Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/2016 - Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers —100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, March 3, 2016 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—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Brown, Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand ABSENT(Excused): Hillgren,Zak(arrived at 7:49 p.m.) Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez; Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan; Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle; Administrative Support Technician Traci Mackinen IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher commented on Council's recent action regarding televising Planning Commission meetings. He noted that the public paid for the equipment but the cameras sit idle tonight because Council rejected the public's request. Mr. Mosher detailed Council's reasons for rejecting the request, one of which was to avoid having the public or Council, influence Planning Commissioners. He noted that Planning Commissioners are not required to reveal who contacts them, prior to hearings. Additionally, the public was told that televising Planning Commission meetings was bad because it would cause people not to attend meetings, but rather, watch them on television. He added that many people attended that Council meeting to plead in support of televising meetings and their oral testimony was ignored. Mr. Mosher alleged that Council may be afraid that through video televising, a wider public would be exposed and come to know people more intelligent than those who appointed them. He reported that from this day forward, the Planning Commission's decisions will be seen and publicly archived because the public, in California, has a highly-protected right to maximum scrutiny of every aspect of the public's business. He hoped that Council will turn on public cameras but it cannot stop the public from turning on theirs. Chair Kramer noted that neither the Council nor staff asked for his opinion on this matter. Lorian Petry asked for signs to be moved so she could view the Commissioners better. Chair Kramer closed public comments. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski reported there are two requests for continuances. Regarding Item No. 2, the applicant submitted an email requesting that the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 17, 2016. Item No. 3 will be re-noticed for the March 17, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Discussion followed regarding the protocol when a request for continuance is received late in the day. Motion made by Vice Chair Brown and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to continue Items No. 2 and 3 to the Planning Commission meeting of March 17, 2016. AYES: Brown, Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hillgren,Zak VI. CONSENT ITEMS Page 1 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file It was noted that written corrections to the minutes of February 18, 2016, were submitted by Mr. Jim Mosher and will be incorporated into same. Motion made by Secretary Koetting and seconded by Vice Chair Brown to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 18, 2016, as corrected. AYES: Brown, Kramer, Koetting,Weigand ABSTAIN: Lawler ABSENT: Hillgren,Zak VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 BRISTOL STREET VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOM FACILITY(PA2015-215) Site Location: 2350 Bristol Street The aforementioned item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 17, 2016, under Request for Continuances. ITEM NO. 3 BACK BAY LANDING (PA2011-216) Site Location: 300 E. Coast Highway The aforementioned item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 17, 2016, under Request for Continuances. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski requested the Planning Commission hear Item No. 5 at this juncture. VIII. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO.4 THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE(PA2014-150) Site Location: 1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale Way, 4200, 4220, 4250 Scott Drive Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski introduced the item and provided context in terms of what development applications are pending in the airport area (Statistical Area L-4), as well as development potential according to the General Plan. She addressed land uses, basis of development opportunities, pending applications, General Plan build-out table and mixed-use designations. She deferred to staff for a presentation of the project. Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung provided a PowerPoint presentation stating the purpose of the study session and providing a summary of the project application. She addressed the number of allowed residential units based on the redevelopment of the existing retail shopping center, density bonus calculations allowed by Code, square footage for future retail use, the number of affordable units required in order to get the density bonus, the subject property, surrounding properties and uses, General Plan designation, residential overlay zone, amenities, proposed open space area, residential unit mix, building height increase request, building setback reductions, lot merger for consolidation, affordable housing component, environmental review and environmental mitigation. She reported that the public hearing for this application is tentatively scheduled for March 17, 2016. Associate Planner Ung deferred to the applicant for a presentation. Brittany Jensen, representing Newport Place Residential, noted the site provides a great opportunity for redevelopment, but is currently being underutilized. She addressed existing conditions, property size and General Plan designation. She introduced her team and deferred to property owner Bud Smull. Page 2 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 Bud Smull, property owner, provided a detailed history of the property. In response to Secretary Koetting's inquiry, Mr. Smull reported that the leases of the current tenants are expiring. In order to make way for the project, he reported he had to buy out some of the leases. He added that the project will include a 5,000 square foot opportunity for a restaurant. Faramarz Jabbari, architect, addressed the site location, orientation, opportunities and constraints, views, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, creation of view corridors, open space, private courtyards, parking, amenities, architectural design, community rooms and the swimming pool. Commissioner Zak arrived at this juncture(7:49 p.m.). Matt Jackson, landscape architect, highlighted the amount of landscaping and open space proposed and addressed courtyard elements and opportunities for planting mature trees. He noted there will be open space available for the public and addressed connectivity throughout the community. Ms. Jensen addressed site coverage, the amount of landscaping and building footprints. In response to Secretary Koetting's question, Associate Planner Ung reported that in the Airport Area, there is a criteria for an open-space requirement of a minimum of 8% or half an acre, whichever is greater. She identified open-space areas proposed by the applicant. This particular property is not required to provide a minimum of private amenities, but the applicant chose to provide them. Additionally, she identified where the applicant is requesting setback reductions. She added that there is a required 30-foot setback, along the public right-of-way and ten feet for interior setbacks. She reported that staff believes the variety of setbacks proposed are adequate, in exchange for the half-acre open-space that is being provided at the southerly edge of the property. Additionally, Associate Planner Ung explained the applicant's request for a land-use policy waiver. She reported that the applicant is proposing a half-acre open-space area as a private park that will be available to the general public during daylight hours. The applicant is requesting to pay an in-lieu fee equal to the value of that half acre. In response to Commissioner Lawler's question, Associate Planner Ung confirmed that in return for the setback reduction, the applicant is proposing the half-acre park. However, the applicant is requesting to reduce it to a third-acre park. Discussion followed regarding the height increase from fifty-five feet to eighty-three feet. Associate Planner Ung reported that the bulk of the building is approximately fifty-eight feet. That would be the typical height for a four- story building. The additional requested height is to accommodate architectural elements such as the proposed towers seen on specific elevations that will also hide mechanical equipment and add character to the project. She added that staff is supportive of the setback reduction and the additional height. Relative to the half-acre park, staff would prefer maintaining the half-acre, as prescribed in the General Plan policy, rather than one-third acre. Commissioner Lawler asked why there is no development agreement proposed on this project and Associate Planner Ung stated that a development agreement is only required per the General Plan policy or per the Municipal Code and explained both. She stated that in this case, the application does not trigger a requirement for a development agreement per both criteria. Chair Kramer reported that the General Plan clearly states that a development agreement is required. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported the applicability of other sections of the General Plan and reported that this has been reviewed extensively by the Community Development Director. She pointed to the area for which the General Plan requires a development agreement for infill, additive, residential development. However, the applicant may opt to provide a development agreement if they desire. Chair Kramer opined there may be some dispute between zoning and the General Plan criteria for requiring a development agreement that may need to be resolved. He spoke in support of redevelopment in the Airport Area and indicated this project seems like a residential island in a sea of offices and wondered if the proposed Page 3 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 amenities are sufficient. He commented on the general design of the project adding that it is inward looking and wondered if it was well integrated with the neighborhood. Additionally, he commented on the lack of street access and felt that the architectural style seems out of place for the Airport Area. Chair Kramer stated that he believes this project should require a development agreement and addressed other projects in the airport area that required the same. In response to Secretary Koetting's question regarding a traffic analysis, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported that there is no traffic study required per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He added that there are no additional trips generated with this project. Associate Planner Ung reported that a traffic analysis was prepared in accordance the CEQA guidelines. In response to Secretary Koetting's question, Associate Planner Ung noted there are three points of entry to the project and identified their locations. Vice Chair Brown urged staff to include information in the packet relative to vehicle trips. Commissioner Lawler listed the height, setbacks, lack of a development agreement and the park issues that need to be discussed further. Chair Kramer opened public comments. Jim Mosher referenced the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) being circulated and noted that the time to respond ends tomorrow. He questioned its significance, as people can respond and ask questions up to the moment of the hearing when the Commission will consider adopting it. Additionally, he asked if this will be forwarded to City Council or if the Planning Commission is the final authority. He commented on the park issue, noted a concern with the City following its own procedure and wondered what the authority is for waiving what the General Plan declares to be the City's policy. He commented on the proposed height increase and questioned whether the zoning code allows that. Associate Planner Ung reported that CEQA guidelines require the City to provide opportunities for public comment within a thirty-day period. Public comments for this MND will close March 4, 2016. She stated that it is normal practice for the City to receive comments, provide written responses to the comments and provide these to the Planning Commission or City Council for their consideration. She addressed the General Plan policy waiver noting that the City has that authority. In this case, the approving entity is the Planning Commission because the project does not require a zoning or General Plan amendment. The Planning Commission has the authority to waive it as part of their consideration and approval. Additionally, the City has the authority to increase the height as long as it in compliance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. The applicant has filed and received the necessary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) clearance. The additional height is only for the tower elements and to accommodate mechanical equipment. The bulk of the building is fifty-five to fifty-eight feet in height. Jennifer McDonald referenced another project considered by the Planning Commission in Newport Center and similar requests that were made. She reported that Chair Kramer had indicated the need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for that project and Ms. McDonald felt that one is needed for this project, as well. She believed that one of the impacts is aesthetics adding that it does not look like"Newport Beach" to her in terms of height, intensity and bulk. She added that it could set an important precedent and stated she would feel more comfortable if an EIR was conducted. Dorothy Kraus, Board Member of SPON, expressed concerns about the planned developments coming before the Commission and felt that such a development should provide for amenities such as grocery stores and things that should be part of the community that keep people from having to drive. She expressed support of Ms. McDonald's comments regarding the need for an EIR, especially in relation to traffic. Discussion followed regarding the closest grocery store to the proposed project. Page 4 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 Rick Roshan, property owner at 4299 MacArthur Boulevard, agreed that something needs to be done with the subject property but felt that it must be the right project. He expressed concerns with traffic and resident and guest parking and stated he would like to see a traffic study conducted. He noted there will be a much higher volume of people leaving and returning during peak hours than presently exists. Additionally, he expressed concerns with the proposed building height and the reduced setbacks. John Petry asked regarding the criteria to receive public comments and noticing of the matter. Associate Planner Ung reported that the public notice was sent to all property owners within three hundred feet of the subject site and posting of the project site. Mr. Petry felt the noticing doesn't give people affected by the project an opportunity to comment. He agreed that the site needs redevelopment but expressed concerns regarding increased traffic. He noted the need for a traffic study and a parking analysis. He indicated the Commission is being asked to make certain exceptions to the rules and stated that if the Commission allows for certain changes, it will affect future decisions. Additionally, he asked for clarification regarding "replacement units". Associate Planner Ung reported that staff has used a conversion formula to convert an existing use to a specific number of residential units. Lorian Petry asked about the proposed cost of the units and inquired about the mix of residential units. Chair Kramer closed public comments. Ms. Jensen commented on the proposed height noting that while they are asking for portions of the building to be built to up to eighty-three feet, this would be to accommodate tower elements for equipment storage and to add character to the skyline. She reported that attention has been given to strategically place them and to not create imposing views. She addressed the lack of nearby large shopping centers but noted the availability of dining establishments for residents and office uses. She listed nearby grocery stores and stated that they do not believe that would be too much of a burden for residents. Additionally, Ms. Jensen addressed parking and commented on the affordable component of the project which creates a potential for less vehicles than would be seen with market-rate apartments. She addressed the square footage of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments, noting there is a large range of different floor plans and addressed connectivity and traffic. In response to Chair Kramer's question regarding the architectural style, Ms. Jensen reported it was the intent to design something with a resort-style feel. Mr. Jabbari stated that his effort was to create something timeless and that the architecture is more of a Mediterranean Revival. He added that the intent was to maximize the view of the outside through a filter; a controlled means of views. Additionally, he commented on creating an open space so that the project doesn't look clumsy. Chair Kramer acknowledged a difference in taste and opined that the style is not appropriate for the Airport Area. He encouraged the applicant to review the architecture. In response to Commissioner Lawler's request, Ms. Jensen addressed the basis for the density as well as the bonus density units as a result of providing affordable units. Commissioner Lawler expressed concerns regarding the architectural style not fitting in with the Airport Area. He added that the number of requests for variances seems to be extensive and asked if the applicant is open to a development agreement. Ms. Jensen stated she would need to discuss the matter with the property owner, before she would be comfortable agreeing. She reported that livable space is up to fifty-eight feet. The increased height is only for the tower elements to screen mechanical equipment. Ms. Jensen noted challenges with creating an architectural Page 5 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 style that is compatible with varying uses. Additionally, she addressed community outreach and reported there is a lot of excitement and anticipation for the redevelopment of this area. Ms. Jensen reiterated the need to discuss the development agreement, internally. She felt that a decision could be made within two weeks. Associate Planner Ung reported that staff has noted the Commission's comments and concerns and that they will be addressed in the staff report for the on March 17, 2016, meeting. If the architect wants to make changes to the design, they would need additional time to do so. Chair Kramer stressed that study sessions should not be so close to the public hearing and need to be at least one month prior to the approval to allow for issues that come up. Secretary Koetting suggested the Commission could postpone the item. Associate Planner Ung asked for direction regarding traffic and parking analysis. Chair Kramer noted that the Planning Commission is the approving body for this matter and must do its due diligence. Secretary Koetting noted there are a lot of loose ends and felt that the project needs a little more refinement. Commissioner Lawler suggested directing staff to proceed with a report and bring it back to the Commission. He hoped that the report would address the concerns voiced and commented on the potential need for a development agreement. However, there needs to be a staff report for the Commission to properly review this matter. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that some of the issues raised tonight could be addressed in the staff report. However, some of the issues are up to the applicant. Staff needs more time to discuss the issues with the applicant and staff will schedule the appropriate date for the public hearing. Discussion followed regarding the targeted clientele, challenges and limitations with the greenlight initiative, demanding quality architecture and potential for development of nearby grocery stores. Chair Kramer noted that the developer has the ability to add mixed use but would need to sacrifice residential units. He spoke in support of providing additional amenities to residents and encouraged the applicant to speak with staff regarding same. ITEM NO. 5 GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL REPORT(PA2007-195) Citywide Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan provided the staff report. She addressed State requirements, the current status of a comprehensive database which will be available to the public, example of the database, the Housing Element portion of the report, award of Affordable Housing Funds and recipients and comments received from Mr. Jim Mosher. Secretary Koetting confirmed the number of residential units in the Uptown Newport project. Chair Kramer noted the applicant has requested an amendment to add a 180-room hotel in Phase 1. That application will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the near future. In response to Secretary Koetting's question, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported that the fair-share traffic contribution is based on trips and stated that the process to update the fees began many years ago, but has been placed on hold. Secretary Koetting clarified that the update has been placed on hold but that the City still has a traffic fee for trip generation. Page 6 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 Brief discussion followed regarding approval of the San Joaquin Plaza. Chair Kramer opened public comments. Dorothy Kraus referenced Section A, General Plan Implementation Programs, New Planned Community Development Plans, and asked regarding the "pending" status. She stated there are other projects in the pipeline and reiterated she does not understand "pending"as it applies to the Implementation Plan. Assistant Planner Whelan reported that the status refers to implementation of the task identified by the Implementation Program in the General Plan. It calls for development of new Planned Community Development Plans and the "pending" status means that those that are listed are in process and the implementation is on- going. In reply to Chair Kramer's question, Assistant Planner Whelan added that it identifies projects that have been submitted with an official application and approved within the calendar year 2015. Jim Mosher stated that the implementation program in the staff report provides the status of the promises that Council made to the public when they adopted the 2006 General Plan. He noted there are a number of items that seem to be on hold and haven't been realized yet. He thanked staff for acknowledging his written comments and commented on the various statistical areas, transferring development and transforming development. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski clarified the number of units for the San Joaquin Plaza and addressed the ability to transfer development and the conversion factor. Discussion followed regarding changing the land use as long as it doesn't increase the trip count. Mr. Mosher stated he cannot find anything in the General Plan indicating that is allowed. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski stated she would be happy to go over the regulations with Mr. Mosher and referenced the Planned Community text that identifies transferability. Chair Kramer referenced Mr. Mosher's comments regarding statistical areas that have more development than what was approved and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski stated there are some non- conforming developments throughout the City and some of those parcels were developed with greater intensity, prior to the current General Plan regulations being put in place. Vice Chair Brown referenced the Corona del Mar High School Stadium and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the City is not the lead agency, therefore, it is not included in the listed projects. In reply to an inquiry by Secretary Koetting, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski pointed out areas identified in the referenced attachment as over-developed. In response to Commissioner Lawler's question, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported there are about 50 statistical areas in the City and the information presented in the Attachment 3 is what staff felt comfortable in releasing at this time. Once it is completed, it will be available on the City's website. Chair Kramer noted that L-1 is not included and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski noted that area will be discussed by the Planning Commission in an upcoming meeting. She added there is information at this time for L-4,which is the airport area. Chair Kramer stated he would like to see this item continued to the next meeting to have additional discussion. He noted the absence of two Commissioners and felt it important to have further discussion on this matter. Assistant Planner Whelan stressed the need to maintain the timeline as this matter will be presented to Council on March 22, 2016, and noted it needs to be turned in to the State Office of Planning and Research and the State Department of Housing and Community Development by April 1, 2016. Page 7 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski offered that the Commission may consider the report, complete, to meet the required deadline, but could also direct staff to bring it back for further discussion. Lorian Petry stated she would be hesitant to have this report be deemed complete when it is incomplete. She indicated that this is not a complete review and opined that the most important areas are not shown. She added that what is in question and most important is not shown and hoped that the Commission will take that into consideration and not approve the report at this time. She added that areas such as Newport Center and the airport area are two important areas that are not shown. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski clarified that the report that is to go to the State is shown in Attachment 2. The table, provided as Attachment 3, is provided as an example and not part of the required submission. She identified the specific items that are to be submitted to the State. In reply to Commissioner Weigand's question, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski stated that this is an annual report to be filed with the State and that the City has been doing so for many years. Vice Chair Brown noted that the Planning Commission does not take action on this other than recommend it to City Council. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski stated that the Planning Commission's action would be to recommend that City Council review and approve the report for submittal to the Office of Planning and Research and the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Assistant Planner Whelan added that the table (Attachment 3) provides implementation status on one of the programs in the General Plan. Discussion followed regarding the standard that needs to be met for the submittal. Assistant Planner Whelan stated that the City is trying to show how it is implementing the General Plan. There is no set template for the General Plan status and Assistant Planner Whelan noted that compared with other cities, the City goes above and beyond by reporting on all of the implementation programs. Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres reported that the law says that the Planning Commission will conduct a reasonable and practical means for implementing the General Plan; a reasonable review of what the City is doing to implement the General Plan. In response to Secretary Koetting's request for information regarding Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Assistant Planner Whelan reported that for each Housing Element planning period, the City is assigned a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and must demonstrate that it will be able to build a certain amount of units based on the assigned affordability level. The units do not have to be built; the City only has to demonstrate that it could build them in specific areas of the City. During the most recent planning period, the City was allocated 5 RHNA units. The two above moderate units have been provided for as part of the completed Santa Barbara condominium project so there is a remaining need of only 3 units. Cynthia Hind asked regarding availability of the information and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the agenda packet was available last Friday for public review. Ms. Hind agreed with Chair Kramer's suggestion to continue the item noting that there are important areas that have not been addressed. Chair Kramer closed public comments. Assistant Planner Whelan reported that staff is close to completing the database and that the statistical tables have no bearing on the action required by the Commission. Commissioner Lawler stated he understands the public's concern, but the Planning Commission is only taking action on a routine, year-to-year report. He spoke in support of taking action on this at this time. Page 8 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 At Commissioner Weigand's request, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski explained the action being taken by the Planning Commission at this time. She explained that the statistical table is not part of the report and is part of an on-going database that staff will complete in the near future. Discussion followed regarding the timeline for completing the statistical chart and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski stated it should be complete by the summer. In response to Secretary Koetting's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski noted that there are no voids in the report and that it is complete, thorough, and goes beyond what other jurisdictions report on in their annual General Plan status reports. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Vice Chair Brown to forward to City Council for review and authorize submittal to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). AYES: Brown, Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hillgren,Zak In response to Secretary Koetting's question, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the Planning Commission typically receives email correspondences within half an hour of staff receiving them. Item No.4 was heard at this juncture. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski stated that the application has been deemed complete and the Coastal Commission now has sixty days to take action on it. However, Coastal Commission staff will be requesting a one-year extension, but have agreed to get the item for a hearing in May. 2. Update on City Council Items Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the Use Permit for the Dunes was called up for review by Councilmember Duffy for City Council consideration. The hearing date has not been scheduled. In reply to Chair Kramer's question, Assistant City Attorney Torres reported that the purpose of calling it for review is to allow the entire body to hear the matter. ITEM NO. 8 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Secretary Koetting asked regarding reviewing projects to ensure compliance with requirements. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that when projects come through, staff reviews them to ensure compliance with the Conditions of Approval. ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Lawler requested an excused absence for the Planning Commission meeting of March 17, 2016. Page 9 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of March 17, 2016. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, February 26, 2016, at 11:15 a.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, February 26, 2016, at 11:20 a.m. Ko y K a ie , hair Pe I er Koettin 11 Secret y Page 10 of 10