Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_04-06-2017 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS— 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2017 REGULAR MEETING-6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER—The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Commissioner Hillgren III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Peter Zak, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Raymond Lawler, Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: Chair Kory Kramer Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Tones; Senior Civil Engineer David Keely; Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe; Principal Planner Jim Campbell;Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan;Associate Planner Makana Nova;Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle;Administrative Support Technician Patricia Bynum IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher expressed concern that the City Council would be considering amendments to the Local Coastal Program (1-CP)relating to Title 21 of the Municipal Code on April 11, and those amendments seemed to eliminate the Planning Commission's role in reviewing the amendments. Assistant City Attorney Torres reported all actions taken were appropriate and in compliance with State law. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2017 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to approve the minutes of March 23, 2017, as presented. AYES: Koetting,Zak, Lawler,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Dunlap, Hillgren ABSENT: Kramer VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 BIG NEWPORT 6 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE (PA2016-020) Site Location: 210 Newport Center Drive and 300 Newport Center Drive Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan reported the theater contained six auditoriums with 1,134 seats. Alcohol service would be an accessory use to the theater. No changes were proposed to the existing operation. The only physical change would be the installation of a guardrail barrier as required by the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC). Big Newport 6 and Island Cinema are operated by the same entity. Island Cinema has offered alcohol service for the past five years with no issues. The Police Department has no objections to alcohol service,and its recommended conditions of approval were included in the draft resolution. The Police Department is processing an Operator's License. Staff was able to make all of the required findings and recommends approval of the use permit. Conditions from the existing use permit have been consolidated into the new resolution. Page 1 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/06/2017 In response to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiries,Assistant Planner Whelan advised that the theater operated until 1 a.m. for certain premieres and would be able to serve alcohol until that time. Assistant Planner Whelan understood customers'hands are stamped to track alcohol purchases. Vice Chair Koetting suggested adding a condition to require ceasing alcohol service 30 minutes prior to closing. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Police Civilian Investigator Joe indicated three applications had been submitted by two theaters. Island Cinema obtained a Type 41 license and subsequently upgraded to a Type 47 license. A Type 47 license allowed service of distilled spirits, beer, and wine. A Type 41 license allowed service of beer and wine. The Police Department had not received any calls for service regarding alcohol at Island Cinema. Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. Bruce Evans, applicant, thanked the Police Department for communicating with other jurisdictions regarding alcohol service at Island Cinema. Every customer would have to present identification to purchase alcohol and would receive a wristband to track the number of drinks. One customer could purchase no more than two drinks in one transaction, unless a second customer with evidence of appropriate age was also present. As a matter of policy,the theater would cease alcohol service at least 30 minutes prior to closing. He agreed to all conditions. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Mr. Evans advised that typically alcohol sales ceased at midnight or earlier in order to vacate the theater by 2 a.m. He agreed to a condition requiring ceasing alcohol sales at midnight rather than 1 a.m. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. Evans indicated alcohol would be served in all theaters. In compliance with State standards, a monitor would be present in the theater. In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiries, Deputy Director Wisneski reported the license would not allow customers to bring their own alcohol. Police Civilian Investigator Joe was unsure whether charging a corkage fee would allow a customer to bring alcohol, but she would advise against allowing that and would object to it. Mr. Evans added that the theater would not offer that service as part of their operations in any of their theaters. Vice Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher remarked that the theater seemed to want to be a fine dining experience and yet was exempt from membership in the Newport Beach Restaurant Association. He questioned the theater's request for a Type 47 license when it did not intend to sell distilled spirits. He did not find any conditions limiting alcohol service to screenings for adults only in order to prevent underage consumption. Vice Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to find this project categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines — Class 1, and to adopt Resolution No. 2053 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-003 with Condition Number 35 indicating ceasing alcohol sales at midnight. In reply to Secretary Zak's question, Commissioner Hillgren stated the applicant could return in the future with a request to extend the time to 1 a.m. Assistant City Attorney Torres advised that the applicant would have to apply to amend the CUP to request an extension to 1 a.m. To prevent the applicant from having to apply for an extension, the condition could be phrased as "12 a.m. for one year and, at the discretion of the Community Development Director that there were no issues, the time could be extended to 1 a.m." Amended Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to find this project categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines—Class 1,and to adopt Resolution No.2053 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-003 with Condition Number Page 2 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/06/2017 35 indicating 12 a.m.for one year and, at the discretion of the Community Development Director and the Police Department that there were no issues, the time could be extended to 1 a.m. Alternate Motion made by Secretary Zak and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to find this project categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines — Class 1 and to adopt Resolution No. 2053 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-003. Commissioner Lawler remarked that he did not wish to unnecessarily burden the applicant with returning to extend the time. A competing theater was not required to stop service at midnight. Commissioner Dunlap noted the applicant agreed to the condition. The sale of alcohol should be regulated and monitored. He did not see a need for serving alcohol past midnight. Secretary Zak agreed with Commissioner Lawler in not giving an advantage to a competing theater. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Police Civilian Investigator Joe stated Island Cinema served alcohol until 1 a.m. She was not sure of the hours for the Port Theater. In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiry,Assistant City Attorney Torres reported the wording required the Community Development Director in consultation with the Police Department to decide whether to allow an extension of hours. The Community Development Director would consider a number of factors in making a decision. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated the alternate motion would require four votes to pass. If it did not receive four votes, the Commission would vote on the amended motion. Alternate Motion AYES: Zak, Lawler, Koetting NOES: Hillgren, Dunlap,Weigand ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kramer Amended Motion AYES: Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kramer ITEM NO. 3 DAWSON RESIDENCE VARIANCE (PA2015-224) Site Location: 2741 Ocean Boulevard Associate Planner Nova reported the requested variance would allow portions of the new home to exceed the 24- foot flat-roof height limit and the 29-foot sloping-roof height limit from existing grade and would allow portions of the garage to encroach into the 10-foot rear setback along Way Lane. At the February 9 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners' primary recommendations were: 1) to modify the project design to staffs recommendations, pulling back the nook and sitting room to the envelope of the existing home and pulling in the fire pit and pergola to the envelope of the existing home; 2)to re-install story poles for an extended period of time; 3)to provide a detailed construction management plan including parking and construction haul routes; and 4)to modify the pool location away from the rear setback. The existing home footprint was smaller than the proposed home. The right-of-way adjacent to Ocean Boulevard was abandoned in 1999 which expanded the area of the property. Ms. Nova reported that the applicant had pulled back the proposed home so that it was located within the existing building envelope along Way Lane. Larger portions of the home would extend over the abandoned right-of-way. The applicant pulled back the nook and sitting area in the area adjacent to 2735 Ocean Boulevard. Corresponding decks were pulled back to match the footprint of the new home. The top level contains the main entry from Ocean Boulevard and the main living areas for the home. The second level contains the primary bedrooms for the Page 3 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/06/2017 residence. The third level contains recreation areas. A large portion of the existing footprint encroaches into the rear setback. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Associate Planner Nova explained that the second level of the existing garage level projected into the rear setback, very close to the property line. The proposed garage projected approximately 6 feet 5 inches into the rear setback. The fourth level (ground floor)was located within the envelope of the existing garage level. Associate Planner Nova advised that the applicant had reduced the pool terrace area from 574 square feet to 145 square feet and removed it from the rear setback; no variance was needed for this. However,the balcony terrace above the garage projected into the rear setback and would require a variance. In reply to Commissioners' inquiries, Associate Planner Nova explained the perspective for the section was misleading because of the curve of the property. The section cut back slightly further at the stair line. The rest of the home curved because of the perspective view of that location. In Section C, the proposed home was not located in the setback. Section C did not show the perspective view of the buildings behind the home; Section D did show the buildings. The upper floors were not located in the rear setback. The garage portion with the balcony terrace was located in the setback. The curved retaining walls were located in the setback. Walls up to 6 feet in height were allowed in a rear setback. In the proposed project,the walls extended to 8 feet because of the slope of the property. The walls were part of the variance. Associate Planner Nova indicated the overall height of the proposed building would be reduced from the existing building. The existing building exceeded the curb height by approximately 1-foot; the proposed home would comply with the top of curb elevation as required by the Zoning Code. As staff recommended,the applicant located the fire pit/pergola within the envelope of the existing home. In the current design, the applicant located most features within the envelope of the existing home; therefore, story poles for the proposed home could only be installed inside the existing home. Staff agreed that doing that was not appropriate and that design modifications were appropriate. The first-floor plate of the garage level was slightly taller than the existing garage level. The nook area was designed within the upper-level footprint. The applicant provided an updated construction management plan, which included an estimate of project phasing, a construction timeline, an estimate of the number of employees, details of offsite parking, and a construction haul route. Staff received approximately eight public comments expressing concern since the prior Planning Commission meeting. Comments included concerns about the structural integrity of nearby homes; requests for insurance policies; suggesting a common wall condition between the subject property and the adjacent property; and expressing concern about the overall bulk and scale of the proposed home. The first two issues were civil matters between the property owner and neighbors. A common wall is a more unusual condition. Staff suggested Condition Number 25 to help ensure the protection of adjacent structures during demolition. Ms. Nova noted that the applicant had not agreed to proposed Condition Number 25. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Associate Planner Nova clarified that Condition Number 25 was required by the Building Code but would act as a reminder during plan check to ensure the issue was addressed. For plan check, the applicant would need to provide detailed shoring and structural plans. A civil engineer would need to examine the plans in greater detail and plan check was the best time to address that. If an issue was identified, plans would have to demonstrate how the common wall issue would be addressed to prevent an impact to adjacent structures. A common wall condition may not be realized until demolition was initiated, at which time the engineer of record would conduct an inspection to confirm that adjacent structures were not impacted. Commissioner Dunlap did not oppose Condition Number 25 because it existed in the Building Code. All drawings would need to be submitted by a registered structural engineer. The common wall issue would be determined during plan check. Associate Planner Nova indicated staff reviewed the application for compliance with CEQA and the Local Coastal Program and recommended approval with a Class 3 exemption. Staff filed a categorical exclusion for the property because it did not exceed the 1.5 times the floor area limit for the property. Staff suggested the approval resolution be amended to remove Finding E1; to clarify Finding E6 that the pool was not located in the front setback; and to add Condition Number 25. Page 4 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/06/2017 In reply to Secretary Zak's questions,Associate Planner Nova reviewed variances granted for the subject block of Ocean Boulevard. Variances granted for other properties limited those structures to top of curb.At the worst case, the proposed pergola/loggia structure exceeded the 24-foot flat roof height limit by 18 feet. She did not have the number of feet above the 24-foot height limit for those structures. The subject home complied with the top of curb requirement. Commissioners should discuss the appropriate bulk and scale of the proposed residence. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiries, Associate Planner Nova explained that the deadline for Commission action was May 4 under the Permit Streamlining Act. Assistant City Attorney Torres clarified that, if the Commission did not act prior to May 4, the applicant could take action to have the application declared as deemed approved. The State Code allowed only one 90-day continuance, which began at the February 9th Commission meeting. The May 4 deadline could not be extended. Commissioners Hillgren, Koetting, and Lawler each reported one conversation with a neighbor since the last hearing. Commissioner Dunlap reported meeting with the applicant twice since the application was filed. Commissioner Weigand reported meeting with the applicant and a neighbor's consultant. Secretary Zak reported no ex parte communications. Raquel Dawson, applicant, believed the revised project met concerns raised at the February hearing. The proposed project offered less massing, a greater distance from Way Lane, a better architectural design, greater public views, and increased property values for the neighborhood. She reviewed modifications made since the February hearing and communications with neighbors. Disputes with neighbors should not be the basis for denying the requested variances. The strict application of development codes would deny the applicant the privileges enjoyed by neighbors. There was no legal documentation of a common wall and a potential common wall should have no bearing on approving the plans and variances. It was not appropriate to place a condition on variances because of a potential common wall. Variances were needed because of the topography of the lot. A new home could not be built on the bluff without a height variance. The proposed home would not project further than neighbors' homes. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Ms. Dawson explained that caissons were needed to meet Building Code requirements. Associate Planner Nova noted a shoring plan was included in the plans. Ms. Dawson stated China Cove was treated as though it was the ocean for purposes of access to construction. The main construction access point would be Ocean Boulevard. Mike Reeves,Corbin Reeves Construction, reiterated that access would be from top down. The only access would be at the top. He had built other homes in the area in the same manner. Materials would be stored on-site once the foundation was poured. The site would be watered as required. The entire property would be fenced. Commissioner Dunlap suggested Mr. Reeves obtain temporary power early in construction and install green mesh fencing. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiries, Mr. Reeves indicated a soils engineer would monitor vibration levels and implement mitigation measures, if needed. Adjacent properties would be monitored at locations determined by the soils engineer. Construction parking during the summer had not been determined. Associate Planner Nova added that staff would work with the applicant to determine an off-site location for parking during summer months and that parking passes for the Corona del Mar State Beach will be purchased for construction employees during winter months. Mr. Reeves advised that he had not determined whether construction would occur five or six days a week. Associate Planner Nova stated construction was not subject to exterior noise standards, but it had to adhere to hour and holiday limitations specified in the Municipal Code. Vice Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. John Hamilton thanked the Dawsons for their efforts to alleviate neighbors' concerns. The height variance of 3 feet above the curb for his home was granted in 1970. He appreciated the proposed design not extending past the line of the existing house. The proposed home would be twice the size of any other home in the neighborhood. He shared the development history of his property and the Dawson's' property including the common wall. He was concerned about the boring work and resulting vibrations and requested the Dawsons include him on an insurance policy. Construction parking on Ocean Boulevard was a problem. Commissioner Dunlap commented that on-street parking was open to the public. Page 5 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/06/2017 Harley Broviak was concerned about the project's artificial seismic effect on his property and about the possible impact on his quiet enjoyment of his home. He read an email regarding discussions with structural engineers and requests made to the Dawsons. Robert Lawson remarked that the type of rock in the area would transmit vibration from drilling. Vibration monitors should be placed on neighbors' building lines. If the Dawsons wished to provide safety for their neighbors, they should provide additional vibration monitors for properties in the neighborhood. Helga Pralle expressed concerns about vibration causing damage to her home. She hoped for extensive monitoring of vibration and for insurance of neighbors'structures. Kim Effinger, representative for the Mulvaney's, stated the revised plans addressed most concerns expressed previously. The Dawsons agreed there would be no construction parking on the streets of China Cove. The risk of structural damage to surrounding properties from drilling remained a concern. In the event of structural damage, neighbors had no recourse due to the lack of an insurance rider from the Dawsons. She requested the Commission not approve the project unless matters were resolved. Jim Mosher believed homes in the area were consistent with the Coastal Act because development occurred prior to adoption of the Coastal Act. In reviewing the variance request, staff ignored the normal findings for increasing the height of a building. He questioned the Commission's justification of the variances based on variances granted to neighboring properties. The limit of 1.5 times the buildable area was not a right. He disagreed with granting the variance to allow the building of an unusually large home. Laurence Nokes, representative for the Hamilton's, stated the construction, traffic, and circulation impacts were real. The Hamilton's were concerned that no one had stated the structure would be entirely within the rear envelope of the existing building. The variances granted to neighboring properties were in the range of 2 feet and applied to garages. Because the lot had been expanded since the existing home was built, it would be possible to build a major house on the lot without a variance. He did not believe findings for the variance were based on substantial evidence. The threshold for structural damage was the level at which structural damage occurred. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Nokes remarked that it was difficult to determine whether the white portion of the elevation rendering was completely within the existing structure envelope. Associate Planner Nova reported the footprint shown in the floor plan was the upper level footprint and extended to the balcony line at the topmost level. Mr. Nokes stated story poles were needed to determine the distance of the pop out in front of the existing building. Mike Mugal supported the proposed project. This type of construction occurred throughout Newport Beach. Vendors carried insurance to protect neighboring properties. In response to Secretary Zak's question, Mr. Lawson reported vibration had occurred beyond the location of basic monitors in previous construction projects. A detailed plan of drilling and monitoring was needed. Ms. Dawson reiterated that story poles would be located within the existing home because the proposed structure was contained in the existing footprint. The 3-D images were much more accurate and provided a better perspective of the building than story poles. In reply to Commissioner Lawler's question,Associate Planner Nova indicated a small corner of the structure might project above the existing structure. It was easy to see the line of the balcony on the existing home. Commissioner Lawler commented that story poles would illustrate the issue for Commissioners and the public. Vice Chair Koetting suggested story poles could have been placed on the roof. Commissioner Dunlap remarked that story poles were becoming archaic with the use of 3-D imaging. He trusted staffs statements that images represented the footprints of the existing building and the proposed building. Craig Dawson,applicant,reiterated that he was willing to install story poles.However,staff advised that story poles were not necessary because of the revisions. Neighbors had no issues with the design of the structure. Mr. Hamilton continued to request insurance coverage. Page 6 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/06/2017 Ms. Dawson offered to provide an email explaining the accuracy of the 3-D images. With respect to Mr. Hamilton's comment about the home being twice the size of his home, Mr. Hamilton's home was advertised as being 8,600 square feet in size. Mr. Hamiltons original garage was constructed on Ocean Boulevard. His garage on Way Lane should have been granted a side setback variance. Mr. Dawson advised that the Hamilton's first raised the issue of a common wall the prior week. He needed time to investigate the issue. Ms. Dawson noted workers frequently parked on neighborhood streets. Mr. Broviak had been copied on emails to neighbors. She had not responded to the Mulvaney's email regarding engineers' names. Mr. Dawson indicated he and Ms. Dawson had copied the Commission on correspondence to demonstrate their outreach to neighbors. They had not asserted a right to build to the limit of 1.5 times the floor area. Without the height variance, they could not enjoy the same views their neighbors enjoyed. Ms. Dawson indicated they would take every precaution necessary to prevent structural damage. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Mr. Dawson believed they had all appropriate insurance to cover surrounding houses. They would not provide individual insurance policies. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Dawson reiterated that they would not provide separate policies for named individuals. The builder and vendors had appropriate insurance policies. Commissioner Dunlap commented that insurance for contractors was regulated by the Contractors State License Board. The applicant could obtain a builder's risk insurance policy. He questioned Commissioners'concern about insurance indemnification for neighbors, as it was a civil matter. Commissioner Hillgren felt the neighbors' understanding of the insurance issue was an important component of obtaining their support for the project. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's question,Assistant City Attorney Torres agreed the insurance issue was outside the Commission's purview. Neither the Commission nor the City could impose a condition for insurance on the project. He suggested Commissioner Hillgren's concern was a possible compromise between the applicant and neighbors. Vice Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Koetting noted the project proposed 30 caissons as part of construction. Secretary Zak wanted to see variances for other properties that demonstrated the ability to build to the maximum floor area. The portion of the structure that needed the height variance did not move with the topography of the slope. The proposed project should be granted the same variances as neighboring properties and should be allowed to build to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR)allowed by the Code. The height variance did not seem to be the main concern for neighbors. He requested staff provide diagrams for calculating buildable area in future projects. He wished the applicant and neighbors could have reached a compromise regarding insurance. Commissioner Lawler believed the applicant had complied with Commissioners' recommendations from the February hearing and conducted extraordinary outreach. Insurance was not within the Commission's purview. Seismic issues were covered by state and municipal codes. He supported the project unless Commissioners raised other issues. Commissioner Dunlap appreciated Secretary Zak's request to staff regarding height and FAR. The applicant complied with staff and Commission recommendations. Modified Condition Number 25 would provide the neighbors more assurance that vibration would be attended to. He supported the applicant's revised submission. Commissioner Weigand felt construction would be a significant impact on the community. The applicant had conducted due diligence and reached out to the community. Revisions to the project reduced the impact to neighbors. Page 7 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/06/2017 In reply to Commissioner Weigand's questions,Associate Planner Nova advised that the common wall issue was raised approximately a week and a half prior to the hearing. In response, staff suggested a condition to ensure adjacent structures were protected. Commissioner Weigand thought Condition Number 25 helped the neighbors. He would support the project. The public could appeal the Commission's decision. Vice Chair Koetting would not support the project because he could not make Findings D and E. The home was too large for the location. The allowable square footage would be massive in comparison to other homes. He could not support variances to allow such a large home. Commissioner Hillgren agreed the home was large. Without considering FAR, the home would have the same presence on the bluff. The issue was overall size rather than square footage, but the proposed home was not outside the character of the lot. The proposed project was a significant improvement. He would support the project. Commissioner Dunlap noted the addition of Condition Number 25. Associate Planner Nova reiterated revisions to delete Fact in Support of Finding E1 and to delete the first two sentences of Fact in Support of Finding E6. Motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to Section 15303,Article 19, Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 of the CEQA Guidelines and to adopt Resolution No. 2054 approving Variance No. VA2015-005 with deletion of Fact in Support of Finding E1, deletion of the first two sentences from Fact in Support of Finding E6, and addition of Condition Number 25. Secretary Zak did not feel the Commission had the proper information to decide whether to grant the requested variance. He chose not to offer an alternate motion to continue the item because of the deadline to act. AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand NOES: Koetting ABSTAIN: Zak ABSENT: Kramer VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on City Council Items Deputy Director Wisneski noted the tentative meeting agenda. The next meeting would focus on the Mariners' Mile Revitalization Plan. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Deputy Director Wisneski advised that was the only item on the agenda at the present time. There was a considerable amount of public interest in the Plan. ITEM NO. 6 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION,ACTION, OR REPORT Vice Chair Koetting reiterated his concern about code enforcement of signs. Deputy Director Wisneski advised that staff did not have the ability to bring active code enforcement cases to the Commission for discussion. A broader discussion of sign provisions could provide clarification. Page 8 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/06/2017 ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Hillgren indicated he would be absent on April 20. IX. ADJOURNMENT—9:01 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, March 31, 2017, at 12:21 p.m, in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on Friday, March 31, 2017, at 12:12 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary Page 9 of 9 Planning Commission - April 20, 2017 Item No. la Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of April 6, 2017 April 20, 2017, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(oo)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 2017 17 Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in s#ikesut underline format. Page 4, last sentence: "Staff suggested the approval resolution be amended to remove Finding E1; to clarify Finding E6 that the pool was not located in the€ron rear setback; and to add Condition Number 25." Page 5, paragraph 1, sentence 3: "At the worst case, the proposed pergola/loggia structure exceeded the 24-foot flat roof height limit by 18 feet. She did not have the number of feet above the 24-foot height limit for these other structures in the neighborhood." Page 7, paragraph 1, sentence 3: "Mr. Hamiltews Hamilton's original garage was constructed on Ocean Boulevard."