Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/2007"Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 27 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren: STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Principal Engineer Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner anet Brown, Assistant Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Ga lene Olson, Department Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 12, 2007. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 4, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Cole Approved to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Peoter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None I Abstains: Eaton and Hill ren ITEM NO.2 PA2007 -111 SUBJECT: Paul and Norma Fruchbom residence (PA2007 -111) 1132 Ebbtide Approved An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Modification Permit No. 2007 -050, which authorized the applicant to exceed the 3 -foot height limit for fences, hedges, and accessory structures within the required 86 -foot front yard setback by allowing the retention of the following existing elements: 1) hedges; 2 portion of an entry gate; 3) a pilaster; and 4) a sculpture. Also permitted was the addition of: 5) a new 11- foot -high sculpture within the front yard setback; and 6 retention of the existing 9.5- foot -high driveway gate located within the 6 -foot side and setback. Page 1 of 27 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/1812007 ;fore considering this item, Assistant City Attorney Aaron Harp wanted dress issues raised by Mr. Frank Battaile, attorney for Mr. Fruchbom, regardi e process concerns relating to Commissioner Toerge's participation as cision maker, given he had filed the appeal and knows Mr. Collins. The apps in the nature of a call for review, therefore Commissioner Toerge is not barr m participating as a decision maker in this proceeding. Commissioner Toer s no financial relationship with Mr. Collins so there is no conflict of interest r s he prejudged this matter and is not biased for or against this project. Planner Jaime Murillo gave an overview of the staff report. . Lepo addressed the issue on the sculptures. After further review, staff finds not advisable to explicitly permit or prohibit the sculptures since they were a a intended subject of the Zoning Ordinance. Should it become an issue later, w I deal with Code Enforcement. Hawkins asked Mr. Harp's opinion. Mr. Harp said from a polio sculptures and artwork should not be approved as part of this process. airman Hawkins than asked if this would be an attempt to regulate excluding them. Harp answered yes. nmissioner Toerge asked if it was the staffs recommendation to be silent existing sculpture and the proposed sculpture. Harp answered that they are recommending that the existing or new sc be approved; they would then be in violation of the Municipal Code Id then be a Code Enforcement issue. irman Hawkins asked the appellant, Commissioner Toerge, for his statements. iissioner Toerge noted the following for the basis of this appeal: one of nsibilities of a Planning Commissioner is to review all the modifics vals that are generated in the City; to insure they are consistent with retation of the codes; it would have been irresponsible of him or any Plan iissioner or City Council member not to call for review or appeal of cation they feel does not meet code. Eaton asked staff about the deletion of Condition #6. Murillo answered as follows: Condition #6 was a carryover from the original modification approval by Zoning Administrator; . To insure any trees planted behind the 6 to 7 foot hedge would not create additional screen effect; . Staff is now recommending the hedge be reduced to a height of 3 feet believe this condition is no longer necessary. er Eaton asked what the height limit for this hedge was in the approval and the prior Modification Permit in 1980. Page 2 of 27 "http: / /www. city. newport - beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/1812007 Murillo explained in the subject Modification approval the hedge was appro 6 feet, but to allow for growth, it was given a maximum height of 7 feet. In )r Modification Permit the hedge was not addressed. Eaton asked if the Planning Commission upheld the Zon decision on Hedge #1, how would staff deal with Condition #6? Lepo answered that we have provisions in the codes of what constitutes e versus a tree or a hedge. He suggested taking out Condition #6 instead iring a special restriction; allow the standard municipal code provisions and, :ssary, let Code Enforcement deal with the trees if they become a problem. missioner Cole asked what was the intent of the 86 -foot setback and if any evidence that the potential view impact of one association over ar considered. Murillo explained typical front -yard setbacks are imposed to create visual ( t yards, maintain light, air, and open space. After some research the folio found: these setbacks were part of the original 1960 approval of division for this community; there is no reference to why the 86 -foot sett chosen. Mr. Murillo pointed out that Harbor View Hills subdivision roved prior to the Broadmoor Hills Community Association, had diffe elopers and is unsure if any potential view impact was considered. mmissioner Hillgren wasn't familiar with the tract names and wanted if the subject site or the one across the street was approved first. Murillo answered the subject site was approved first. imissioner Toerge stated he would have questions on Condition #13 after nce of the hearing. an Hawkins asked the applicant, Mr. Fruchbom, for his comments. Fruchbom said he had no comments at this time on these last minute chap ;h were a surprise, but would like a firm ruling on his proposed sculpture ting sculpture. Mr. Fruchbom proceeded with a presentation noting . There has only been one complaint ever and that is on the hedge #1) between the entry gate and Ebbtide; . The hedges have always been 10 feet or higher; . Mr. Fruchbom had agreed to cut the hedge to 6 feet prior to the Z Administrator's hearing, which the complainant and staff agreed was from the view standpoint; • Staff has said the 86 -foot setback is a detriment to the property, restrict privacy, increases noise and headlights impacts, and is inconsistent wit the purpose and intent of the Code; • Zoning Administrator had approved reducing Hedge #1 from 10 feet to 6 - feet, reducing Hedge #2 to 11 feet, allowing the entry and driveway gate and the sculptures; Page 3 of 27 "http: //www. city. newport- beach.ca.usIPInAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 Page 4 of 27 . The height and construction of the driveway gate is for safety and noise; . The main reason for the hedges is for privacy. Fruchbom showed various pictures of his hedges and other properties in t munity with similar height hedges. Mr. Fruchbom then submitted a petition Ad the original decision that was signed by 51 of his surrounding neighbc g with the President of the Broadmoor association next door. following gave various statements in favor of Mr. Fruchbom and upholding original decision: Mr. Harrison, an architect, and Mr. Simondi, attorney for Mr Frank Battaile, attorney for Mr. Fruchbom, wanted to restate his object nitted in a letter to the Planning Commission, regarding the due process is ving Commissioner Toerge to participate in the decision of this appeal. had concerns on the following: . Notice requirements in due process; . The notice of appeal was nonspecific, addressed everything; . Municipal Code states notice of appeal should be speck; Notice problem with new provision about the sculpture. . Battaile stated Mr. Fruchbom requests expressed permission to keep the twc antioned sculptures or at least a clear indication on what is permitted or not rmitted regarding the sculptures. It has been sufficiently pointed out how this )perty is physically different from others in the community; many properties it community have street frontage not subject to front yard setbacks, but their ck yards are up against the street frontage allowing them 6- foot -tall hedges 'ing them protection from street noise and general street environment. Mr, cchbom is entitled to this same protection. an Hawkins asked to hold the public comments in order for Cor to address his comments and then will reopen public comments. nmissioner Toerge deferred to hear all public comments before making hi: nments. He did state that this hearing wasn't to eliminate this Modification, bu address the specific conditions of the Modification. Would also like Mr chbom to describe how a 9 -foot gate provides more safety than a thicker 7 -foo comment was opened. Greg Collins, resident at 2739 Windover Drive whose view is impacted, following: Had Mr. Fruchbom cut Hedge #1 to 6 feet this hearing would not be place; . Pictures of how his view is impacted were shown; had concerns if trees planted along with a 6 -foot hedge view would still be impacted; "http: / /www. city .newport - beach.ca.us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 Page 5 of 27 . Supported the findings of the staff report; and doesn't feel there is any justification for the Modification in respect to Hedge #1 or Hedge #2. nmissioner Cole asked Mr. Collins the following: • If his concerns were with Hedge #1; • That at one time he was comfortable he would have a view if the hedge were 6 feet in height; • If the driveway gate was a concern; • If he had any comments on the sculptures. Collins answered yes in regards to the hedge provided that trees were not ited, as code allows, which would basically create the same impact as the taller ge. The gate and sculptures were not a concern. following residents gave various statements in favor of Mr. Fruchbom Iding the original decision: Dan Trevino, John Banker, Jan Landstrom, ier, Rod McDonald, and Leo Fracalosy. � Booty, resident at 2739 Windover Drive whose view is impacted, stated the gas have been lower in height in the past. Also she doesn't believe that Mr c Hunter, the President of her community association, signed the petition tha Fruchbom presented. mmissioner McDaniel asked Ms. Booty if the hedge was cut to 6 feet would satisfied and that the other issues were not a concern. Booty answered yes in regards to the hedge, and no problems with the other ies. iIic comment was closed. nmissioner Toerge noted the following: • Readdressed that the hearing is not to eliminate the Modification but to consider the conditions; • The prior Modification granted in the 1980 addressed the difficulty of an foot front yard setback by allowing a 6 to 7 -foot high hedge, where the C only allows a 3- foot -high hedge; • The 3 -foot height limitation should be applied to Hedge #1 and the covered fence along the front yard; supports City Attorn recommendation not to approve the sculptures; • Driveway gate should have reflectors for safety purposes; 9.5- foot -high g� is out of code; code limits maximum height to 6 feet, prior Modificati allowed 7 feet; approving any illegal construction, performed without permit and designed inconsistent with City codes is not a message to sent out to the community for future property development; "http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca. us/PinAgendas/2007/mnl 0-18-07. htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 . City Council recently modified Council Policy K9, which now ei Code Enforcement officers to aggressively pursue Building Code like illegal construction; • Condition #1 needs to reference the date of the plans being reviewed; . Condition #5 needs to read as follows: The existing 10 -foot high hedt located west of the entry gate and the ivy covered fence located parallel Ebbtide and 12 feet from the property line shall be trimmed to a maximu height of 3 feet measured from the immediately adjacent grade elevation the interior front yard within 30 days from the date of this action; . Condition #7 should be deleted; . Condition #13 needs to be reworded to accomplish the intended goals the Planning Commission will work with the City Attorney to address this. irman Hawkins asked if Mr. Fruchbom would like to make any Fruchbom responded as follows: . The driveway gate could have been built stronger, but then could be in a car impact; . The height and reflective blue background makes it safer because it is visible; . Prior to this hearing he wasn't aware his front fence was an issue; . Doesn't feel K9 is applicable to his issues; • The picture of his neighbor's view didn't clearly show Catalina. ssioner McDaniel posed the following question to Mr. Fruchbom: if is cut to 6 feet and he plants trees, how is that helping to preserve )es view? Fruchbom responded that he and the City have always had trees there. wants to plant 1 or 2 trees and his goal is not to block any view. Eaton asked Mr. Harp the following: . If the original Modification granted in 1980 and the most recent both permitted Hedge #1 to be 6 to 7 feet in height? . Does the applicant have any vested right in the original Modification utilized it all this time? Or. Harp answered if the existing Modification is denied the applicant has the ric o maintain the property in conformance with the original approved Modification 1980. Murillo clarified that the original Modification permit in 1980 primarily dealt Page 6 of 27 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 #2 and the entry gate and not Hedge #1. oner McDaniel noted the following: • He has no objections to the driveway gate or the entry gate; • The hedge at a 6 -foot height is agreeable. then directed his comments to Mr. Harp regarding the sculpture in the f i and that the Commission be able to vote to affirm the applicant can keep Ipture. Harp responded this matter can be decided on this evening. Hawkins thought it was Mr. Harp's recommendation to defer on Harp said it was his recommendation not to permit the sculpture in the setback; art is a very subjective item; if a sculpture is approved it runs land, therefore any future owner could put whatever type of sculpture Cole asked staff: . If trees were planted along the hedge area, can the height be restricted? . If we allow the gate to remain, can we request a condition that any fut replacement will require a building permit? Harp stated the law is drafted to prohibit vegetation to create fences ges; will look into height limit on trees. Lepo responded to the gate issue and was reluctant to recommend this to nmission; no assurance it will be enforced. Harp agreed with Mr. Lepo that would not be an appropriate condition. ssioner Peotter asked if appeal was denied, the original conditions of Administrator would prevail? Murillo answered that was correct. Eaton noted: . He thinks the existing Modification is correct in terms of addressing original complaints; . The driveway gate is aesthetically pleasing and has a safety function; . Applicant should have gotten permits for the gate and Hedge #1; appropriate to build first, get permitted later; . Is leaning towards denying the appeal and affirm the Zoning decision. Page 7 of 27 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnl0- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 1011812007 n was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Coi to deny the appeal and affirm the Zoning Administrators decision. Hillgren noted: . The 86 -foot front yard setback doesn't seem to be a hardship; . The height of hedges are not a real noise deterrent, but relates more protection from headlights; . Has no problem with the driveway gate, but has concerns with made related to liability issues; . If the appeal is approved, recommends applicant/owner accepts liability having the this driveway gate; . No problems with entry gate; . Suggests height of Hedge #1 be kept at 3 feet and Hedge #2 be kept at feet man Hawkins asked Mr. Harp about the potential liability comments and a way to put in a condition that would protect the City. Harp wanted to clarify the question if the gate was allowed to remain, appli ild indemnify and defend the City if anyone was hurt in relation to the gate; ild be an appropriate condition. )stitute Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to uphold the appeal following conditions: . Hedge #2 be as per staff recommendation of 6 feet in height. . Entry gate is acceptable as installed and designed. . Hedge #1 be as per staff recommendation of 3 feet in height with the addition of the ivy covered fence being limited to 3 feet in height. . Eliminate any reference to the sculptures as being approved by the Planning Commission. . Permitting the driveway gate as it currently exists with the condition the applicant will submit plans and satisfy the Building Department's conditions for a building permit. irman Hawkins asked for a second to the motion. lion continued pointing out the differences between this motion and the Administrator decision. McDaniel was in support of the original motion. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Page 8 of 27 "http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/1812007 nissioner Hillgren noted the 1980 Modification was explicit there be Is to views. Was comfortable with the 6 -foot high hedge as long as tt no future plantings to impact the view. Hawkins pointed out Condition #5 in the existing Modification sioner Cole was in support of a consistent 6- foot -high hedge around and keeping the original Condition #5. iairman Hawkins noted that Commissioner Toerge had suggested the change a front fence height and the Zoning Administrator had not addressed that porti the fence; therefore, if we deny the appeal and affirm the Zoning Administrato cision, this is a moot point. Murillo confirmed. nan Hawkins asked for a vote on the original motion to deny the appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision. :cond substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded >mmissioner Hillgren to sustain the appeal, affirm in part the Zor Iministrator's decision by amending Condition #3 to continue to allow the hei the ivy covered fence to 6 feet and deleted any reference to the artwork. discussion continued. ssioner Toerge is opposed to allowing the ivy covered fence to be 6 feet it was never an issue in the Zoning Administrator's decision. Fruchbom was agreeable to the ivy covered fence to be limited to 5 feet sioner Eaton questioned does the noticing of this hearing allow Commission to go beyond the subject of the staff report to include the fence. Lepo responded that under "de novo" any issue could be raised whether s in the previous modification hearing or not. Murillo pointed out the noticing refers to the retention of an over - height in the front yard setback; not detailed to enough to describe where it inue around the front. Harp said that there was no limitation because the notice was broad enough. Lepo asked if the indemnification was to be added. irman Hawkins answered no. :ommissioner Peotter noted that if the fence remained at 6 feet in height, the c ifference between the substitute motion and a denial of the appeal would limination of allowing the artwork. Toerge stated that wasn't the case; the Zoning Page 9 of 27 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 was silent on the ivy covered fence and therefore it is limited to 3 feet. nmissioner Cole said he agreed with Commissioner Toerge and would substitute motion to eliminate the 6- foot -high hedge along Ebbtide. discussion noted the following: . Condition #9 relates to Hedge #2 being a maximum of 12 feet. . Condition #3 contradicts Condition #9 and should be eliminated. . Condition #4 relates to Hedge #1 to be restricted to 6 -7 feet. Cole agreed to Condition #9 remaining and delete Condition #3. Hillgren agreed to deleting Condition #3. iissioner Cole changed his second substitute Motion to affirm the a the Zoning Administrator's decision with the following modifications to lion #3 and delete any reference to the sculptures. finer Hillgren seconded the Motion. Chairman Hawkins asked if Mr . accepted the proposed conditions. Fruchbom stated he was still unclear on what could or couldn't be done sculptures. iirman Hawkins explained that any reference to the sculptures was to :ted from the proposed conditions and Mr. Fruchbom would need to addr issue on the sculptures with Code Enforcement. Battaile, attorney for Mr. Fruchbom, said that Mr. Fruchbom would :able to specify that the current and new piece of sculpture are the m being approved. Cole said this did not change his substitute Motion. Harp clarified further that the current sculpture is illegal and needs to 7ved from the front yard setback. The new sculpture is okay, but cannot ad in the front yard. hairman Hawkins noted the determination is not to approve or prohibit rtwork. The current motion is, the approval and conditions are silent on cndition of the artwork. Lepo noted the ivy covered fence is not legal with proposed motion and if Is to be allowed in the current conditions. Cole said no. on second substitute Motion: Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren Eaton, Peotter and Toerge ECT: Joyce LCM RedWillow residence (PA2007 -152) Page 10 of 27 "http: / /www. city. newport - beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007/mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 418 Redlands appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Modification Pei 2007 -060 on property located in the R -1 District, which would permit the mi nor remodel of, and a 1,203 square -foot addition to a nonconforming sing ily dwelling unit that encroaches 13 feet, 8 inches into the 20 -foot required fi i setback. Planner Janet Brown gave an overview of the staff report. ommissioner Eaton had a question on the status of the subject structure and if as legal non - conforming. He wanted a clarification on what he thought M: rown had said, that if this is a legal non - conforming structure it can be expander it is not it requires something other than a modification. sistant City Attorney Aaron Harp responded that the first determination i eds to be made is either it is a legal non - conforming use or it is illegal. - de uses the term non - conforming to basically say anything that's non - compli th the code is non - conforming. Section 26 -2040 only applies if is a legal n nforming use; meaning it was legal when it was established and became ille non- conforming due to changes in the Zoning Code. If it is determined to Sal, they can proceed as Ms. Brown stated; if it is determined to be illegal, rn the provisions apply and they would not be able to expand the structure. ;r Eaton asked if staff or the City Attorney's office had come to it is legal non - conforming or not, or if they wanted the Plani to come to that conclusion. Harp stated it is the opinion of the office of the City Attorney that it is re has been no evidence presented to show it is legal non - conforming. be evidence presented tonight to clarify this. :inner Eaton then asked if it were illegal wouldn't this Modification t moot and therefore the Planning Commission wouldn't be able to make on this Modification. Harp answered yes. The code provisions and modification procedures inappropriate if it is illegal; however, he feels it is appropriate the PI nmission makes that determination. Hawkins questioned if they would be reversing the x's decision and affirming the appeal. Harp confirmed. There is an appeal pending and a decision needs to >sioner Toerge asked Ms. Brown, from the drawing presented it looks a portion of the property is on the public right -a -way. Brown answered yes, that is actually a roof overhang that projects beyond t property line. Will Higman, appellant, presented his concerns: Is aware the property is classified as existing nonconforming and must PA2007 -152 Continued to 12/06/2007 Page 11 of 27 "hftp://Www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PinAgendas/2007/mnlO-1 8-07. htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 special conditions under the City codes for redevelopment; the project be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood; redevelopment will not be injurious to adjacent property. . Disputes this property meets these conditions. His property will be permanently damaged by lack of light and airflow the redevelopment be approved. • Many permit inconsistencies with the history of this property. Believes any redevelopment should have to adhere to Chapter 20.62 of City Zoning Code. . Has a long history of code violations; has been used as a multi -unit property which is not allowed in a R -1 District. • The art studio would be classified as a commercial use which would exI the nonconformity of the property. • Any new development on this property should have to comply with Council Policy L -1 by removing driveway access from the adjacent si these conditions were applied to other remodels in the neighborhood were enforced. . The back up resolution proposed by staff does not work for him. Higman asked that the Planning Commission vote in favor of the oner Eaton asked Mr. Higman about the assertion by the applicant, Ms that he had removed 13 trees that were predominately on her property. Higman said that was a false statement about 13 mature trees. During n scaping around his house he had to remove a wood fence between the ierties and there were 1 or 2 small suckers trees, from her mature trees, > removed. Higman said he had letters on file of supporters, but they did not wish to Joyce Redwillow, applicant, said she had previously submitted her rents to staff and the Planning Commission and she has an attorney, ag, to represent her. ,mmissioner Eaton questioned the functionality of the proposed art gallery; a configuration of less than 10 -feet wide and more than 20 -feet high rived. Redwillow said she needs a studio area that is filled with light; the clere vs for light; the width allows her to have various stages of projects. She for her own use, not as a commercial artist. Richard Sontag, attorney for Ms. Redwillow, wanted to address the issue ther the property is a legal or illegal nonconforming structure. This is the i Page 12 of 27 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 this issue has come up and will need more time to look into it being legal 1. He continued noting the following: • Believes that staff is incorrect in stating that 2 of the 3 issues cannot be or the findings cannot be made. • Modification was found to be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood; the Zoning Administrator had said similar modification permits have been issued in this neighborhood by the Zoning Administrator Modification Committee and the Planning Commission. . Numerous homes in the neighborhood do not have 20 -foot setb< pointed out a home directly across from Mr. Higman and across from Redwillow. . This Modification will not increase the nonconformity of the structure; remodel is all located in the back of the property and, according to Zoning Administrator and staff, this is a limited remodel which complies code. • Ms. Redwillow did apply for a building permit, obtained the permit, start( the work, the complaint was filed, and at that time is was determined that modification permit was required. . The issue regarding the adverse effect on the health or safety of neighbors, and not be detrimental to the general welfare of neighborhood should this Modification Permit be granted; lack of air and I is not a health or safety issue as he understands the Code; there is evidence that anyone in the appellant's family has been adversely effec by this home other than they do not like it sitting forward on the lot. Mr. Higman was aware of this property's setting prior to building his on the adjacent lot. If in the past the Planning Commission has approved similar permits in neighborhood, then his client should be afforded the same. There are some requirements in Section 20.62.040(F) regardi modification permits for nonconforming structures; 1) the cost of I improvement is minor compared to the value of the property; 2) the cost correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of off proposed alterations; 3) retention of the nonconforming condition necessary to maintain reasonable use of the property; 4) alterations do r increase the property's inconsistency with the Zoning Code. This property is valued at 1.5 million and the cost of the remodel is a sixth that; to correct this nonconforming condition would require half the struck to be torn down; everything that is being proposed is within the Code. ;loner Cole noted that the staff report specifically states this is the o in the neighborhood with this encroachment into the front yard setback. Sontag said that is correct in that this property fronts on Redlands; the other )erties pointed out front on Broad Street and their side yards put the hom( er to Redlands than his client's home. Page 13 of 27 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /20071mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10118/2007 Cole asked if he knew if the other similar modifications granted status that were legal or illegal. Sontag answered he was referring to the Zoning Administrator's report and arently wasn't an issue until tonight. imissioner Toerge asked if Mr. Sontag had any evidence that suggests ance or other discretionary approval had been granted this structure to be set back. . Sontag replied no, it has not been an issue whether it was legal or illegal i tight. It may be difficult to find records on this issue. ,mmissioner Toerge noted if this is an illegal structure and there is no evide this time, and the applicant needs additional time to research the records, ad to continue this item to give the applicant time to make the case. If ucture is illegal this hearing on the modification is irrelevant. Harp responded that Ms. Brown will comment on what she did in looking at records for the status on the structure. Brown noted the following: . She read through all the Planning Commission meeting minutes January, 1945 through December, 1947. . If some type of approval to encroach into a setback was granted during time, it was good for a period of 6 months. Further searching was done beyond the time frame from when the was constructed. . Checked every other source of record known (old microfiche on old enforcement action, old building permits) and was unable to find an that showed how the 20 -foot front yard setback was established. comment was opened. Evelyn Hart, prior owner of subject property, responded in favor of willow. Always called the property legal nonconforming and until tonight r aht otherwise. Eaton asked the following questions to Ms. Hart: • At the time of the Modification in 1970 the applicant was Linda Hart. . Was the front overhang on the house when she owned it? . There were enforcement actions in 1990 regarding 3 illegal rental units the property (1 in the back and an upper and lower unit in the front) and v that a characteristic when she owned the property? . When did she sell the property? Page 14 of 27 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 Ms. Hart responded as follows: . Linda Hart is her daughter -in -law who along with her son owned the at that time. • She remembers only the part over the garage and thinks it looked the same. • Never had renters when she owned it; will testify that the lower level has never had renters. • Ms. Hart believes she sold it in 1964. 'he following neighbors and friends spoke in favor of Ms. Redwillow and pproval of the Modification: Christine Carr and Larry Porter. nissioner McDaniel noted if no one had any information regarding the legal I status of this structure he was leaning towards postponing this hearing ui was enough information to make a ruling on this issue. Kristen Higman wanted to comment since they have lived in their house, unit at Ms. Redwillow's has always been rented out. Don Krotee, President of Newport Heights Improvement Association, m acted by the appellant, polled the board members and all were in favor ,ing the Modification and upholding the Appeal. He also pointed out: • Predominately 20 -foot setbacks in the neighborhood. • This setback issue is an anomaly in the neighborhood, not the norm. Is on the General Plan Advisory Committee for rezoning with Commissioi Eaton, Chairman Hawkins and Commissioner Toerge and would like so mechanism put in place for uses that are nonconforming whether legal not. iairman Hawkins wanted it noted for the record that they are on a committee t implementing the General Plan and attempting to have the Zoning Code com th the General Plan, so there is not a general effort to rezone. Tracy Rapp is the owner of the corner lot on Broad and Redlands which w 'red to having a setback encroachment; the shorter setback on Redlands ruse the actual front of the home is designated as Broad, but after th signed the house the entry is now on Redlands. Did an extensive remode s ago and had to adhere to every regulation, every permit had to be approve had to follow everything requested. Ms. Redwillow needs to conform to t lations as does everyone else. iairman Hawkins asked Mr. Krotee with his resources if he could send an assist the City in determining the legal status of this structure. issioner Toerge asked Ms. Redwillow and Mr. Sontag how much time need for researching the legality of the nonconforming structure. Sontag was looking at the November 15th meeting date. Page 15 of 27 "http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PinAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 imissioner Toerge said the agenda for that date was full and asked Mr. Harp evidence could be provided on November 15th, would this item then t )oed from the calendar? Harp said they would still need to rule on the Zoning Administrator's decision, i asked Mr. Sontag if December 6th meeting was okay. Sontag said if the calendar was full on the November 15th meeting then ember 6th meeting was agreeable. lic comments were closed. was made by Commissioner Toerge that the appeal of the Zo rator s decision to approve Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 d to December 6, 2007. Commissioner Peotter seconded the motion. Eaton Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren None BJECT: Newport Executive Court (PA2006 -280) 20372 Birch Street request for Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map and Traffic Study approvals :)w construction of four, 2 -story medical office buildings over a parking garac e property is located in the Business Park District of the Santa Ana Heig ecific Plan. ciate Planner Rosalinh Ung gave an overview of the staff report. Ms. went over the addendum to this item: . Condition #9 - added following verbiage: to include the requirements for satellite based or moisture measuring controllers for the irrigation system. . Condition #41- an added condition requiring the applicant to comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (attachment B to the Resolution). . Condition #42 - an added condition to address the removal and replacement of the trees located at 2141 Mesa Drive. . Condition #42 - an added condition to address the potential drainage at the subject site and the Mesa Drive property. . Included in the addendum is a letter of agreement from the applicant to property owner at Mesa Drive. . A consideration of an addendum to the draft Negative Declaration docum regarding the soil excavation and its relation to the air quality requiremei Veronica Chang, the Environmental Consultant from BP Americans, will available for more in -depth explanation. recommends approval of the project. er Eaton stated his questions submitted by email had be( Asked if the mitigation measures that have been included in Exhibit ITEM NO.4 PA2006 -280 Approved Page 16 of 27 "hftp: / /www. city. newport - beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 in accordance with the revisions that were made in response to comments. Ung answered yes. nissioner Toerge asked if there was a drainage problem from 2141 ME that would effect subject property, would there be a recordable easement >. Ung answered there may be a potential drainage problem but there is not a fficient detailed plan to make that determination and make a recommendation. building official would make the determination on the recordable easement fo irman Hawkins noted that Condition #24 addresses an on -site drainage 6 would that plan handle the flows coming onto the property; if so that would way to ensure the drainage flows from the up- stream property would sled and wouldn't need a recorded agreement. Lepo answered yes. n Hawkins asked if the Public Works Department and the ent could review and approve the drainage plan. Lepo answered yes. irman Hawkins then asked if they could be added to Condition #24 as ;wing and approving departments. Ung said yes. imissioner Hillgren asked if there was an agreement of approval from y Jarvis regarding the trees. Ung said yes it was a stipulation in Condition #42. irman Hawkins wanted to know what happens if the cost of the removal acing the trees exceeded $10,000, as shown in Condition #42. Ung said the dollar amount was agreed upon by both parties and perhaps icant should be questioned on anything exceeding $10,000. :r Buffa, architect from Ware Malcomb and representing the applicant, gave entation on the site plan and project design. imissioner Hillgren asked about handicapped accessibility. Buffa answered everything has to be accessible; the below grade parking dicapped parking and it own elevators and ramps up to the courtyard area. Converse, Project Manager for this development, pointed out the following: . The front end of the property is approximately 13 -feet lower than the end of the property. . The back end will have numerous handicapped stalls so it will be a g Page 17 of 27 "http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.usiPInAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/2012008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 level entry into the courtyard. Each of the four buildings has it's own elevator, sub -grade parking elevator access to each floor • Subterranean parking has handicapped parking. lic comment was opened. Moriarity, property owner north side of the project, noted the following: . His property is an existing nonconforming use, previously zoned Al Agricultural. • The property is 6000 square feet in size and improved with a green and a four bedroom house. • His property is presently zoned as general commercial office use to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan; actually it is residential. . Issue with being land locked; unable to develop further and impacts residential use of his property. issioner McDaniel noted that whether this development is approved or ne will eventually build on the subject property and it will not change with Mr. Moriaritys property. imissioner Eaton thought when the City annexed Santa Ana Heights, inated the agricultural zoning and replaced it with something else when fitly modified the Specific Plan and asked for staff response on this. Alford said with the annexation it was rezoned to the Specific Plan District to Ana Heights and falls within the sub -area zones for that area, which is dential or agricultural. Holly Jarvis noted the issue with the drainage is with the proposed block how it will effect the drainage of rain water coming off the roof of her c ;e. Regarding the dollar figure for the trees, she wasn't happy with the was proposed and didn't have time to discuss another type of tree, so e up with the $10,000 figure. comment was closed. iissioner Peotter asked about the 300 additional ADT's and does zon for the intensification of use throughout this whole area: is there a capa ion on each site or is it first come first serve? Ung stated the project is consistent with the General Plan designation for ng district. With regard to increase in vehicle trips they have to be comp) our TPO. Should the study show any effect on the intersections, ovement would be needed. nmissioner Peotter then asked if no intersection improvements were requ this project, and another project, similar in size, was proposed that effe service levels of three other intersections and had to make improvements Page 18 of 27 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2007 /mnl 0- 18- 07.htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 Page 19 of 27 rsections, then the first project would be able to use that unutilized capacity exists today at no penalty or cost. Ung answered correct. nmissioner Eaton indicated for the record as follows: • The TPO does vest the approval of the traffic study with the Commission. • This is a significantly intense project; the ACT is over 3000 cars a day. • The TPO analysis does not look at the ultimate build out but looks at the current situation plus a year or two to allow for construction of the project and looks at other key projects also within that time frame. • It is a rigid formula that has to be followed. • The only real discretion is the assignment of traffic, how much traffic onto which highways. • In a conventional office project a significant part of employees traffic be using the freeways. • With a medical project there is more traffic due to the volume of coming from the surrounding areas and using the conventional f versus the freeways. . The distribution factor appears to be based on assigning quite a bit of tr on the conventional highways, both going north into Irvine and Costa N and south into Newport Beach and not on the freeway system. It did trigger any of the intersections because it did not look at the ultimate I out but only a year from now with the cumulative in a years growth. • It got fairly close at Jamboree and MacArthur but didn't trigger it. mmissioner Eaton wanted this noted in case, in the future, questions came )ut intense projects like this and the potential future in the airport area; and t potential future in the airport area is really triggered by build out and especi build out in the City of Irvine. rman Hawkins noted the following; . In regards to the traffic study, had a hard time believing the levels of would only be B and C. . Concerns on the percentage of impervious surfaces proposed; require pervious pavers throughout the surface parking, which would the water quality issue. . One way to control drainage issues is to have a grassy swale around perimeter of the site. • Air quality mitigation measure, Air -5, refers to an asbestos study for structures found; there are not any structures on site; not sure that mea "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10118/2007 Page 20 of 27 1 is needed. I I Lepo stated it is there to cover all the bases just in case there is something. Buffa responded to the pavers issue and pervious pavers would be very co: i hard to maintain. If the Commission could set some type of standard iimize runoff, they could then work with staff to come up with a worka ution. Lepo suggested pervious concrete. missioner Peotter asked if Chairman Hawkins' concerns on drainage were water on site so the runoff is no greater then it's current state or trying the pollutants in the runoff. airman Hawkins said it is the volume and wanted to make a proposal tl ndition #24 be revised to read: A detailed on -site drainage plan which sl lude requirements a) to handle off -site drainage and off -site flow; b) to minim rm water runoffs to the greatest extend or practical; c) to ensure that the stc ioff that travels down the drive ramp will be discharged in a timely manner so prevent the underground garage from being flooded during storm events. 1 in shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Building and Public Wo missioner Eaton said this duplicated Condition #43 as to the off -site it may be easier to add this language to Condition #43. mmissioner Peotter was concerned without the proper soils and )rmation, if the soil isn't permeable the pavers won't help, and to c ) ntion on -site is a significant design change, which may not be obtained w ing up parking area. Hawkins responded he would like to see this added so staff m was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve Use Permit No. 2006 Traffic Study No. 2006 -003, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007 -002, an( ted Negative Declaration No. 2007 -005 with modification to Condition #24. iissioner Cole seconded the motion. e was some further discussion on the $10,000 limit for trees and if that agreeable with Ms. Jarvis. Jarvis said the $10,000 seemed reasonable, didn't like the tree suggested a n't agreed to another tree. Wasn't sure if the $10,000 covered the removal existing trees. Buffa said the $10,000 would be broken down as $5,000 to buy six 4 bane Box trees and $5,000 for removal of the existing Ficus trees. 000 is not a fixed number and is willing to work with Ms. Jarvis. Cole, Hawkins, oes: (None Chairman Hawkins noted the policy of not hearing new matters after 10:0013M. "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PInAgendas /2007/mn10- 18- 07.htm 06120/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 made by Commissioner Eaton to wave the policy. Commissioner el seconded the motion. Eaton Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren None BJECT: Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007 -003 amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan to provide clear policy related elopment on coastal bluffs on Pacific Drive, Carnation Avenue and Oce r Planner Jim Campbell gave an overview of the staff report. sioner Toerge asked if the language was consistent with that of the Plan /CLUP committee. Campbell answered it is consistent with the direction given. nmissioner Eaton referred to an email from Mr. Jeannette and the reW n Mr. Campbell about the policies applying to the three streets listed on mda but the new policy applies anywhere that coastal bluff development considered. Is this applicable to Policy 19 only, or to all three, and why sn't part of the agenda description? Campbell answered the change to Policy 8 and 9 clearly applies only to the ets mentioned. Policy 19 would apply to any property when the predomina of development policy applies. Other coastal bluff areas are Galaxy Driv ie Terrace, Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. )mmissioner Eaton questioned if Policy 19 was general enough not to include the agenda description. Campbell answered yes. Harp agreed with Mr. Campbell. imissioner Toerge asked about Policy 19 and suggested it be expanded to s coastal land use and any other development policies shall be considered :rmining ...... continued on Policy 19: . Broaden the effect make it more clear . Define the predominant line of existing development as a limit not a "go line. airman Hawkins presented an alternative proposal and he handed out copies Commission, staff and the public for consideration. er Cole asked for clarification on the intent of the new on 4.4.3 - 8; why are these three streets an exception? ITEM NO.5 PA2007 -196 Recommended for approval Page 21 of 27 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnl0- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 Ir. Campbell answered the policy was written to: . Prohibit bluff face development City wide. . The exception was made for the three streets listed because those a have bluff face development on them; We didn't want them to nonconforming and we wanted to continue the existing developr pattern. • Current policy has development subject to the predominant line development. . PLOED concept is used in other areas for bluff top development that setback from the bluff edge; . PLOED used on the coastal canyons, Buck Gulley and Morning Canyon for Irvine Terrace; these are also subject to different policies. ioner Toerge suggested the second sentence in this policy to all new development including developments along Ocean Boul Avenue, and Pacific Drive........ iissioner Hillgren asked if there is any way to clarify the predominant a property sits on a comer and referenced the AERIE project. r. Campbell responded these policy changes do not provide additional guider determining the PLOED. The General Plan Implementation Committee Y ven direction to identify the PLOED for all areas where this type of policy wo )ply and incorporate that within the Zoning Code and the Implementation Plan. ssioner Hillgren asked for an explanation on PLOED for principal accessory structures. Campbell answered the PLOED would be determined on similar or :tures; one for principal structures and one for accessory structures. russion continued as to whether all these policies covered bluff face and development. Campbell said policies 8 and 9 deal with the bluff face for the area listed. Mr. npbell suggested using a portion of the original policy for Policy 8 to replace first sentence in the new policy as follows, "Prohibit development on blufi :s, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard; nation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent the predominant line of existing development." mer Toerge asked where in our policies is PLOED for bluff discussed? Campbell answered they are in different policies not subject to comment was opened. Brion Jeannette noted concerns as following: Page 22 of 27 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnl0- 18- 07.htm 06/2012008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 His email really had to do with expanding the number of people notified i regards to clarification, definitions, or redefinitions of PLOED within the City. . It does pertain to bluff tops in other areas. There needs to be clarification on the PLOED; how to determine predominant line that is exact. :hairman Hawkins asked if his concern was with the inclusion on the new 4.4.3 9 and it affects all the other areas. Jeannette answered yes. There is the Categorical Exclusion Zone that cc iy properties in the City that are not reviewed by the Coastal Commission, n accepted since 1986, and now these properties are being brought stal jurisdiction. iissioner Toerge said he looks at the PLOED as a limit line not a guarar ment line, provided all other development criteria is met. There will be a and active public hearing process in determining the PLOED. Lepo noted that the City Council initiated this amendment before the issue i ie Terrace arose. Mr. Lepo did notify 16 residents, who had given their er rmation, that this agenda item was being heard at tonight's meeting and it pertain to them. We will be working with the Irvine Terrace area on a differ of policies, and they will be notified of that hearing. an Hawkins wanted to clarify that all three policies apply only to Camati Ocean Boulevard and Pacific Drive or is Policy 19 generic and applies ing, if that is the case there may be a noticing problem. Lepo stated these three policies were initiated by City Council because of ZlE project. If there is a noticing problem it would be for Policy 19. Tom Callister, resident on Irvine Terrace, expressed the following concerns: . Thought this meeting was addressing Carnation Avenue, Ocean and Pacific Drive. If it is decided to prohibit any development on the coastal bluff faces, value of his house and any other single -story house on those bluff faces be diminished greatly. Lepo responded that Irvine Terrace is a categorical exclusion zone, still is, a se properties will be dealt with as they always have been; no CDP is currer sired. Whether the Coastal Commission extends the categorical exclusion tinues the same effect with different language is something we will have to di the Coastal Commission. Continuing the categorical exclusion for Irv! *ace is critical. ise Wallace, resident in Corona del Mar, objects to the amendment and Jeffrey Parker to speak on her behalf. Parker expressed the following concerns: • Ms. Wallace's house is small in comparison to the others who Page 23 of 27 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007/mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 redeveloped their property. . The proposed amendment threatens to disenfranchise her property rights. . When the LCP was adopted, 4.4.3 -8 and 9 were clearly written so property rights of the bluff owners on Carnation, Ocean, and Pacific guaranteed and exempt from the protection policies of less develc areas. • Do not adopt an amendment that does not protect less properties. • The language needs to be carefully thought out. in Hawkins noted that the Planning Commission understood the po & 4.4.3 -9 to be build to lines, but their decision was reversed at and they initiated this clarifying amendment. Vandersloot, resident of Newport Heights, noted the following: . City Council was very clear the that PLOED was not the build -to line that is the purpose of these amendments; . City Council said that all other resource protection policies in the Coastal and LUP of the LCP. . The LUP has been certified by the Coastal Commission. . Agrees that staff has followed City Council's direction and supports staff proposed language, with one exception where the sentence indicating that setback can be increased due to safety considerations should put back in. Jeff Beck, resident of Corona del Mar, noted the following: . Was in support of staffs proposal, however thinks it should be coastal face not bluff face. . 4.4.3 -19 could be limited to just Carnation Avenue, Ocean Boulevard, ar Pacific Drive properties tonight and readdress it for the other properties at future date. Lisa Vallejo, resident of Corona del Mar, is in support of the nmendations, with some of the changes mentioned. Barbara Dawkins, resident of Corona del Mar, thought PLOED was vague rds to Pacific Drive. Lepo suggested she make an appointment with Mr. Campbell who could better understand. Larry Porter, resident, in support of staffs recommendations and to points that Dr. Vandersloot brought up. comment was closed. Page 24 of 27 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007/mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 er Cole wanted to know the who was involved in the process the PLOED citywide. r. Campbell answered it will consist of the following: A consultant firm will be working with staff. The consultant will be usir aerial photos, topography information, building layers, etc. They will also c out into the field to look a properties. The policies of the CLUP will also be guide. Once a preliminary line is identified. by the consultant, Staff % evaluate it for a final recommendation of what the PLOED is thought to t for the various areas in which the policy applies. General Plan Implementation Committee will have public meetings discuss the topic. Following that, the Planning Commission will conduct noticed hearings the City Council will consider the final recommendation as to where PLOED will be. We hope to have a draft of the PLOED in January, 2008. :ommissioner Cole suggested we accept staffs recommendation, take out 9 because of it's vagueness and it needs to be discussed further and with etail. 3-n was made by Commissioner Cole to approve staffs recommenda fy 4.4.3 -8 as follows: "Prohibit development on bluff faces, except pri lopment on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Ave Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with :)minant line of existing development. Establish a predominant lin Commissioner Peotter seconded missioner Eaton agreed with Commissioner Cole, but thinks City ed 4.4.3 -19. irman Hawkins noted that these policies came to the General ementation Committee as a result of AERIE project. Policy 4.4.3 -19 is e: response to the decision in connection with the AERIE project. He ained his proposal: . It eliminates some of the reason for 4.4.3 -19. . It places the PLOED within the matrix of other considerations. . His concern of leaving it out and putting in separate policies is that e could interpret something about the remaining 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 as somewhat different and would factor in to policy 4.4.3 -12. . 4.4.3 -12 is one of the factors that applies in the analysis. r. Campbell clarified that the PLOED would be based upon the existing pattern. Hillgren wanted to clarify that they were dealing specifically Page 25 of 27 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 10/1812007 Carnation Avenue, Ocean Boulevard, and Pacific Drive and 4.4.3 -19 goes beyond. Could the elements in Policy 19 that are the direction of City Council be moved into 4.4.3 -8 and deal with Policy 19 in the future? Mr. Campbell said that is a possibility. Chairman Hawkins suggested leaving in Policy 19 but qualify it's location; if it's put in 4.4.3 -8 it would need to be in 4.4.3 -9 also. Motion failed by the following vote. Ayes: Peotter, Cole Noes: Eaton, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Excused: Second Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Cole to forward the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007 003 to the City Council for approval to read as follows: "4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing evelopment. Establish a predominant line of existing development for both principal structures and accessory improvements. 4.4.3 -9. Permit public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety on coastal bluff faces only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and o be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. 4.4.3-19. In all cases where the predominant line of existing development is used to establish a development limit along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, it shall not be the only criteria used for this purpose. All coastal land use and development policies shall be considered in determining the appropriate extent of new development and size of new structures on bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive." The motion also includes the change to the definition of predominant line o development as suggested by staff. Vote on second Motion: Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Peotter, Cole and Toerge Excused: ITEM NO. 6 PA200007 -137 OBJECT: Knight Appeal(PA2007 -137) 312 Hazel Drive No action taken. Removed from An appeal of the Planning Director's interpretation regarding the application of a calendar development stringline (setback) determined pursuant to General Plan Natural Resources Element Policy NR 23.6 to property located at 312 Hazel Drive. The appellant has requested that this item be removed from calendar and continued to a date uncertain. Page 26 of 27 "http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/2007 Motion made by Commissioner Peotter to adjourn. Ayes: Noes: Excused: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren ADJOURNMENT: 12:10 p.m. ADJOURNMENT BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 27 of 27 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn10- 18- 07.htm 06/20/2008