Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/2009CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 2009 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren— Commissioner Hillgren was excused, all others were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Patrick Alford, Planning Manager James Campbell, Principal Planner Sean McGhie, Planning Intern Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on March 13, 2009. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of March 19, 2009. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Approved Commissioner Eaton to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Excused: Hillgren SUBJECT: Moriarty Residence (PA2008 -207) ITEM NO. 2 2128 Mesa Drive PA2008 -207 An appeal by the applicant, Richard Moriarty, of the Zoning Administrator Continued to approval of a parcel map to consolidate existing portions of lots and parcels 08/20/2009 into a single parcel of land for single - family development. The applicant requests relief from conditions of approval relating to Coastal Commission NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 approval and the ingress /egress access easement. Mr. Lepo, Planning Director, noted the applicant has asked for a 90 day continuance and that staff is in agreement. Commissioner Hawkins asked how many times this item had been continued and was answered this is the 901h day of the first continuance. He then noted his concern that the applicant needs to know this item will be heard on August 13, 2009 as recommended by staff for this matter if nothing else, no other continuance. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Eaton to continue this item to August 13, 2009. Note: Actual hearing date is August 20, 2009. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Absent: Hawkins Excused: Hill ren SUBJECT: AERIE Condominiums (PA2005 -196) ITEM NO. 3 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in Corona del PA2005 -196 Mar at the corner of the intersection of Ocean Blvd. & Carnation Ave. The demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and a single-family Continue to home and the construction of a 6- level, 8 -unit multiple - family residential 06/04/2009 condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (from two- family residential to multi-family residential). The application includes a tentative tract map for the creation of eight (8) condominium units for individual sale. The Modification Permit application requests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front and side yard setbacks and above grade encroachments of portions of the proposed building, including protective guardrails into the front and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permit application relates to replacement of demolished apartments occupied by low or moderate income households. No units meeting these criteria are known to exist, and therefore, no replacement of affordable housing units is required. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (SCH #2007021054) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application. The DEIR concludes that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment on Air Quality, Land Use, Noise, Traffic /Circulation, Aesthetics, Drainage and Hydrology, Public Health and Safety, Cultural Resources, Soils and Geology, and Biological Resources. Page 2 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 Principal Planner, James Campbell, gave an overview of the staff report. Chairman Peotter asked about the floating dock structure. Mr. Campbell answered the proposed dock replacement has not changed since the last time the Planning Commission looked at this application. This item was reviewed and considered in the environmental analysis for the prior recommendation of the Commission. Commissioner Hawkins asked about the amendments and changes to the Local Coastal Plan regulations during appendices of this application. Mr. Campbell detailed the policies related to allowable development on bluff faces in Corona del Mar and the amendments. Brion Jeannette, architect representing the applicant, gave a history of the issues noted by the City Council and a presentation of view simulations of the following project aspects: ➢Reduction in the project; ➢Added /expanded view corridors, upgrade catch basin, removal of existing power poles, protection of sand dollars habitat; ➢Views from the bay, on the water, from the Peninsula and from Ocean Boulevard.; ➢Biological resources; ➢Construction Management Plan; ➢Construction Schedule; ➢Excavation Program; ➢Stages of construction traffic, off -site parking, haul route; ➢Green building qualities; ➢Soils /Geology; ➢Air quality issues; ➢Noise eliminations tools and levels; ➢Stability of the bluff face; ➢Project floor and elevations; ➢Dock access and emergency exit at basement; )o-Landscape enhancement; Mr. Jeannette then added that there are no prohibitions of grading once you come to the established line of development. Behind that is the building zone. New buildings are multi -story in the community and this architecture represents part of this diversity. He recapped the benefits and highlights of the proposed project. At Commission inquiry, he added: ➢ The project does not exceed the height limit at any point. ➢ Undergrounding the utilities may average $11,000 to $20,000 each, depending on what upgrades need to take place. Commissioner Eaton noted his interest in Alternative A Page 3 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 undergrounding. Mr. Jeannette answered the applicant is willing to discuss this and then presented and discussed a slide presentation on the alternative as requested by the Commission. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the bluff integrity and the use of caissons versus retaining walls. Mr. Jeannette, referencing an exhibit, noted that the caissons are better further up than retaining walls further back and represent a similar strength. The further away from the bluff is better. Commissioner Toerge noted his concern of the dock limited by the pierhead line as opposed to the bulkhead line. Mr. Jeannette answered people have the ability to build to the pierhead line as seen in many areas in the bay and these particular pier head lines and bulkhead lines have been there since the 1930's. Public comment was opened. The following people spoke in support of the project for similarly stated reasons: Michelle Brown, local real estate agent and neighbor to the project, - stated this will be a positive influence to the entrance to Newport Harbor; current project is an eyesore; this is the perfect product for residents that want to move up and obtain a beautiful home with dock space; and this will also be a positive impact on the tax base for the City. Robert Artura — has viewed the plans of the project; meets all design qualities he would look for in a house today; if these were individual lots in that community, you would have 5 -7 years of construction and in this case you have one project that will be over a period of 3 years. Brian Hoyle — architectural diversity represents the uniqueness of the City; this project is an improvement to what is there now. Bud Razner — love the architecture; improve the view corridor; remove power poles; improve street drainage; this is a smaller project then when first proposed and less dense than properties around it. Kent Moore, as noted above. Bill McCaffrey, as noted above. Scott Birini stated this needs to be determined and the project needs to move along. The following people spoke in opposition of the project for similarly stated Page 4 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 reasons: Jinx Hansen — spoke on behalf of Marilyn Beck and read her letter into the record that challenged project encroachments and predominant line of development. Ellen Counts — questioned the reference on the agenda that this project may have a "significant effect" on the environment. Tony Delap — asked about a detailed picture of the project and asked why there wasn't a scale model of the area to detail the impact on the corner of Ocean and Carnation. Lisa Valejo — concerned with flooding; EIR is inadequate; EQAC does not agree about the loss of scenic and visual qualities of the rock formation of the bluffs; Harbor Commission said they would not give a permit for a yacht to be on a 100 -foot dock outside interfering with navigation; goes against the Coastal Act that talks about preserving the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone; this is a beach community and if this is approved, it will set up a precedent for bluff development; downsize this project to be in scale with what is allowed in the General Plan Policy. Kathleen McIntosh — project is inconsistent with the CLUP; the marina was denied by the Harbor Commission; the City will be financially responsible for any bluff failures; the docks do not go beyond the bulkhead line because there is tremendous damage done to them every year in that area due to the winter and spring storm surfs. Jennifer Friend, attorney of the Coast Law Group, represents the residents for responsible development. EQAC has submitted a detailed report in opposition to the draft EIR for this project and referenced previous correspondence. The coastal bluff itself is a national and natural resource that requires and demands protection. The argument of the manufactured fagade should not be below the 50.7 PLOD. The alternative being considered regarding underground utilities and enlarging the catch basin etc. is not sufficient to support an overriding consideration to pass or certify this EIR. Robert Ganiere — concerned with truck traffic and safety of pedestrians; this project is enormous and is on a small piece of land. Public comment was closed Commissioner McDaniel asked about the significant effect issue brought up by one of the speakers. Mr. Campbell answered that on the agenda, the description for this item discusses an EIR had been prepared and has potential impacts on a variety of issues. There is one significant and unavoidable impact and that is construction noise, all other impacts based on analysis are less than Page 5 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 Commissioner Hawkins asked about the Harbor Commission action as it seems to be omitted from the staff report, although the resolution and conditions have a reference to the docks. Who is acting on the docks and how does that work? Mr. Campbell referenced Page 18 in the staff report where it provides the Harbor Commission discussion on the project on April 8th. The decision - maker for the docks is the Harbor Resources Manager, Chris Miller. His opinion is that the docks do not pose a threat or safety issue nor impinge on the safe navigation of the channel. He proposed a condition on the width of the boat tied up channel side be limited to 24 feet. The design of the docks will be reviewed by Coastal Commission, Harbor Commission, and ultimately the Building Department. Commissioner Hawkins, referencing Condition 17, does not have a length or width restriction. Condition 109 refers to the wave action only. He asked if the Commission could strike the docks for whatever reason? Mr. Campbell answered, the docks as a discreet action for the Commission this evening for approval or denial, is not before you. It is the evaluation of the docks and environmental review record in the EIR. You could take that condition out and would lead you to finding the EIR is deficient in some way. It is staff's belief that it is consistent with applicable regulations and policies, and the mitigation to the marine environment is adequate. Tim Paone, attorney representing the applicant, noted: ➢ EQAC did not vote on this project, they provided comments and questions presented as comments on the EIR and were answered in the response to comments. ➢ The 61,000 square feet is the total building area including the parking structure and is not the same as a 56,000- square -foot residence. The 8 units are approximately 3,800 square feet each in terms of the living space. ➢ There is no development to the coastal bluff face below the 50.7 line, and that is how it is interpreted and uniformly applied. Mr. Brion Jeannette commented on questions or concerns raised during public comment: ➢ Approximate cost of power poles and repair of streets as well as carrying the power to the residences would have to be brought in and meter set and could end up being a $60,000 item to reduce the power poles to an underground system. ➢ The catch basin cost is estimated at approximately $35,000 range. ➢ Concerning the pool behind the predominant line of existing development, you are able to do them as well as garages or structures at any elevation. It is when you go beyond that there are restrictions. Page 6 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 ➢ Emergency exit is a requirement for that level and also serves as access for the residents to get to the beach. Both functions have to happen together. Commissioner Unsworth, referring to Page 15 of the Construction Management Plan (CMP) reference to noise control considerations, and draft resolution Conditions 98 through 104 for the project, seem to be ending up as the responsibility of the people at the job site. He asked that the proposed conditions be inserted into the actual Construction Management Plan. Mr. Jeannette answered the CMP is part of the project as well as conditions of approval. We can marry these together. Mr. Campbell noted at the plan check phase, all the conditions are bluelined into the plan set so the contractors all have that. It would include conditions from Coastal Commission. Commissioner Hawkins asked about other project benefits if this was built Mr. Jeannette answered the whole project encompasses an energy source that will feed the grid; protection and cleaning the quality of water coming within the area of the neighborhood through the filtering system. The bluff face is being protected forever and we can protect the eel grass situation; the sand dollar habitat will be protected; the building is lower than the required height limits; and, the project has greater setbacks than others in the area. It meets the quality of the diversity of the home designs in the area. There are two view enhancements, one of which does not exist today. Commissioner Eaton suggested continuing this item for two weeks in order to look at the response to comments that were delivered last night. The public is entitled to have the Construction Management Plan put on the EIR but none of the appendices are on the web. He asked for copies of the Harbor Commission minutes as well as any documentation from the Harbor Resource Manager. The Alternative A multiple family units is identified as the superior alternative. The ultimate decision will be made by the Council. However, the Commission should have the ability to recommend to the Council that Alternative A should be considered. Documentation should be given on the protocol and if Alternative A is within the confines of the EIR. He asked that there be a side by side comparison of the proposed project and that Alternative A. It appears there would be less excavation and less concrete, and would result in a shorter duration of noise as well as less truck trips. Commissioner McDaniel noted he is trying to protect that bluff face and less construction could be very valuable. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Eaton to continue this matter to June 4, 2009. Commissioner Toerge noted his rationale of his past votes on this item. Page 7 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 Ayes: Noes: Excused: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge Peotter Hillgren SUBJECT: Newport Healthcare Center, LLC (PA2009 -017) ITEM NO. 4 500 -540 Superior Avenue PA2009 -017 An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny Modification Permit No. Appeal was 2009 -004, which would have allowed multi- tenant directory, directional, and kiosk upheld signs to exceed the maximum sign area and height limitations of an existing comprehensive sign program (CS2008 -010). Project Manager, Patrick Alford, gave an overview of the staff report. Public comment was opened. Bill Englund, project designer representing Hoag, noted they are asking for: ➢ Approval of directional signs the show where the various buildings are on site and where the parking structures; ➢ There are three buildings on site and two parking structures that have no frontage on Superior, so access is through an internal drive; ➢ We are not advertising businesses or services on these directional signs; ➢ Identification signs are in front of four entrances on the three buildings and contain the address and listing of the service that is through that entrance; ➢ Two information kiosks at the exiting areas of both parking structures and will contain a campus map and also an area map to assist; ➢ He referred to the summary sheet that showed the particular signs involved in the appeal and passed a colored rendition to the Commission for their review; ➢ There are four tenant signs located at the front entrance of each building; At Commission inquiry, he stated part of the request is for higher signs that are located behind parked cars. The signs need to be visible to people coming on site and in order to get temporary signs when the facility opened, the temporary signs were included in the Comprehensive Sign Program. When we got the approval for the Comprehensive Sign Program, we then filed a request for a modification. Commissioner Hawkins stated this was a two -step process because you had to get the temporary signs first. Mr. England noted at Commission inquiry: ➢ Want to raise the height of the four directional signs throughout the sites; ➢ These signs are all inboard to the campus and are not out on the public street; they are seen when you come inside the campus; These signs will be tied to the operating hours and so the internal Page 8 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 illumination is the address numbers and arrows; ➢ Signs closer to Dana Road are perpendicular so there will be an oblique view of the signs to those who live on that street; ➢ The closest monument sign that faces Dana Road is 300 feet from the residences; ➢ Normal business hours during the day and the evening will have operations for urgent care and or dialysis, both of which have not been finalized at this time and those services would go into the evening hours but Hoag would turn off the illumination thirty minutes after the close of business. Commissioner Hawkins asked about the standard condition regarding light spillage. Mr. Alford answered they are subject to our lighting ordinance and the Comprehensive Sign Program does not address timing and lighting specifically. Chairman Peotter noted that because these are internally - illuminated signs, parking lot lighting would stay on all night long and be worst than the signage. Mr. Campbell, speaking of his action as the Zoning Administrator, noted that the difficulties cited by the applicant for their modification request were not warranted. There are practical difficulties there and he did not make a finding of detriment as an increase in the sign would not be detriment and they would not be out of character. Those findings could be met, but the first finding could not. I felt there was adequate signage as you walk to the site as well as there is other existing identification signage. Mr. Englund noted there were address numbers on the second story of the buildings for Fire Marshall request. He added that they are trying to get people into the correct garage for the building they are going to. We have had temporary signs up and some of the lower address message signs are lower and have caused some problems. Bill Cadieux, representing Hoag, noted they are asking for a number of signs on site to be increased in height to make it easier for the patients to get to their destinations. The City found that the signs, if approved, would not create excessive light pollution nor interfere with site distance from any street, alley, or driveway. The signage is not visible from most of the adjacent properties and is a tool for pedestrian way- finding and business identification. Public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to affirm the appeal and reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and approve the modification. Commissioner Hawkins noted he has had business at that site and believes there are practical difficulties. Referencing Pages 26 and 27 in the staff Page 9 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 report he noted those difficulties upon which he bases his motion. Commissioner McDaniel noted his agreement with the comments. He added that the hospital is for people who are impaired, and when you are dealing with either being ill or dealing with someone who is ill, you need all the help you can get. This modification does not affect the community and it is appropriate to make this exception. Commissioner Eaton noted his agreement to the motion. He asked if it was the intent of the maker of the motion to include the conditions as shown on Pages 32 and 33 except for the one referring to the original sign program as opposed to the revised program. He is concerned with the condition that would require a 30 -day review after the signs as noted in Condition 5. The maker and second of the motion accepted to include the conditions of approval by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Alford clarified that the facts to support the findings are the ones you have identified of practical difficulty Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5; the others are not to be included? Chairman Peotter answered Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and all of the Health and Safety Findings and all four of the Neighborhood Compatibility Findings. Commissioner Toerge recommended including hours limiting illumination. The logical thing would be to turn them on no sooner than 30 minutes before the first appointment and shut off 30 minutes after the last appointment. He noted an additional condition, the signs to be illuminated no earlier than 30 minutes prior to the first appointment on a daily basis and no later than 30 minutes after the last appointment. Chairman Peotter noted the motion is to illuminate them no later than 30 minutes after the last appointment. Public comment was opened. Mr. Englund noted he stated business hours as it is a defined time and Urgent Care closes at 9:00 p.m. but someone may come in at the last minute. A business office has scheduled appointments, but Urgent Care does not. That is why to tie it to business hours would be something everyone could relate to and becomes an easier stipulation to define. Commissioner Hawkins noted he would accept the modification amendment with the limitation on business hours. Public comment was closed. Chairman Peotter noted Condition 11 to be added that illumination during business hours only. Page 10 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 Commissioner McDaniel noted he agrees to the amendment. Commissioner Hawkins added an additional reference of Finding 13 under Practical Difficulties Mr. Lepo clarified there are no uniform business hours. He asked if the Commission is referring to the Urgent Care business hours. Commissioner McDaniel suggested the last business that is opened. This is inside the hospital area, and whatever the business hours of the last place opened you would want to turn off the signs 30 minutes after close of business hours. Commissioner Hawkins noted the light spill will not come from these signs but from the parking illumination. So long as the sign lights terminate when the overhead lights are extinguished that would be fine. If there are concerns about business hours we say the sign illumination terminates when the overhead lights go off. Chairman Peotter noted the overhead lights are on from dawn to dusk because of safety reasons. Commissioner Hawkins answered then there is glare already. Chairman Peotter asked if the Commission wanted to drop the additional condition. Commissioner Toerge noted he said to shut them off when the last business closes but if it is too problematic, then drop the condition. Commissioner McDaniel seconded the amendment to the main motion. Vote on the proposed amendment: Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Excused: Hill ren Chairman Peotter than called for the vote on the main motion to include Condition 11. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Excused: Hill ren SUBJECT: Newport Bay Hospital (PA2009 -037) ITEM NO. 5 1501 E. 16th Street PA2009 -037 A use permit application to allow the retention of a 1,327- square -foot modular Removed from building that serves as a meeting room and two administrative offices for an calendar existing hospital. The subject building was previously approved by Use Permit Page 11 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 No. 2005 -045 and is required to be removed no later than June 30, 2009. The request is to allow the building to remain until October 31, 2021, which coincides with the termination of the current property lease. Mr. Lepo noted staff realized after this item had been noticed that it did not need to come before the Planning Commission. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern that the Planning Director did not have the power to issue a temporary use permit for a number of years and is not contemplated by the Code. It is noted in Section 20.60.015, that the Planning Director has the ability to issue temporary permits for 90 days or more. This is clearly more than 90 days but, I do not believe that Section contemplates an issuance for a period of 12 years or more. Commissioner McDaniel asked Counsel if they felt this was appropriate. Assistant Attorney Aaron Harp noted the way the Code reads, anything greater than 90 days, the Planning Director has the authority to issue a temporary use permit. It does not cap that period of time, and there is room for interpretation. The logical way to approach this, if you disagree with the decision made by the Planning Director, you can call it up on appeal and review the decision at that point. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Toer a to table this item. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: Hawkins Excused: Hill ren SUBJECT: Santa Ana Heights Horse Licensing Code Amendment Initiation ITEM NO. 6 CA2009 -002 (PA2009 -081) PA2009 -081 The project is the initiation of a Code Amendment to Title 20 (Zoning Code) of Code the Newport Beach Municipal Code pertaining to the licensing of horses within Amendment the Residential Equestrian District (REQ) of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Initiated District. Sean McGhie gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Eaton noted the staff report references ambiguity of housing of horses but the resolution of intent does not appear to address that issue. Assistant City Attorney Harp noted this item has been an issue that has needed to be addressed for a while. Recently a kennel ordinance was adopted that covered more than three animals. This is an item, that in general, we'll be looking at all those matters. Page 12 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 Commissioner Hawkins noted this is an initiation of that process. Planning Director Lepo answered that the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan does provide numbers as far as horses, 3 to 6, with some kind of use permit or horse permit. It is ambiguous and hard to tell and now we have been called on to enforce this and it is unclear how to proceed. There are specific numbers and we will be before Council with a revision to Chapter 7 that deals with other animals. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Toerge to adopt resolution of intent to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Excused: Hill ren NEW BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up — none. Planning Commission reports. — Commissioner Hawkins noted the Economic Development Committee met and worked through the amendments to the Economic Strategic Plan as well as reports on action items that have been done for the past 18 months. Commissioner Eaton noted the General Plan /LCP Committee had met and worked on setting limits on encroachments in bluffs and canyons. Council members of the Committee were not satisfied with that and staff will have to go back and make another presentation. Mr. Lepo noted the dissatisfaction had to do with the policies that were adopted in the Coastal Land Use Plan and the General Land Plan. Staff is implementing those policies and reality is setting in. Commissioner Hawkins noted that Speak Up Newport will host a meeting in June on local media and its future. The editor of the Daily Pilot will speak as will Paul Danison editor of the Orange County Register and Tom Johnson, director of a new group. The meeting is on June 10`h Commissioner Toerge noted the Green Building Task Force has met. California has adopted green building standards that are voluntary starting June 1" and phase into being mandatory June of 2010 and 2011. We identified those which need to be made mandatory in the City and are assembling Green Building Guidelines which is separate from the standards. They are meant for applicants to employ green building techniques and possible some aware for them doing so from the City. Public outreach will be done by this committee as well. A sub- committee was formed because they decided they want a logo. They went to the schools and had a contest. Page 13 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 Commissioner Unsworth thanked the City for sending him to the 2009 Planners Institute. He attended several seminars and noted the titles. Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report — none Requests for excused absences - none ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 P.M. BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14 of 14