEX Item 5 PA2001 -209 Initiated • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes INDEX Plan really take care of it. I think a lot of direction will be given to us as part of that process and might help to clear it. Commissioner McDaniel stated he would not like to address it at this time. Commissioner Kiser asked about the current zoning for properties along Coast Highway east of Seaward? Ms Temple answered they are zoned MFR. The height limit is the 28/32 -foot height limit all over the property. At Commission inquiry, she added that the General Plan policy discussion will probably be characterized by a discussion on the whole issue of mansionization and the size /bulk of buildings. From that discussion, and any policy decisions related to it, could flow some implementation procedures that might involve addressing height limits. The General Plan itself will not necessarily focus on height limits in the MFR District. _ Commissioner Gifford noted she is not inclined to get involved with this at this time and believes that staff has a lot on their plate and this is not something to add at this time. Although the General Plan itself does not address specific height limits, it is clear that as part of the implementation process a lot of changes could flow in the Zoning Code. That is my reason for not doing this at this time. • Commissioner Selich stated that this all came from the Corona del Mar Residents Association. The primary focus of those meetings was to bring the height into conformance with standard single family, which is the 24/28 on the Carnation /Bayside properties. A secondary concern was on the Marguerite properties. It is an issue that has been important with the Association; there were public policy issues involved. Basically it was that even though it was MFR zoning a lot of the property was being developed as single family and that the exterior character of the buildings should at least be in conformance height wise with the surrounding single family development even though they have a higher density in terms of the number of units allowed on the property. This thing got held up over the years and did not get implemented after Council gave direction on it in 1998. If we don't take action to move it ahead on at least on the Carnation /Bayside area, probably what will happen it will come up at another Residents Association meeting in January, go back to the Council through Dennis O'Neil and come back to us again. I would be in support of at least moving ahead the Carnation /Bayside portion of it for the 24 /28- height limit. Ms. Temple noted that this is not approval of any change, this would be an initiation step where the Commission would adopt a resolution directing staff with some guidance to bring back a fully noticed public hearing and amendment to the Zoning Code. At the public hearing, you would make your decision and possibly move this item on to the City Council with your recommendations. Chairperson Tucker stated that in 1998 a group of people were going to have an • opportunity for their voices to be heard on this issue and nothing happened. Now back before us, the some people are asking for an opportunity to be heard and 35 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 after talking to some Councilmembers and getting some background, I get the impression that these people ought to be given the opportunity. It is a lot different than my agreeing with what they will say is something that I will agree with absent a public policy. I am not looking for things for staff to do, but I think that based upon action by the Council in 1998 that we probably ought to at least proceed, have a hearing on it, and come to a conclusion. Commissioner Agajanian asked if this were initiated tonight, how long would we have before the hearings? Ms. Temple answered that this would come up probably at one of the March meetings. Chairperson Tucker asked if there was a way to have a discussion to see if there was an interest in an overlay district. I would rather see a staff report with options Without having all the decisions, almost like a workshop to see if there is any support for staff to do the work to bring it back. Ms. Temple answered we could have a Study Session and we can notice it. If you told us that you wanted to come to some conclusions before we prepare the real hard documents to actually adopt, that would be fine. The staff work is what takes the time. Commissioner Selich said he wants to get this issue on the table and then get rid of it. Staff's time is going to be used no matter how we proceed. Commissioner Gifford noted that she would withdraw her statement. Motion was made by Selich to adopt the resolution of intent and to direct staff to prepare a Code Amendment for all the areas designated in the Exhibit 1 for the 24/28 height limit. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: Agajanian ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood stated that at the City Council meeting of December l lm, the General Plan Amendment was initiated related to the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement; the hearing on the appeal from Gary Martin regarding Carmelo's Restaurant, the decision of the Planning Commission was upheld to not call up for review. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - No meeting. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan 36 Additional Business • • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • Update Committee - No meeting, however, Ms. Wood noted that the Visioning Festival is Saturday the 12th, from 10 to 3. d) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - None. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - None. f) Status report on Planning Commission requests -. Ms. Temple distributed copies of the report noting that a Notice of Violation has been issued to the property owner at Malarkey's and currently working with the owner on the status of the signs relative to the Balboa Peninsula Sign Overlay provisions and the length of the time the signs have been there even though installed without permits; the status of the Crabby Kenny's mural will be brought as a discussion and determination to Commission in February, 2002; the extra sign at El Ranchito has been removed. g) Project status - None. h) Requests for excused absences - None. ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 P.M. EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 37 INDEX Adjournment