Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutes 04-19-07Planning Commission Minutes 04 /19/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes • April 19, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 27 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren: Commissioners Peotter and Toerge are excused, all others were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on April 13, 2007. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of April 5, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Commissioner Hawkins suggested removing a portion of the text from Mr. Approved Lepo's discussion on the recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on Page 3, Mr. Lepo answered he said it, but if the Planning Commission wants to strike that, he agreed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren N s. None sod: Peotter and Toerge tain None SUBJECT: Mariner's Mile Gateway, LLC {PA2006 -279} ITEM NO.2 Page 1 of 27 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 900 -600 West Coast Highway al of a Comprehensive Sign Program for the approved Bel ME ig Center. The Planning Commission will also review the projec ipe plan. In addition, the applicant has also requested Planni ssion review of proposed changes to exterior elevations resulti redistribution of second floor building square footage. The Planni scion will determine whether the proposed changes are itial conformance with the previously approved project design Nichols, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the project: Noted that the project had been conditioned with the proviso that applicant submit a Comprehensive Sign Program and a Landsc Plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission; Staff has reviewed the Sign Program and finds it in with the City's Sign Ordinance; Landscape plan was reviewed relative to the lanc requirements of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The satisfies all requirements; Changes to the project design are proposed. Revisions affect t exterior elevations of the project as a result of the re- distribution second floor retail space. The second floor has been divided ii two distinct areas, providing a better balance of the square foota and creates a more centralized open area. Staff feels the revisions can be found in substantial conformance with the approv design and do not affect the approved square footage or cause 1 structure to exceed the approved height limit for the project. Eaton asked about the e-mail he sent, staff answered: Signage - through the approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program is allowed to have additional signs or slight increases in allowab square footage due to architectural features, orientation of tt frontage or the length of the project frontage; Landscape plan shows a number of potted plants that are to watered through a reservoir system and will be self - watering; Elimination of the access hallway on the second floor is on I current proposed exhibits; a freight elevator will serve both floors a means of delivery of goods; for suites that do not have a s entrance adjacent to the elevator; the goods will be loaded throt the front door. Newman of Government Solutions, representing the We are bringing to the Commission, as part of the approved Permit conditions, a Comprehensive Sign Program and Lands Plan; we are asking for a substantial conformance finding on file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning COmmission\PC. Minutes \2007\1 m04- 19- 07.htm PA2006 -279 Approved Page 2 of 27 C� • Cl 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 we believe are positive modifications to the elevations; The sign program is attractively designed and is a complement to •architecture and meets the standards set forth in the Sign Ordina for Comprehensive Sign program; The landscape plan meets the intent of the Planning Commi; original approval and meets the goals and objectives of the Mari Mile Design Framework and Vision; The proposed elevation modifications represent an overal improvement to the project and provide a better distribution of the retail space allowing for a more expanded open public gatherin< area; She noted that they have reviewed the staff report and are agreement with it and the resolutions; She then introduced the members of her team. prehensive Sign Program sioner McDaniel noted his concern about the (Mariner's K having ugly signs. He wants to know why there is a need I signage and until he knows who will be going in there, he is ble with allowing more signs. Goldman of Allied Retail Partners, noted: Each space in the shopping center will be made up of in tenants, and each tenant will require their own sign identities; The sign program for the project is based on the architecture of center that is designed as a street with individual store fronts that architecturally different; There is no uniformity where each space has the same amount frontage; each space is designed differently, so the sign allowar for each space was made on an individual basis. n Cole noted the applicant is proposing a deviation from w 20.67 allows as a means to enhancing the overall aesthetics of Lepo added the change is proposed for the second floor of i ling, the arrangement of the facades and the location of the mass fn t was originally proposed. These changes are what you are asked in substantial conformance with the original approval. man noted the Code provides for 1 1/2 times the amount of of each space for a total signage for each and in no case is I by any of the spaces. ner Hillgren asked about a possibility of adjacent store Page 3 of 27 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \20071mn04- 19- 07.htm O6/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04 /19/2007 Page 4 of 27 ling lumped together with one sign. r. Goldman answered that each frontage is designed to be leased to on nant. There is a provision in the staff report that, at the discretion of the • anning Commission, we can combine signs in certain locations. aferring to the exhibit, he referenced the frontages and noted where ijacent store frontages could be combined for a single tenant. If there is ie tenant in two frontages, a larger sign would be provided but in mos ises, that combination could not be done. He then noted the businesses ho have signed leases for some of the spaces. hairman Cole asked if staff determined that this sign program is in ibstantial conformance with Chapter 20.67, even though there are some ;viations. Where there were deviations, was it due to architectural asons? r. Nichols answered "yes ". The Sign Code regulations are geared wards freestanding, individual businesses. The reason for the :)mprehensive Sign Program is to allow for deviations and innovative .sign for larger projects such as this one. It states that deviations are lowed as to number, size and type. In the opinion of staff, these ;viations are acceptable. There are a number of spaces where an chitectural element, such as the elevator tower, occupies a portion of the nant's frontage; in those cases they were allowed additional signs to impensate. • �mmissioner Hawkins, referencing page 13 of the Sign Program, noted e second item, "Exception noted that it was at landlord's discretion" and ;ked if this is correct; Mr. Goldman indicated it was the Planning :)mmission's discretion. Whose discretion is it? r. Nichols answered that the landlord would have to approve any signag for to the building permit request being submitted to the City. Once the jilding permit was submitted to the City, the Planning Department would view it relative to the Sign Program to ensure that whatever the landlord td approved was in conformance with the submitted program. Commission inquiry, Mr. Goldman noted that without knowing who the nants are, a number of signs have been provided for in addition to the andard wall signs. Most tenants will utilize that, but we also provide the >ility to do awnings in certain cases or to do a blade sign. Each of the nants are unique types of operations so we are putting together a ogram that has maximum square footage area that doesn't exceed the ode. How it gets applied is what we have discretion over subject to the anning Department approval. )mmissioner Hawkins asked staff about the permit requirements. r. Nichols noted that each tenant must come in for a Building Permit for • ins. The Planning Department will review the signs pursuant to the Sign ode and Program. )mmissioner Hillgren asked for clarification on the wording in the file : //F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 5 of 27 resolution pursuant to deviations. Nichols answered that the deviations are defined in the Program grogram is what the Planning Commission is approving. Goldman noted that for each and every space as defined in hics, there is specific criteria so that no sign can be more than a ce confirmed that the resolution restates Chapter 20.67. Any c ions would require the applicant to come back before the Plan fission for modification of the sign program. )airman Cole noted receipt of a letter from a property owner above the oject who is concerned about lighting. He asked how the illumination will addressed. )mmissioner McDaniel asked what time the lit signs will be turned off. Goldman answered that no illumination will extend above the property. ie retailers will be closing by 10 -11 p.m.; however, restaurants may be en later. We have not actually addressed when the signs would go off. ie sign lighting is designed to reflect back towards the building. They are d internally lit channel letter signs; they are wrought iron and will be halo or back -lit. Connie O'Connor of Sign Advantage, noted the sign designs h created to be either back -lit, meaning the halo goes back against ,all and washes the wall, or illuminated by goose neck lamp that shi own off the wall onto the sign. Nothing will be directed toward the sl s lighting is going against the wall and will not create lighting going up ill. missioner McDaniel noted the concern of the neighbors regarding rig. Is there a definite time when the lighting will be turned off? Nichols noted there is no condition on the hours of illumination. a restriction on internal illumination and is contained in the program. pug Beiswenger, Principal of Allied Retail Partners, LLC, and le Gateway, LLC, owner of the property, noted: All of the signs with the exception of those facing East or which is only three occurrences, face South and are approxi 150 -175 feet from the residences on the south -side of the Hip they do not face the homeowner who is concerned with the I shedding up the hill; The photometric calculations that were provided previously show tt •light -shed that would exit the property, which was zero by the time got to the homes; that is the standard within which we intend conform for the signs as well; The signs will not be internally illuminated plastic channel signs but file: / /F: \Users PLV \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\rrm04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 6 of 27 will be halo signs; a halo sign is one with a solid sign with fluorescent tube behind lighting the wall, but not projecting light out from the sign; The other types of signs we intend to use would be blade signs o • signs that will be lit from the front with goose neck type fixture shining back upon the sign; there will be no light bulbs projecting light out from the signs; they will all be lit towards the building; The hours of operation for the signs will be consistent with the City' Code and shopping centers similar in Newport Beach; there is no intent to leave the signs on 24 hours a day except in the event that the drug store is a 24 -hour operation; in that case, we could agree that only that sign would stay on 24 hours; The drug store has three signs, one each on the west side, south side and on the east side. : ommissioner Hawkins asked that if there is a drug store that is a 24-hour )peration, we could condition the illuminated signs to go off at a certain Joint at certain hours, is that correct? Or. Nichols answered yes. ;ommissioner Hawkins noted then it would be a tenant issue dealt with when they came in with an application. • Or. Lepo clarified that not all the uses within the center will be coming in a ;come will not require a use permit. The drug store, unless they have bee and wine sales, will not require a use permit. If there are specific location )r conditions that you want addressed, that should be done now so there is io question about it in the future. If that involves an absolute limitation or )y storefront, it should be done now. , ommissioner McDaniel noted we could request the lighting issue come Jack to us after a year to see if there have been any problems. If we say ;ring it back in a year, we can address any issues that come up. Or. Lepo noted this could be done; however, he would like to be able to just jive a report if there are any problems that come up. '. ommissioner McDaniel agreed. Or. Beiswenger noted that none of the tenant signs will necessarily need to Aay on for 24 hours except for the drug store. The drug store is no ntended to sell alcohol so there would not be a conditional use permit nvolved. If the Commission would condition us for a review in two years, and if there were complaints about our signs, then we would come in for a eview, but because the lighting from our signs read zero in our photometric :alculation to adjoining properties except to McDonald's (for the drug store • ;ign only) we don't believe there would be any complaints. :commissioner Hawkins noted that to the extent there is any glare or ligh ;pill problems, those would come from over the parking lots. He asked i file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 drug store will be a 24 -hour operation? Beiswenger answered yes to both. comment was opened. comment was closed. asioner McDaniel noted he does not have a problem with a two -yi to look at the lighting issue. This will give us the opportunity > any issues. Hillgren asked about the condition of no light crossing line. Lepo answered that was part of the photometric study done as part project approval itself. He suggested a condition that if necessary ate of the study be done to include these facade lights. Beiswenger agreed. iissioner McDaniel suggested a condition to bring the entire lighti back to the Commission in two years. irperson Cole asked if this could be done. epo answered "yes ", as you are finding substantial conformity was approved before. it City Attorney Harp noted that the lighting is addressed n 90. This condition addresses both exterior on -site lighting a area lighting. mer Hawkins suggested that the review could be done by 1 Director and if necessary he can refer it to the Planni McDaniel and Eaton agreed. Plan Review immissioner Hawkins asked for verification of the types of plant material; be placed on the project site. Nichols noted that the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan calls for a four -fc e planter area along the frontage of the property. Within that planti a there are required species. The applicant has chosen a type that ily pruned to comply with sight distance requirements. Referencing t 4icant's exhibits, he noted the placement, style and type of plantings ner Eaton asked for an explanation of the retaining A and plantings and how they are to be served by water a Page 7 of 27 file : //F: \Users\PLMShared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 8 of 27 arles Foley of Hirsch and Associates, Landscape Architecture, erencing samples, noted the colored walls with planter pockets. Then erring to a wall section exhibit, he explained the water treatment and linage of the planters and distribution of the placement and depth of the • inter pockets. mussion continued on types of material, height of wall, architectural sting, placement of iron railing, visual impacts, types of planting material d palm trees. blic comment was opened on the landscape plan. blic comment was closed. bstantial Conformance determination ug Beiswenger, noted the following: Referencing the exhibits, he noted the prior approval concepts with an outdoor terrace area garden, and a corridor behind the second floor building mass; We are now proposing to separate the second floor building mass into two separate building masses, one of about 4,400� square feet, and one of about 7,000+ square feet; • Because the building lengths are short, and because it is most likel each will be one tenant, instead of a five -foot corridor behind these buildings, it would be in the interest of the development and the public to transfer that area to the front of the buildings; To handle loading for these premises, a freight elevator will be used with access through the front corridor; The hours of delivery are restricted; referencing the exhibit, he explained the route used for deliveries; The types of retailers will be high -end businesses; There are potted plants with a seat planter in the open area between the shops. Commission inquiry, he answered: The changes in design do not result in any additional height or square footage from what was originally approved; If storefronts were combined it would probably be for a restaurant tenant; • If there was outdoor dining with a restaurant, it would be consistent] with the Zoning Code, which generally allows an amount equal to 25% of the interior area of the restaurant; file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Any restaurant that is in the project is subject to a conditional us permit; when that is applied for, the Planning Commission could loo at the hours of operation and see when the peak demand woul • occur and make decisions on the parking demand at that time; wed not intend to put two restaurants that would compete with eac other; Provided parking meets Code to allow a permitted use without ; other discretionary approval except for the conditional use permit a restaurant at 15% of the 56,000 square feet of building area; have 5 per 1,000 parking for the entire 56,000 square 1 development; The previously proposed lower level parking will not be built as it now determined to have no value and would result in constructi and cost challenges; With the single level of parking being provided, there is actually 5 1; 1,000 parking; the type of restaurant that comes into the project, t peak parking demand will determine the type of restaurant that most appropriate for our use; we are looking for higher e restaurant(s) with a lower parking demand and low turnover; The City will have the ultimate decision on which restaurant will be allowed in the center. 11c comment was opened on substantial conformance determination. Aic comment was closed. tion was made by Commissioner Hillgren, and seconded by mmissioner McDaniel, to adopt Resolution approving Comprehensive n Program CS2006 -012 with the modification that it will be reviewed in i years by the Planning Director; and, adopt Resolution finding that the posed landscape plan is in conformance with the conditions of approval the project and the landscape requirements of the Mariners Mile Specific n and the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework; and, proposed changes to the approved project design are in substantial iformance with the building design approved under Development Plan . 2004 -001 and Use Permit No. 2004 -025. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: Peotter and Toer e SUBJECT: Balboa Inn LLC (PA2006 -270) ITEM NO.3 Sienna Restaurant PA2006 -270 105 Main Street A& I Approved RWest to amend Use Permit No. 3158 to allow live entertainment and ancing in association with the existing restaurant use. Additionally, a alver of the parking requirements related to the introduction of live ntertainment is also requested. The property is located at 105 Main Street Page 9 of 27 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 10 of 27 is within the Retail and Service Commercial designation of the Central )oa Specific Plan (SP -8) District. ne Murillo, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the staff report: • The applicant would like to provide live entertainment as a way to enhance their existing banquet operations for private events and provide a band in the interior courtyard on weekend afternoons for the enjoyment of the general public and to attract additional clientele; The applicant is requesting a waiver of 24 additional parking spaces; Staff recommends approval of live entertainment in conjunction with private events only; these findings can be supported with specific conditions of approval to control and mitigate noise impacts to neighboring residences such as conclusion of events at 10:00 p.m., live entertainment contained in the interior dining rooms, and requiring all windows and doors to remain closed during such events; An increase in parking demand is not anticipated as these private events are already permitted to occur and the live entertainment will serve only to enhance these events and not increase the number o persons attending these events; Staff recommends that the live entertainment request for weekend afternoons, or for any other activities open to the general public, be • denied as these events are intended to attract additional patrons to the restaurant that would in turn generate an increase in parking demand, which is inconsistent with Coastal Land Use policies related to availability of public parking; There is a concern that these events would attract additional visitors to the bar, which could result in additional calls for service and demand for law enforcement in the area; The Police Department is supportive of staffs recommendation with the conditions placed on the project; per their request, condition 15 should be amended to clarify that the use of a DJ or karaoke is considered live entertainment and shall be prohibited uses for activities open to the general public. then continued by answering the questions sent via e-mail from the omission: Live entertainment permit - issued in error to the applicants in 200 and following research with the issuing Department, staff is not sure how it occurred; • Total number of parking spaces required and provided on the hotel expansion on 707 East Oceanfront; that project was required to provide twelve spaces for the hotel rooms and retail square footage; they have actually provided 17 spaces with the condition on this file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 project that the remaining 5 spaces be allocated to the 105 Street portion of the project; in 1985 there was a reconfiguration of the 105 Main Street prop with an application to provide two separate restaurants; the total public area of the restaurants was higher than what previo existed so the parking increase was related to the increased public area. Hawkins asked how Revenue was handling the fees. Murillo answered the program is no longer active; however, the enue Department continues to collect the fee on an annual basis fron -e projects that benefited from the original in -lieu parking fee program. y are paying as required, which is 24 spaces per year. The parking in fee that was established at that time was $150 per space per year. nmissioner Eaton asked about the in -lieu fee charged if the waiver approved. Murillo answered that the condition to pay 24 in -lieu parking fees is ry-aver from the previous Use Permit. We are not requiring litional in -lieu fee for the additional waiver that they are requestii ight. WLepo added that if the Planning Commission does not approve the dditional waiver, the additional live entertainment request cannot be ranted. There is no mechanism to collect fees for new waived parkins paces as that program has been suspended. This program was uspended because the $150 per space wasn't buying a lot of property Ithough one lot has been purchased using fees accumulated over the ,man Cole confirmed that even if the Planning Commission wanted ition this with a fee payment, it could not be done. r. Lepo answered, "correct ", we have no procedural mechanism for doi r. Harp added that the in -lieu parking fee is currently under analysis. r. Murillo continued answering the e-mail questions: Applicant's brochures states accommodations for up to 200 gue; on the first floor and an additional 125 guests on the second flc terrace; that would be inconsistent with the maximum occupar limit per the Building and Fire Codes; based on the total net put: area of 2,273 square feet, the total occupancy is limited to 1 persons; there is a condition of approval (35) that requires sti adherence to the maximum occupancy limits and the applicant required to amend his brochure for consistency; Page 11 of 27 file : / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04 /19/2007 Page 12 of 27 Capacity of the Balboa lot where there are 614 parking spaces in the lot; the parking is based on net public area and not maximum occupancy of meeting space or restaurant; additionally, there is an • assumption that for the private events, a number of people will be carpooling and a number of hotel rooms are booked for wedding and other private events. Commission inquiry, he added that the live entertainment would enhance events and not increase attendance at a wedding. mmissioner Hawkins noted that the applicant asks for the live tertainment as a means to bring more people into the establishment. . Lepo answered that staff looked at this application and the idea is to hance the venue with the likely outcome that there would be more events r year because people looking for a venue for a wedding would see the Iboa Inn as an attractive place and they like to have music for the dding reception. The size of the facility is not increasing with the dition of music; each event would not accommodate more people, there uld just be more events per year. He added that people who are looking venues for birthdays, weddings, etc, are looking for music. Murillo continued answering e-mail questions: Police Department's recommendation of denial had been drafted in response to the applicant's original request for live entertainment for private events and other activities open to the public and in the bar in the courtyard area; however, they are now in support of staff recommendation as the project is conditioned. mmissioner Eaton asked about the area referred to as a courtyard that s a roof, but does not seem to be enclosed yet. If this is enclosed, as the plicant indicated to me, could the entertainment be moved out there? iat if the configuration is changed by the erection of a wall, would exiting luirements be affected? Murillo noted what has been discussed is providing live entertainment in corner of the courtyard. We are requiring a condition that the applicant dace the existing open wrought iron gates along that courtyard exit out to boardwalk with double -paned sound attenuating doors and windows. if's recommendation is to limit live entertainment strictly within the arior dining rooms only. . Lepo added that a configuration by placement of a wall would be an pansion of capacity and that is contrary to what has been represented light. Commission inquiry, Mr. Murillo noted that portions of the courtyard • uld be open to Main Street and we are requiring sound attenuation doors ing the Ocean Front boardwalk to help contain sound as people exit and ter the dining rooms to go to the bar or buffet tables that might be located the indoor courtyard. file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/1912007 Lepo added that the sound transmission from there is the bigges ncern, whether it is up through the open courtyard or out the doors. Om the reasons for the doors on the boardwalk side is to have an entry lock. Ooway there will be two sets of doors to protect the residences arounc rner from as much noise as possible. ion continued on the sound problems and control, parking m occupancy and space taken up by band and musical equipment levels and sound. Murillo added that on the 1986 plan, the courtyard dining area was iited to 286 square feet and the total first floor occupancy is 136 persons. ie way the condition was written, they can divvy up their square footage yway they want so long as they don't exceed the total net public area tha permitted. csion continued on parking, occupancy, noise issues and the use time to address these complaints in the past. nmissioner Hawkins noted that the waiver of 24 parking spaces is the net public area. If we expand the net public area to i itional courtyard area then the number of parking spaces that d to be waived would increase. Staff concurred. ssioner McDaniel noted the space that will be available to th will not be available for anyone else. Anyone else staying in the be able to use the facilities. Lepo answered the restaurant will be there, but the events will scussion then continued on the use of all the space for private events ier patrons would not be able to use the facilities as they would be cic the public. cmissioner McDaniel noted his concern with a patron staying at the Ii being able to use the restaurant or bar if it has been hired out to ate party. Craig Frizzell of the Police Department, noted: Not supportive of bringing live entertainment out onto the patio as will increase the noise complaints from the surroundii neighborhood; In the past they had live entertainment out there and also in the lounge area; not only did it increase the complaints from the nearby residents, it also served as a magnet, especially on weekend day: •for the boardwalk; folks strolling up the boardwalk on Saturday Sunday or holidays, they want to be in there; Bringing it out from the confines of the restaurant into the open creates more problems; Page 13 of 27 file : / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Connmission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 14 of 27 Introducing entertainment to the patio area, no matter what type oll venue, will increase the calls for service. Baers, representing the applicant, noted: • This is a mixed -use village with a lot of restaurants and bars; There are concerts in the park during the summer; This area is a noise environment as it on the beach; The applicant is attempting to pursue a private function venue for small groups (25 -125 people), and to offer live entertainment and dancing as an enhancement to these private functions; There is a real demand in the community for a small venue which can accommodate weddings, class reunions, that type of reception; that kind of space is not available in the community now; Being able to offer this type of venue is part of a business plan to enhance occupancy; The request for this amendment came about because the restaurant space has never been that successful.; what has been successful is catering to these small private parties; For nine months out of the year, it is hard to attract customers and • that is why the restaurant is not successful; by offering a small facility for private parties, the owners have found that it complements the hotel operation and provides a venue; Given the location in the village, and that this is an historical inn, the idea of having private venues with live entertainment makes sense; There will be no increase in capacity; Noise is an issue that comes from the attraction of restaurant and bar patrons; Balboa Inn wants to be a considerate neighbor and there are conditions attached to the recommended approval of the request tha address issues such as noise attenuation methods, limit of hours oll operation, and staff training; we agree to all the conditions but ask to reconsider the hours of operation; He asked that for the weekends, some consideration be given to flexibility of hours; and asked for 11:00 on Friday and Saturdays for live entertainment; • With the addition of sound attenuation doors and windows, the noise standards are achievable; Members of the Balboa Improvement District board have recognized file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\rnn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 15 of 27 that, with the conditions proposed on this request, the private even venue could be operated in a responsible manner, and the venue would be an asset to the community; • He then read a letter he received from a local resident stating that she knew what the noise problems were prior to her moving in and has no problem with the noise; At Commission inquiry, he agreed with staffs amendment to condition that a DJ or karaoke is considered as live entertainment. nmissioner McDaniel confirmed that the applicant wants to augment -peak months. He noted that there are issues such as parking ;e but that the Commission wants to help the business. He asked a peak restaurant times were. Baers answered the summer months during June, July and August. ing the venue for private events is for when the people want them an( often be considered in off -peak months. commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the Fourth of July and there no way he would support having 4 -5 days around that time. He would Dnsider an approval for this application if not during the summer time due ) the testimony of the Police Department, residents and City staffs ancern with the extra activity from the boardwalk, with some availability trough September to May. If those periods of time work we can give you og pportunity to come back and expand that time; however, approval the summer time with the testimony on noise, parking, etc only lakes the problem worse. He noted he would be willing to support this mendment, but only for the non -peak months. ublic comment was opened. oe Daugherty, local resident directly adjacent to the Inn, noted: Noise has always been problematic in the area; however, the Police Department has taken positive steps to address complaints and have a positive influence in the area; This Inn has gone through major construction and he looks forwa to the opening; Even with restricting the loud music to the back room, the way it is: our place, the noise is too loud and we cannot go onto our porch; if gets loud enough, we can't watch television in our front room, and s we have to go to the back of our place; however, the vibrations c through our whole place and there is no room to go for respite; •Any improvements that are being done need to be done so as to be a public nuisance; If something can be done for everyone in the area, that would be best. file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 16 of 27 tt McElroy, Director of Balboa Peninsula Business Improvement District, :d his support of this application. The conditions on the approval will ress the majority of the Police concerns regarding noise through the idor. By containing the noise in the interior area, you will not have that. smission of noise out onto the boardwalk. ip Siegel noted his support of the application. He noted that a lot o inesses in the area had closed. If the noise is kept at a reasonable 4, he doesn't see a problem. The management, through their re elopment of the Inn, has created a huge improvement in the area and should bring in customers. lard Carnivary, a retail tenant at the Balboa Inn addition, noted he see as an advantage for his business. He asked the Commission to have inesses open at least six days a week. The Police Department is very )le and keeps crimes and criminals away. Sherrit, local property owner, noted: Last fall one of his tenants moved due to the loud noise in the area; the upstairs tenant has had to leave his apartment on Sunda afternoons due to the same noise problems; I have talked to the Planning Department, City Manager and the Police Department about the noise problems; He went to the area last November when the concerts were going on • and it was so loud that standing next door he had to shout in order to be heard; The following Friday night, his tenant called indicating at 11:15 p.m. he could not sleep because the noise and booming was so great; he visited the tenant and confirmed that it was a zoo in the area; a bouncer was at one of the doors to keep people out until someone left from inside, it was a horrible situation; the noise was booming; Staff has certainly responded to his concerns but his request would be to not grant a permit because it has affected his tenant tremendously and he has lost money due to his tenants moving out; No afternoon activities are recommended by staff and the Police Department; He noted that if you grant this amendment and this noise continues to be problematic, does this go on indefinitely? How will it be addressed? What is live entertainment? Does it include amplification of music? • He noted that he had never had a problem the past 30 years until last fall. nmissioner Hawkins asked if there was a concern of the live file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 with private parties. Sherrit answered that if it disturbs the peace of his tenants, "yes "; that J happened in the past. comment was closed. mmissioner McDaniel asked how this would be enforced as a rty and not open to the public. It does sound that there are enfoi ues from the testimony we have heard tonight. Lepo answered that if the police get called, they will be aware of ditions of approval so they can check to see if it is consistent with ditions. Code Enforcement will periodically check that very kind of tl see who is hosting the event, etc. Any violation of conditi )matically will necessitate the Use Permit being brought back to fining Commission for review. rman Cole noted live entertainment is defined to include ampl c, karaoke and DJ music. No five entertainment that is open to c is allowed on weekend afternoons per staff's recommendation; being asked to approve private events be allowed to have -tainment in the inside dining room area only. Staff agreed. ssioner Hawkins, referring to Site and First Floor Plan cols asked for specifics. If we allow live entertainment in a le footage, are we still going to need the 24 space parking waiver? Murillo answered that private events with live entertainment would of permitted on the first floor north and south dinging room areas. The ce waiver is the difference in the total net public area permitted due live entertainment. Lepo answered that based on the difference of 1 space per 50 squa :t per restaurant and 1 space per 35 square feet for area with Ii, tertainment and with the square footage for the live entertainment limits that of the north and south dining rooms, the number of parking spat, lived would be reduced. nmissioner Hawkins noted he understands the need for the proper ier to see a return on their substantial investment, but we have al< ird substantial concerns about the noise, etc. He asked about a reduce a, for instance, that the north dining area be allowed for liN ertainment only. If that works, then either the applicant can come ba( an additional application to cover the south dining area, or we include dition that allows for that re- visitation a year after this plan demented. I would like to see if there is support for a diminish( wance for live entertainment. The reason is the parking waiver of ikes should not be allowed, particularly not in this area. nmissioner McDaniel noted one of the major problems with Ii ertainment is drums. No matter how many doors you shut, the ba m will travel across the cement and it is very annoying. If we are goi Page 17 of 27 file : //F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Planning COmmission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 18 of 27 r allow this amendment, he recommends that we condition it with no rums for live entertainment. That doesn't mean you can't have an electric rum as their sound does not transfer through the foundation. The pea me with parking will be real difficult for the area and he would like to see ow they operate with off -peak months before allowing the peak season • se. commissioner Eaton noted: It is reasonable to go to 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday night because a lot of wedding receptions go that late; What would be the parking waiver if the entertainment was allowed in the dining room? He questions whether it could be limited to the northern dining room only, because one of the conditions is that the partition be taken out and staffs opinion was maybe ropes or something could be used to keep the occupancy out of the one where they are required to do so by the existing conditions; Talking about live entertainment, using ropes is not going to have much of an effect; I think you are going to have to allow probably the whole dining room to be allowed and is that less than the 24 waiver. Ir. Lepo noted that the net public area and the number of parking space ,aived could be reduced by applying the required 1 per 35 just to the 1,20 • auare feet of 1 st floor dining rooms. Ir. Murillo agreed that applying the difference between 1 to 50 and 1 to 35 r the two dining room areas (543 plus the 652) would result in an 11 spat arking waiver. ommissioner Eaton noted this is more reasonable than 24. Additionally, e noted a one -year review. ommissioner Hillgren asked if there could be public dining at the bar in the )uthside area if there was a private venue at the same time and ho ould it be enforced? In Lepo answered there was nothing physically or otherwise that would reclude service at the bar. Ir. Murillo added that the Inn would have to comply with the total - cupancy constraints which for the two in -door dining rooms is pproximately 87 persons. Ir. Lepo added that the Fire Marshall would get called out and if there is a olation, the place would be closed down. . hairperson Cole asked if the long term occupancy of the space, based on ie design and conditions, is not anticipated to generate any additional arking demand? Is the assumption if there are private parties in th file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Conimission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htrn 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 �staurant that they would not generate more parking than a rest; ould provide? What about the parking availability on weekends? Is parking concern, other than the waiver? IMurillo answered that when a private event occurs, the restaur; uld function as a banquet facility. Total occupancy is still restricted I ilding and Fire Code. When there are private events, there will be Iher parking demand for this facility related to live entertainment. Sl s conditioned this to prohibit that activity on the weekend days due *Ina and noise. Lepo added that there are no parking problems that we know of to exis Tided this is off -peak uses in the peak seasons. So you are not having ning and afternoon events on weekends when the demand for parkins tes from beach access. The peak season would be the summer. Ron Baers, noted: Restriction of private parties to the off - season would n accommodate the peak season as the most demand for weddings June; This would put a major stumbling block into the business plan promoting a boutique inn for a private venue such as this; •The demand for parking in the peak season comes from passengers of the Catalina Flyer and beach - goers; There is an interior space that is set up for dining where the li, entertainment is; a ground -floor courtyard is a mingling area but someone wants to use that space during a wedding, that would al: be a component of their serving area and a buffet could be set up that space; Depending on the event, someone could book the bar, the courtya and the interior space and utilize all of those functions; if th happened, sometimes the upstairs terrace can be used for dining I hotel guests; that has been done in conjunction with events and the there is no conflict. �mmissioner McDaniel noted the previous testimony on the level of n Sundays when you were operating before. How will you contain ise so that your neighbors will be happy as you are opening this out it area for buffets. What protection do you offer the neighbors from ise when you haven't in the past? Baers answered that the nature of the operation is changing from on( ;h was an open venue with live entertainment that attracted people it out which generated noise and complaints. All that will be eliminate( 'this will not be a public venue for entertainment in the courtyard. itionally, there will be sound attenuation improvements made to th( cture. For the private events where the music has been inside, recen e readings taken show noise standards were being met. Complaint: Page 19 of 27 file : / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning COmmission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 20 of 27 me from the past and this is different now with more control and different )e of people. )mmissioner Hiligren asked what the difference is between a public even • iting versus a private event exiting. The primary parking is on the to Nards the beach, so people have to walk across so the noise will be there en though the events are private. .. Baers answered the conditions are such that the exits and openings ito the boardwalk will be secured so there will not be a spillover out onto public walkway. I think the noise is when people come out of the intina bar or in front of any other bar venues. iairman Cole asked what is different about that now? Even in a private ent, there is no difference. ,. Baers answered there is a condition about a security plan that has to be place for these events. Part of that plan will be noise and crowd control. ie other factor is there will be training of employees serving alcohol overages and they will have the knowledge to do that in a responsible ly. iairman Cole noted there is a suggestion to consider approving this but bject to not allowing the live entertainment in the peak season, being the mmer and also prohibiting real drums with electronic drums being owed. • -. Lepo noted that Code Enforcement did the noise measurements and zly registered 52 decibels at 9:30 to 9:45 p.m. Had they stayed 15 more nutes and registered that same level, that would have violated the Noise -dinance on the residential property line. That is why we put in to end the tertainment at 9:30 p.m. and close at 10:00 p.m. The precision is going vary because a lot of noise at 53 decibels was speech. One person eking noise outside on the sidewalk set off the meter. 9:30 p.m. is not an bitrary hour that we chose, it was that once you get to 10:00 p.m. noise is sighted by that factor of 5 decibels to reflect people's greater sensitivity in D later evening hours to noise. What realistically could we do to keep it �m automatically becoming a noise violation? So we say that music stop 9:30 p.m. and people leave and are gone by 10:00 p.m. We also derstand that patrons from the Cantina and other places on the sidewalk used the meter to jump so we couldn't attribute all the noise absolutely to s location. We are concerned that the Noise Ordinance would be dated. Commission inquiry, he stated the entertainment was located inside the ling room at the time the noise levels were taken. )mmissioner McDaniel noted a similar problem with an inn on Balboa and. The fact that you live at the beach, you know you have to put up • th the noise on Friday and Saturday nights. Patrons will be loud and ving a good time. if that comes and goes very quickly it is better, so I ree with the 9:30 p.m. hour. file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 er Hawkins noted the hours were dictated by the No It was confirmed that it is 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. Hillgren noted: The primary use is an Inn; An appropriate ancillary use to that is a dining facility; appr( functions are private events that would occur; if it is allowed single night, you cross the line; think there needs to be limits as to how often this can occur, how we contain sound is a challenge; The concept of putting in doors and managing hours is helpful a you can limit it; We need to limit the number of times we are subjecting neighbors to all these folks flooding through the neighborhood; Some reasonable limit starting with 8 times a year and a number nights per week are appropriate to be considered as this relates how often this kind of use would be allowed down there. Cole noted: He agrees this is an important historical landmark of the City; Staff's recommendations with the additional conditions seem to be reasonable as these will better the existing situation; We are now talking about not having any live entertainment at all Saturday and Sunday afternoons, and they are improving the soi attenuation and I believe this is vital to the district; If we put too many restrictions on it, it seems to unfairly burden operator; He noted he is in favor of approving staffs recommendation even considering extending the hours to some extent for t events as 9:30 seems to be arbitrarily early. )mmissioner Hawkins noted that if we give them a permit to go to 11 m. and there is a noise violation, they will have to be brought Lepo answered: The caveat is not knowing where the patrons come from and asi from the noise of drum with the boom, boom boom of the amplif music that is going to cause the meter to show there is a violation the noise ordinance; Page 21 of 27 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 22 of 27 Yes, we can deal with it by imposing the condition closing the boardwalk side doors; the applicant would have to put an alarm in because that is an emergency exit; • It gets down to the minutiae of what you deal with; we can try and enforce this, but there is no promise the conditions will work miracle and staff may need to come back for another review. �mmissioner Hawkins again asked if we impose a condition that allows music to 10:30 p.m. and close at 11:00 p.m., and if the decibel level reeds the allowable noise at 10:01 p.m., can we still go in and shut them wn. . Lepo answered it is just not that simple. Mr. Sheritt's comments and his stairs tenants comments about the structural -bom sound that is going to measured differently. The boom, boom boom thing is not going to lister on the sound meter. It's there and that will drive you crazy. That is caveat I am putting in here. If you want to do this, I suggest that you ntinue this item and staff will come back and based on what you tell u u want us to accomplish, and offer conditions on how we will deal with ise matters such as structural vibration and sound; and, measurements noise violation on the public sidewalk between the Balboa Inn and the >idential property to the west. We have to be very careful; that is a public ht -of -way. Discussion continued. >tion was made by Commissioner Eaton and seconded b immissioner Hawkins, to approve the request with all of the conditions as • :ommended by staff, with the following modifications: The live entertainment be allowed a maximum 8 times per month excluding July and August; The live entertainment occurs only within the dining rooms; A waiver of 11 parking spaces, and not the originally requested 2 spaces; The live entertainment to go to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday evenings, and; There will be a one year review. immissioner McDaniel asked that the drum portion be added to the rtion. mmissioner Eaton refused and said the a substitute motion would have be made. immissioner McDaniel noted the drums are problematic and the sound i • rried by the cement and there is nothing that can be done about it. �mmissioner Eaton noted this would be micro managing if this was put in. file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04 -19 -071 n 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Hillgren asked if there was a way to monitor the vibration? oner McDaniel asked staff about their opinion on the drums. a problem in the past? Lepo answered that it is structural born vibrations such as drun plified music and percussion music that are problematic. I am sayi land on that, it is a big problem as you have heard from the tenant a dlord. Just be clear as to what you want us to do relative to structu n transmissions. McDaniel asked if this was part of the motion. ,inner Eaton answered, "no ", it is micro- managing ry record of how that could be measured. nmissioner Eaton repeated the motion to approve the request with all conditions as recommended by staff, with the following modifications: The live entertainment be allowed a maximum 8 times per excluding July and August; The live entertainment occurs only within the dining rooms; A waiver of 11 parking spaces, and not the originally requested • spaces; The live entertainment be extended to 11:00 p.m. on Friday Saturday evenings, and; There will be a one year review. mmissioner Hawkins asked staff if they are comfortable with the 11 ice parking waiver. Lepo answered that we will have the exact numbers based on ig areas ( which is 1,295 square feet of net public area). missioner Eaton amended his motion to clarify that with the 11 e waiver subject to the confirmation that it is based upon the di een 1 per 50 and 1 per 35 in the dining room only. The amp seconded. missioner McDaniel noted that if there are violations before the ss back, there should be an opportunity for neighbors to have re n that year. Lepo suggested that we can come back within the first year if fining Department receives complaints. The maker of the me Baers asked if they could have July and August for the bookings. ns is fine. Page 23 of 27 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04119/2007 Page 24 of 27 :)mmissioner Hillgren noted from the original presentation, the concept of iving this special opportunity was to be sure that the Inn had business firing the non -peak periods. The summer is a peak time and I don' iderstand why you have to have it during the summer as that is the tim • e business is doing the best. r. Baers noted he did not mean to imply that the enhancement was only r the off -peak season. It is an enhancement for the peak season as well. wasn't trying to imply everything works fine during the peak season that do not need to have this special venue and that it would operate well dy within the off -peak time. If you are offering this type of venue you can' II someone they can't do it during July and August and they have to go imewhere else. )mmissioner Hillgren said, "yes ", you could. If your business is successful firing the peak time of season, then you can say you don't need that isiness and limit it to the off -peak periods when you need to have the Iditional business happen. r. Baers stated he thought the issue was to put a limit on the number of iecial events. We are willing to say instead of 8 to make it 5. )mmissioner Eaton noted his intent was to also eliminate a conflict that is the potential to get out of hand and be egregious, and that is during the onths of July and August. It might also be during June too, but he was [ling to concede June because there is no arguing that is a prime month r weddings. I would not want to change my motion. • )mmissioner McDaniel noted he has come so close to voting no on this rm. I hope the applicant will accept this and I really believe we have -etched to give the applicant the opportunity to do what you need to do to ove yourselves as opposed to just voting "no" on the whole thing. You m't have the parking, you're experience for noise in the neighborhood has )t been pleasant and the Police Department says they have been called ultiple times, and I think this Commission has stretched to give you this iportunity to prove yourself that this will work. My point to you is that this either a "yes" or "no ". )mmissioner Hawkins noted there are 8 times a month during the off -pea !asons except for June. The applicant is looking for special events during ily and August; we can ratchet the numbers down to two in July and igust. This way they are not dark and the restaurant has been given a ance. He made this into a Substitute Motion with everything else in the iginal motion. ibstitute Motion failed for lack of a second. r. Baers noted his concern for the events already booked for July and igust. And asked if the months of July and August could be waived this • gar. )mmissioner Eaton amended his motion for those specific 5 dates as ited on handwritten page 31. file : //F: \Users\PLN \3hared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Cole asked if the applicant is in agreement with the motion answered he agrees. missioner Hillgren asked if the doors and windows would be in to these 5 events. r. Baers answered the work has not been done yet and so could not definite answer. nissioner Eaton noted his amendment would include that this work in order to waive those five dates in July and August. McDaniel seconded this amendment. nissioner Hawkins noted that the noise attenuation to be made prior to any live music going in. Baers answered there is an event scheduled for April 21st and 28th. 1 are willing to work with you on a trial basis and come back. inman Cole asked when the improvements would be completed. Baers answered 60 days. �missioner Eaton noted his reluctance to make this part of the motion hat they have been doing is not permitted under their existing permit. ie revocation has only been stayed pending this meeting tonight. I don't ant to have the Planning Commission take on the responsibility for lowing those events to continue without the conditions in effect. ,nissioner McDaniel noted his agreement stating the Commission over backwards to try and make something happen. I have stret< ;r than I intended and for them to ask permission after the fact, I I le with that. I think our motion is accepted, or we vote "no ". in Cole noted the motion has been amended to allow these only if all the improvements outlined in the staff have mmissioner Eaton noted he did not say completion, only conformance. w staff interprets conformance is up to them. In Lepo answered that he agrees the doors should be installed by 5th. We will work with Building Department to get the permits done. Baers stated he agrees with the further provisions that the d( :)vement be completed by May 15th as well as the other changes recommendations as proposed. Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren None Page 25 of 27 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\rtut04- 19- 07.htn► 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Excused: I Peotter and Toer e www SUBJECT: Orchid Plaza (PA2005 -098) ITEM NO.4 3600 E. Coast Highway PA2005 -098 Project Update - discussion item only. Discussion Item only Mr. Lepo stated that the staff report is included as a response to Commissioner Hawkins request at the last meeting for an update on the use permit at 3600 East Coast Highway. Grading of the site is underway and nothing has been built. Commissioner Hawkins asked if the condition for the commencement of work being done within 24 months has been met. He was answered yes. w w w ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up Mr. Lepo noted that at the last meeting, the City Council heard th appeal of the Planning Commission decision on the Newport Beac Brew Company because there was concern on the detail an specifics of the resolution, this item was continued to May 22nd; and a consideration of an acceptance of the revised appraisal fo purposes of increasing the park fee was continued to April 24th a the request of the Building Industry Association. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee Commissioner Hawkins noted there was a report from Glen Everroa regarding business license fees. One of the concerns noted was that there are a lot of LLC's, LLP's and other legal, fictional entities are being assessed business license taxes and that they thought tha was unfair. Mr. Everroad explained the nature and rationale. C. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the GeneSal_PlanlLocal Coastal Pro -ram Implementation Committee Commissioner Eaton noted that both the Zoning re -write consultant and the Technical Advisory Committee members were in attendanc and they went through a general expectation session. Most of th advisory members would like to have priority given to their concern such as the grade and height. It was determined the first issue fo committee review will be the coastal bluff issue at the next meetin on the 23rd d. Ftepori from the Planning Commission's reeresentative . to th Intensive Residential Occupancy Committee None. Page 26 of 27 • • • file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 27 of 27 Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report o at subsequent meetint . None. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish future agenda for action and staff report None. Project status None. Requests.for excused absences None. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 P.M. ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • • file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/22/2007