Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/2001• Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 0 0 ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley- All present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Todd Weber, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of October 18.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel, and voted on, to approve the amended minutes of October 18, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Abstain: Kranzley Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, November 2, 2001. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 SUBJECT: La Salsa; Milestone Management (PA2001 -086 for UP 2001 -018) 4341 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite F (Continued from 10- 18 -01) A Use Permit requested for an eating and drinking establishment and a waiver of parking to expand the seating from 21 seats to 36 seats without an increase in net public area. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant is requesting to continue this item to January 3, 2002. At Commission inquiry, she added that this application is in regards to a restaurant expansion on a property adjacent to the Radisson Hotel site. Staff felt it would be important to fully document the parking demands on the Radisson, as was heard at the previous Planning Commission meeting, in as much detail as we have. The applicant is now completing that work, but we are getting close to the end of our term on permit streamlining so the action has to occur one way or the other by the meeting of January 17th. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item to January 3, 2002. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich • Noes: None Abstain: Tucker SUBJECT: Glabman Variance (PA2001 -063) 2315 Pacific Drive Review of final plans for substantial conformance with plans approved July 19, 2001. Commissioner Kranzley recused himself from this matter, as he was not present at the prior meeting when this matter was heard. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant's architect has redesigned the roof of the building that had been considered by the Planning Commission in association with approval of a variance. The roof has been modified to a point where it is higher. While still conforming in most cases, it is higher than what had been reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 19th. This is a request by staff to determine if this is substantially in compliance with the standards used to approve the variance or whether the Commission believes an amended variance is be required and bring it back for a public hearing. Chairperson Tucker asked if the area where the roof pitch increases the height of to I the building is the area in which the variance was needed? INDEX Item No. 1 PA2001 -086 for UP 2001 -018 Continued to 01/03/2002 Item No. 2 PA2001 -086 Found In Compliance • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 Staff answered, the area that got increased was below the height limit towards the front of the properly; it has raised the roof peak by approximately 10 inches. Tom Berger, 20331 Irvine Avenue, architect for the project noted the ,slight differences were made to the roof in conjunction to the change of architectural style. The objective for the design change was that the homeowners learned that two houses within their immediate vicinity were going to be the same style that they had originally chosen. It was felt that having a New England style house would blend in with the others and so the homeowners felt they wanted to have another more distinctive architectural style. Chairperson Tucker asked if any Commissioners had an issue with the ten inches not within the variance area, he was answered no. Public comment was opened /closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to find that the final plans are in substantial conformance with plans approved July 19, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: Kranzley SUBJECT: Jeffrey J. Brown Residence (PA2001 -173) 405 Dahlia Avenue • V2001 -004 • M2001 -098 Request for a variance to permit a duplex to exceed the 1.5 floor area limit applicable within Corona del Mar. The request includes reduction of the front yard setback from 15 -feet to 7-6" and the reduction of the rear yard setback from 10 -feet to 3-6'. Mr. James Campbell distributed packets that had been delivered to the Planning Department by the applicant this day for the Commissioners' review. He noted that the packet contains several parcel map pages as well as comment letters that the Commission previously received, a color photograph, etc. He reiterated the recommendation of staff to deny the variance to increase the allowable floor area of the proposed duplex. He then presented slides depicting the existing residence, driveway, rear yard property, alleyway, view from across Dahlia looking out towards the harbor and views of the property taken from various vantage points. Commissioner Gifford clarified that the property line that abuts the driveway • that leads to the house set in the back is the northerly direction. She stated she z INDEX Item No. 3 PA2001 -173 Continued to 01/03/2002 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November S, 2001 was confused by the existing setback shown as three to nine feet. It looks as if it is on the property line. Mr. Campbell clarified for the Commission the setback dimensions. Chairperson Tucker asked why staff is recommending against this variance. Mr. Campbell answered: • Larger than average property, which is requesting to have a building to be larger than the average homes in the area. • The average lot in Corona del Mar is 3,540 square feet and based on the typical setbacks, the floor area limit would be 3,528 square feet. • The applicant is contending that based upon the floor area minimum standard, it deprives him of the same amount of square footage for the house when compared to the gross lot area. • The property is larger and is afforded the ability to build a building that is 735 square feet larger than other homes in the area. • The granting of this particular variance could be construed as a grant of special privilege because it is afforded as substantial property right in this instance, which led staff to make the recommendation for denial in this particular case. • Public comment was opened Jeff Brown, 2707 Windover Drive, owner of 405 Dahlia noted the following: • This property is very unusual. • There is no alley access. • Came to the City at the time he purchased the land and was given no assurances that a variance or modification would /could be granted. • Has held the property as a rental since he originally bought the property. • Where I ask for some unusual requests for this property plus the process that I have gone through the past six months I am surprised that a denial has been recommended by staff. • The idea of a safety lane to the back property; an extra parking space on the street were suggestions that came out of the process during the past 5 -6 months with City staff. Chairperson Tucker stated that the Planning Commission has to make certain findings in order to support the granting of a variance. He asked the speaker to address why those are findings that should /could be made, as it will help the Planning Commission to understand the basis of the request. Mr. Brown answered that the proposed structure is exactly the same as an efficiency ratio that is outlined in the written materials of what a standard 30 by 118 ft. lot could afford in Corona del Mar. Because of the configuration with the back property and consideration for the neighbors, I tried to put all the mass in the middle to not affect people who claim to have a view and not affect the A `I11101 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes people on the sides. I rotated the setbacks so that I can get my neighbor a clear driveway access as well as for safety vehicles to come down that road. I give back some on the other side. I am not asking for anything that is over and above what the other neighbors can build on their lots, it is exactly the same amount. Referencing pages 6 and 7of the packet handed out this evening, he noted that the height difference would be between the red and blue balloons in the photograph. These calculations are the same that staff came up with. I have met with several neighbors who are in strong support of the project. I am not aware of any opposition to this application from the neighbors. I am asking for only what my neighbors can build. I was involved with the residence across Bayside Drive, I thought a very extreme request for a variance and modification was requested, and they received a positive staff recommendation and it was granted after several meetings and many people objecting to it. That application asked for a floor area of ill% more than was allowed. The proposed product is so much better than what is there now. At Commission inquiry, staff explained that there is a 3 -foot setback to the driveway on the north side indicated as well as an inset in the building that does not exist in the field. The survey does not accurately depict the measurements. Based on the survey, what is in the staff report is correct, but in the field, it is really a 3 -foot setback with an 11 -foot wide driveway. . Commissioner McDaniel noted that the average or normal size house in Corona del Mar is 3,528. You are allowed to build 4,263 square foot building, which seems like a fairly substantial structure. You are asking for almost one thousand feet more, why? Mr. Brown answered that what he has and paid for is a lot and a half. There is a subdivision that was done to bifurcate three lots down the middle, providing one with an alley and one with a walkway after the structures were built. I am trying to get the same efficiency ratio on that lot that has been granted to other neighbors. Commissioner Kranzley noted that whenever the Planning Commission grants a variance it does not set a precedent. Commissioner Agajanian asked when the process was started by the applicant, was it begun with an idea of developing a unit roughly 4,200 feet in size and found that you had to go up to the larger one? Mr. Brown answered that he never got the idea of the 200 -foot garage. Based on my conversations with City staff, I concluded that the project needed to be built as R -2 and build two 2,400 square feet condos. This is half of three lots and is a very unusual project and warrants a variance. Chairperson Tucker noted that effectively what is being asked is that we apply a percentage of lot area as building area. The way the lot buildable area is . determined in your particular case because the lot is wider and the front yard INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 setback is 15 feet, it has the affect of having a bigger penalty on this lot then it does on someone else's lot. The only way to deal with that is, as you are suggesting, that it is 99.66% for lots in that area. That gets you to the 5,000 -foot number. I can't find where the support is for that theory. Mr. Brown answered it is not that simple. He noted parking and access and a huge curb cut with two spots, he is proposing 5 spots. Chairperson Tucker noted these points are not germane to the point on the amount of square footage of building area. That is what I tried to get you to focus on in your testimony, on what basis should the Planning Commission convert their decision over to a percentage of lot area that can be covered by building or a building to lot ratio when we have a code that indicates that we need to compute it in a different fashion. I am not hearing the rationale. Mr. Brown answered it is an economic rationale. When I bought the property, I had no assurances from anyone I talked to but I always had this project in mind. It maximizes the economic value to me. To step off 12 feet as opposed to 4 feet on the neighbor's to grant them things that are better for them, that is why I am asking for a variance /modification. I want to be compensated for the additional expense due to the development of this• unusual lot configuration. Chairperson Tucker stated that is not what our focus is. Public comment was opened. Don Monteleone 2115 North Moody Ave., Fullerton architect for the project spoke in support of the project noting the following: • Parking consideration and slope on the southerly side make it difficult to site the house. • Additional footage is in respect to the lot coverage. On a standard 30 x 118 square foot lot in Corona del Mar, 66% lot buildable coverage is allowed. • On this lot we are only allowed 54% because of the setbacks. • Our proposal is for 59 %, so we are not building a monster house. • In order to get 4 parking spaces per the requirements we have to turn the garages sideways and access along the northerly property line. • We have to have a 20 -foot driveway, which also gives better access for the house behind at 407 Dahlia and provides space for emergency vehicles to get back there. • Four garages could be done behind the 15 -foot front yard setback, but they would have to be turned so that the garage doors face the street. In doing that, it would mean about 50 feet of concrete facing the public right of way. With them turned, we can provide landscape where the curb cut is now. • At the rear of the lot where we are asking for some reductions of the setback, there is only one area that projects into the setback and is a • one story portion of the building; it is not a two or three story portion, INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes those portions are within the required setbacks on the lot. Chairperson Tucker stated that the issue is the square footage variance. The Planning Commission is interested in hearing more specifically what the rational is for granting more square footage on this lot than the way the computation works under our Code. We need to make very specific findings. Commissioner Selich stated that the property seems to be penalized with the extra large front area setback because it is wide and not as deep. A typical 45- foot wide lot in Corona del Mar with a 15 -foot required setback, he would loose 675 square feet as a result of that setback. However, because the long part of the lot is the front yard, the front yard is 1,230 square feet. In the rear yard area, he would have to provide 450 square feet on a typical lot in Corona del Mar and in this situation he is being required approximately 675 square feet. That is problematic because that line jogs all over the place. I think the issue is, is this lot penalized because it does have such a wide frontage on a street; is it over penalized by the amount of area that is being required to be dedicated to front yard? If so, should we grant a variance based on that? To me that seems to be what the issue is and all this other things seem to be more peripheral types of information. Although interesting, they really do not get to the heart of the issue of what we have to deal with, which is granting a variance which is based on the size, shape or topography of the lot. • Chairperson Tucker noted his concern is still how to justify approval. I can understand the mathematical problem that the applicant has. Mr. Monteleone noted that we are penalized at the rear of the lot because we have no alley. On a lot where there is an alley, you only have a five -foot setback. On this lot we have a 10 -foot setback. Commissioner Agajanian observed that a second finding on whether to grant a variance or not is whether or not we are preserving a property right. That is there is some exceptional factor going on here that is reducing the buildable potential of the lot. Since the lot was purchased in 1995 the current setbacks were applicable back then and the owner was aware of the setbacks all along and aware of where it was going to be measured. In essence, when the lot was purchased it was known what the maximum allowable buildable envelope would be for that property. Now, the owner is coming back and saying that he needs a little bit more than what is allowed, and I don't hear any real reasons. I can not make a finding right now that we are stripping property rights away when it is not a taking away privileges. There are privileges there already, you can build up to the 4,263 feet, and you knew that when you purchased the property. What I would like to know, what is it then that is above and beyond that you feel you need that additional square footage? Mr. Monteleone answered that it is a special lot. Because it has no alley access in the rear, the lot is penalized and so is the homeowner because of the 0 reduction in the buildable area. He does not enjoy the same privileges as the INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 INDEX other property owners in the area. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Brown affirmed that he knew the setback requirements at the time of purchase and that they have not changed. Diana Brown, 2707 Windover Drive read a letter from Roger McKinnon dated November 7, 2001, a hard copy of which had been distributed to the Planning Commissioners. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that on a past review of a variance in Corona del Mar regarding a front yard setback where by definition the Zoning Ordinance would have defined the front yard of the lot to be the narrower lot frontage. What the Planning Commission did in reviewing and approving that project, was to direct staff that in cases of that nature that when a front yard setback was designated on the Districting Map on a lot where it was by definition the side yard, that for the purpose of determining buildable area, they should use the regular side yard setback and use the depicted setback on the Districting Map for the use of siting the building. In other words, make the building set back further but not penalize the buildable area. In this instance, the only designated setback is the front yard, which fronts on Dahlia and is the front of the lot as it is the only side of the lot that has street frontage. Commissioner Selich noted that the purpose or concept of a variance is to bring a piece of property into parity with other similar parcels in the area so that it has a similar property benefit. I would say that the issue is that this lot is equal in size to a typical 4,500 square foot lot; should that properly be brought up to parity with other 4,500 square foot lots that are long and narrow rather than wide with less depth. Ms. Clauson stated that one of the standards is whether there is parity. The concept is whether there is something about the lot, size, topography or strict application of the Zoning Code that impacts their parity rights with other properties in the neighborhood. One of the things that the Commission could look at is the strict application of the Zoning regulations in this case, not the topography or size. The strict application of the setback requirements that somehow or other might impact this property differently then it would other properties in the area. He is still able to do the 1.5 buildable area. Annie Hirsch, owner of the house to the rear of the subject property stated her support of the project. She noted that the property lines are very close. When Mr. Brown came up with his proposal that would increase the width of my driveway, I thought this was a great idea. I have been concerned with someone building a fence on the property line, which would only give me a little over 7 feet rather than the 11 feet that I am enjoying now. You are discussing different issues than those that apply to me, but I can say that I support this project. Mr. Brown has done a great job on this proposal and I am very happy with it. At Commission inquiry, she noted that with this new proposal, she would have use of a 20 -foot driveway that would be shared with the subject property. 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 At Commission inquiry, staff noted that the recommendation of denial is based on the size, bulk and proximity of the structure to the street as well as to the residence to the rear. Commissioner Gifford asked staff it we could treat a 20 -foot wide driveway, if the property owners in the front and back had mutual easements for that, as an alley in terms of setbacks, how would that affect the envelope in terms of becoming the rear and the front would have the equivalent of a side setback? Chairperson Tucker reiterated that instead of a 10 -foot rear setback we treat it as a 5 -foot setback because the common drive would be treated like an alley even though it isn't actually the rear of the property. Ms. Temple answered that if there were a 20 -foot alley to the side of this property, the Public Works Department would not require any additional setback for the purposes of alley ingress and egress because the Zoning Code allows 0 setback for 20 -foot alleys. The only applicable setback would be the 4- foot side yard. If it were a setback at the rear at the alley, the Public Works Department would not require a setback for ingress /egress purposes and the Zoning Code would require a 0 setback. In this case, 8 feet of whatever width is used for that ingress /egress way is someone else' lot and is not part of this lot. • There is 8 feet of this ingress /egress that is part of the flag lot to the rear. Even though we might require the building to set back further for the purposes of ingress /egress, we wouldn't reduce the floor area as it is calculated from buildable area, we would still use the Zoning Code required setback for the purpose of that calculation. We would not further reduce their building size just because the Public Works Department would ask for a greater building setback for ingress /egress purposes. Joan Olison, 413 Dahlia noted she is opposed to the project as it is too large a structure for the area. Additionally, she would not like to see the setback at the front as it appears on the plan. All the houses on that street have the some setback. If I were to buy something and I realized there were limitations of some sort, I couldn't expect anybody to guarantee my economic expectations without regard to what the rules were. Trish Swenson, 417 Dahlia speaking for neighbors at 406, 420 and 410 Dahlia noted their opposition to this variance. The neighbors are asking that story poles be installed so that they know what is being asked for in more detail. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich stated that he feels that the setbacks unduly penalize the property and the property owner is not able to put the amount of square footage on it if he had a typical 45 -foot wide lot in Corona del Mar, which all the setbacks were designed for. Another way this gentleman could have gone rather than apply for a variance was to make a case to adjust the setbacks and 0 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 make a zoning change like we have in other areas where we have unique circumstances and then come in and build a house within those setbacks. If he made the arguments based on the extra width of the lot and the shallow depth then we would probably have a sympathetic ear for that. That would be another way for him to go for him to have parity with similarly sized lots in Corona del Mar. Looking at the site plan that was presented, virtually all of the setbacks by Corona del Mar standards are very generous setbacks all around the building. Typically we have buildings in Corona del Mar 3 feet from the property line. I am inclined to grant the variance, he is not going to be building anymore square footage than a typical 45 -foot wide lot. Furthermore, I will say that this 1.5 floor area limit gets to be a little misleading because the 1.5 floor area is based on the extraordinarily large setbacks. When I came in here tonight I was thinking why should we grant him more than 1.5 floor area ratio on the property. In hearing the testimony, the real problem is the amount of lot area that is devoted to yard space per the zoning setback requirements. Again, I am leaning in favor of the variance. Commissioner Agaianian noted that he heard this evening that there is an expectation for this property that is attached to a variance. I feel that the applicant, although he has tried to work very hard with the City, has come in here with the notion that this is a right given to him. The fact is that when he purchased the property the existing setback requirements were placed on it • and when he came in to submit the application he was well aware of what the building envelope was for the property. While I understand that the property has some exceptional circumstances associated with it, I still think it is a viable project within the existing envelope. If it is not an economically viable project within the building envelope, then I would like to find that out. What is about it that makes it so special? I am not leaning towards the argument that we need to bring parity to a property to non - conforming basis. I am inclined to vote against the variance as it is. Commissioner McDaniel noted he is opposed to a variance for this property. Why 4,000 square feet is not adequate on this property where 3,500 is parity for the community, I did not get any answer. I think a variance would be granting unusual privilege to this property. Commissioner Kiser stated that the testimony tonight was on the benefits to the property. While I appreciate the applicant has worked very hard, I think the benefits are irrelevant. I have not heard justification to allow the variance. There are four rather difficult standards that need to be made for granting any variance. As a result of a denial the applicant is unfairly prejudiced, this lot may be unusual, nothing has changed to make the applicant unfairly prejudiced either with respect to other lots and no governmental action has taken place that is a surprise. The applicant acquired the lot and knew what was the allowable buildable at that time. The primary weight is the fact that I don't see our need to grant this variance. The applicant can build a 4,263 square foot structure on the property and while these are difficult matters to decide, I have • not seen a justification for allowing the additional square footage, which in my 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 mind is the primary issue. Commissioner Kranzley stated that when he recalls the application of a corner lot that had the front yard setback considered to be the length of the property, one of the reasons I was in favor of that application was because it was a comer lot. The other issue in that project was the house conformed to the setback. When you looked down the street it was not different than other houses on the street. It wasn't like this house was sticking out in front of all the others. I was in favor of that application. Although I find Commissioner Selich's remarks pretty compelling, and with a lot of thought because this isn't like that, I am going to be in favor of denying this application. Commissioner Gifford stated that she would like to understand if there was a 45 x 118 square foot lot with the normal setbacks applying, what would be the committed square footage. She was answered 5,439 square feet that includes a 15 -foot front yard, 5 -foot rear yard and 4 -foot side yard setbacks as required by Code. Continuing, she stated if we were to look at it that way but require siting that conformed to the 15 foot front yard setback I might be in favor of approving what the applicant has requested in terms of the square footage. The proposed setbacks would change and I do not know about the feasibility of siting it 15 feet back, it may turn out you couldn't really effectively use that square footage. I need to hear from the applicant or his architect on if what has been requested (5,207 square feet) could be built siting it with 15 -foot front setback. Public comment was opened. Don Monteloonnne answered that we could put that footage within the 15 -foot front setback but the real problem is with the parking. We have turned the garages in order to get four parking spaces. The length of the north property line is only 54 feet long. If we are 15 feet back we would be right against Annie Hirsch's property. The alternative to that is turning the garages to face Dahlia, which you would be looking at four garage doors and 60 feet wide of concrete. You would also have places for cars parking in the driveway. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Tucker noted his opinion that this property merits a variance. The spirit of what the setback calculations are all about is skewed because this lot is so different in shape than the rest of the lots. I am okay with the proposed modifications to the setbacks, but the total building area I have a problem adhering to the exact same percentages as the other lots. Commissioner Gifford's line of questioning concerning the alleyway calculation and the penalty for that would be something that would merit reconsideration. I don't know exactly what the square footage would be, but I think it would be greater than what the Code now requires and less than what the applicant has applied for, I suspect. • 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 Ms. Temple added that taking this particular lots requirements and zero out the rear yard setback would be 52 x 10, so that would be 520 square feet more. Chairman Tucker stated that is what he would support. The applicant has heard what the Commission is thinking; there are 4 Commissioners who would deny the application. Commissioner Kranzley noted he is also concerned with the front yard setback. Commissioner Selich stated that there seems to be enough of us who see some merit in the variance, but it was really dealing with the setback from the street issue. It might be worthwhile for the applicant to go back and see if he can re- design his proposal and come up with one that addresses the setback issue. Commissioner Agajanian stated he would reconsider if this variance came back With reduced square footage and reconsideration of the front yard setback. Commissioner McDaniel stated he was against the variance as suggested. Following a brief discussion, Chairperson Tucker asked the applicant if he would like a continuance. • Mr. Brown said he would like a continuance and asked for specific direction from the Planning Commission. Commission noted: • Reduce the size of the variance to some extent. • Issues of re- design. • Calculations excluding the rear setback. • Maintain front yard setback. • Not have the garages face the street. Logical arrangement of buildings on the site. Ms. Temple noted that these are important points for staff to understand what the Commission's interest is because in order to configure the garages in that fashion as proposed by the applicant what has been designed is just an approximate centering between the front and the rear yard of that length of building. This means there is an approximate 7.5 -foot rear yard setback proposed and a 7.5 -foot front yard setback proposed. As the applicant had stated, in order to conform the 15 -foot setback for the garages, the rear yard setback in that location would have to be zero in order to get adequate width garages. Even in the staff report we said while consideration of the balance of the building encroaching into the 15 -foot front yard setback should be made, that garages in this configuration require an encroachment of some sort. I would like the Commission's input on whether splitting equally or whether building more towards one side or the other is preferable. is Commissioner Gifford stated with respect to the location of this property on the 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 street, because it is the end of the street and there is a view, I would hate to see effectively things narrowed by not having the some setback. At the same time, I don't think there is a lot of visibility to the front of that particular property so that if the garages were nicely designed with some landscaping, I would prefer to preserve the openness at the end of the street. I am not sure that 500 or 600 feet is a number that I would want to leave with Mr. Brown that I would buy into. I would like to have a definite relationship to some kind of relevance to what other properties have or to the Code, etc. not just an arbitrary number. Ms. Clauson stated that the Chairman was stating that he thought that the application of the rear yard setback was like the deciding factor of where the property was being impacted by strict application of the Zoning. So, what you are saying then is that something like that would have to be related to the need, that some application of the rear or the side something about the application of those setbacks engenders the need for additional square footage. Chairperson Tucker noted to the applicant that the reason you are not getting clear guidance is that there is a real division in terms of how we think it ought to be done. It is not unusual when people come in for variance requests that they end up having to re -work their plans a couple of times because there are special cases and we want to do something that the community can • understand and it is something that people don't remind us of later. Commissioner McDaniel stated that his concern is the size and that the applicant may never get my vote because you want a very large building. I don't want you to think that when you re- design this property that I would be leaning towards it. I am open to things, but I want to be sure there is no misunderstanding. In terms of you redesigning something, there is no guarantee you will get the vote. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this application to January 3, 2002. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to deny without prejudice, Variance 2001 -004 and Modification No. 2001 -098 by adopting the finding(s) contained in Exhibit 1. Commissioner Gifford clarified that if this item was denied, the applicant is free to re- submit and does that entail another application fee? Ms. Temple answered that first the denial must be without prejudice otherwise the applicant would be barred from re- applying for a period of one year. A brand new application would require a fee. Chairperson Tucker noted that the Substitute Motion was to deny the application per Exhibit 1 attached. 13 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 Substitute Motion to deny: Ayes: Kiser, McDaniel, Agajanian Noes: Selich, Kranzley, Gifford, Tucker, Absent: None Substitute Motion failed. Main Motion to continue to January 3, 2002 Ayes: Gifford, Kranzley, Agajanian Selich, Tucker, Noes: McDaniel, Abstain: Kiser SUBJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, (PA2001 -199) One Hoag Drive • Phase II Traffic Study (TS 2001 -02) Review of a traffic study prepared pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and the Development Agreement (DA) pertaining to Hoag Hospital for the development of Phase II of the Master Plan, involving both lower and upper campus construction which includes the East Tower. 40 Ms. Temple noted that this is similar to the traffic study approval that the Commission had at the last meeting. Public comment was opened. Peter Foulke, Executive Vice President of Hoag Hospital stated that he agrees with the staff report. Mason Vavere, Versailles Condominium resident voiced his opinion noting: • The environmental impact and pollution that the hospital has caused. • As a renter (1992 -1994) and then owner (1994) he did not know that he would have less then six months of peacefulness. • Has written several letters, made several calls and has not seen any satisfaction. • Hospital has not been cooperative or forthcoming in remedial actions. • Noise pollution is a fast growing concern today, air conditioning units, jets, cars or construction. • Studies show that these can be linked to high blood pressure, hearing loss, lower productivity and higher cholesterol levels. Commissioner Gifford stated that for a portion of what was addressed, the construction that may be occurring at hours when it is not allowed, Ms. Temple as the Planning Director and Mr. Jim Sinasek as the Code Enforcement officer could help resolve any issues that are occurring outside the allowable time frames. 14 INDEX Item No. 4 PA2001 -199 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November B, 2001 Ms. Temple noted that it would be helpful if the speaker would forward his comments to the Planning Department with specific complaints. We would be happy to look into the matter to resolve any violations that may be present. Carlos Garcia, 280 East 15th Street spoke representing the Newport Heights Community Association regarding increased traffic through the Heights. They are concerned with the construction of the new facility and they want to make sure that the traffic heading to the hospital is not diverted into the Heights. We want to make sure the Environmental Impact Report traffic wise may be conducted to make sure this does not happen. Chairperson Tucker stated the traffic study is the only item before the Commission for consideration tonight. The CEQA aspects are already done on this transaction; there will be no further environmental documents. Ms. Temple noted this particular action is based on the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), additional review could be needed at a subsequent time should any new affects be identified and analyzed, but this report shows there were none. Mr. Rich Edmonston stated that the study typically looks at traffic assignments to • major arterial highways, such as Newport Blvd., Superior Ave. and Coast Highway in the vicinity of the hospital. There is no real mechanism to evaluate how that might address residents of the Newport area who might choose to travel through the Heights rather than going maybe up 17th Street across and down. Because they are neighborhood streets, we would not anticipate that any significant percentage going to a hospital would use those streets, as it is a regional facility. Additionally, the City is working with representatives of the Newport Heights Association to look at traffic concerns throughout the neighborhood and will continue to do that and certainly could include consideration of the hospital in those efforts. There is no evidence that the level of service is anything other than typical neighborhood residential use. Studies have showed that the traffic levels are within an acceptable level within a residential area. From a traffic capacity standpoint, none of the streets are near that capacity issue. Mr. Garcia stated that when the Newport Elementary school was opened to other areas, that traffic added to the congestion. We want to make sure the hospital traffic overflow does not come into the neighborhood due to safety issues. William Jennings, 280 Cagney Lane, #108 commented that the future site plan does not show where the 68,000 feet is added on the lower campus. It talks about the Cancer Center addition, Child Care and a Control Plan. As for as the traffic is concerned, I imagine there will be more with the construction crews than there will be with the patients at the hospital. I think it should show the addition. 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November S, 2001 Chairperson Tucker noted the trip credits for facilities that were not built in the first phase. How have the facilities that were approved but not built been reduced out of the plan so that the trip credits are possible? Can those additional square footages be built later? Mr. Edmonston noted that Hoag understands that those remaining square footages that were allowed under the Phase I traffic study are incorporated in this Phase II. Those square footages and trips are in this study; it's just that they did not have to be re- exposed to TPO analysis of those trips. In the normal process if they were going to finish those buildings sometime in the future, we would have left those in as a committed project. However, they have no intention of going back and part of this is the overall concept of the Development Agreement that the nature of medical care is changing and that was difficult to predict back in the early 90's what buildings would be needed, what types of medical care would be provided and at what location on the campus. Those trips are not included in the trips listed in the staff reports, some 1,167 daily trips, that the actual trips generated by the project is greater than that, some 6,300 trips, but there is a 4,000 trip credit. Those credits were assigned to the road network as if they were committed. So they are in the system but in two types of bookkeeping, one for the TPO and one for this approval. When this is approved, it would go in as a committed project and then all those trips will • end up back in the committed projects list but they would be base trips. Chairperson Tucker noted the entitlement is still there, is it not? In order to build the entitlement they come in and then have a TPO study at that point and all those trips would mean new trips? Ms. Temple answered, not necessarily new trips but assigned to the roadway based on the more precise project definition. If there are any remaining trips in Phase III for instance from this Phase II approval, we might credit them but they would be placed in but redistributed based on the more precise project distribution so as to more accurately reveal any true traffic impacts resulting from the project as it matures and builds out over time. The EIR and original traffic work anticipated that and the Development Agreement provided for this process. It makes sure what is reflected in the traffic study is based on the distribution of what is actually going to be built during the phase and not the assumption of what was anticipated to be built in Phase I but may not have been implemented in the some way it was originally anticipated. Commissioner Kranzley stated that with all the emphasis on traffic, our experience has been since the 1991 traffic study is that we have more trips than were estimated. Mr. Edmonton noted that we look at trip generation differently and have assigned a higher trip generation to the three primary uses being inpatient, outpatient and support. One of the concerns not fully evaluated in 1991 was • that when you look at a free standing medical facility that would have its own 16 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 uses, but have on site administration, accounting, etc. Whereas in the case of Hoag, those are centralized so by looking at it in a different fashion as this does, we have more accurately reflected the additional trips that will come from any subsequent development on the campus. Commissioner Kranzley stated that there has been some concern in the past that the studies we have don't really reflect real life. I want to make sure that when we are giving credits, taking credits away, that the reality is that as we build out this project, which is a very important project for the City of Newport Beach, that the public is accurately informed as to what is really going on in traffic. Mr. Edmonton stated this is the most complicated project that we have ever reviewed in terms of the phasing. The Development Agreement assumed that Phase I would be completely built out and at the end of Phase I we would do a trip generation study to determine if the assumptions used were correct or not. Since less than half of the total trips anticipated in Phase I were actually built, we had to take a different approach. We did actual counts of traffic using the hospital today with the portion of Phase I that did get built and is going to get built. For Phase II we looked at the trip generation and tried to give it our best estimates and added those in to what would come and again the process would have to be repeated if they come back for Phase III as they are entitled • to. Our understanding is that the remaining building that was studied in Phase I the hospital is giving up their TPO entitlement to build in order to transfer those credits to Phase Il. If they wanted to go back and build those buildings, that would be treated as a Phase III project and they would have to do a traffic study based upon what the new trip generation rates are for the uses because all of Phase I trips are credited to Phase 11. Chairperson Tucker stated that all of Phase I trips got credited to Phase 11, even though some of those trips were at a rate that turns out were too low, they were still trips that were plugged into the system. So those trips are what got credited to Phase II and if they go back in and build in Phase I they have to do a new study that will have the higher outpatient rate and lower administration rates, etc. Mr. Edmonton answered that has been the City's approach. Commissioner Gifford stated that it sounds as if these things are based on what has been done at meetings. Is it not possible to update the Development Agreement in some fashion so that whatever didn't happen in Phase I it is very clear that goes over to Phase III so that they don't necessarily lose the entitlement for the building? This way it is very clear as to what is happening in the traffic studies and other things. Ms. Temple answered that the way the Development Agreement was originally written intended to accommodate exactly these kinds of transactions as the more specific details of the project were known through the subsequent phases 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 of the development as well as the subsequent Phase II and III approvals. You could go back and amend the Development Agreement as long as both the City and the hospital were willing to do so, but it is not necessary because the structure of the Development Agreement essentially allowed this process to happen. The Development Agreement is not a tool to track the development. Commissioner Gifford stated that there doesn't seem to be anything else that formally tracks it and nails it down. I have only heard about understandings and meetings but not a formalized document that is a status of the agreement as of a certain date, etc. Ms. Temple stated that we review the Development Agreement and report to the City Council on a regular basis as to the status. At Commission inquiry stated that the approval of this Traffic Study is a binding approval. Discussion followed on traffic, potential building, assumptions, and transfers of entitlement. Mr. Edmonton suggested adding a finding to the resolution that would document the number with concurrence from the hospital representatives tonight. . Ms. Clauson noted that if you detail the factors of the finding of why you are approving the Traffic Study, then that would be the basis for the approval of the Traffic Study. Chairperson Tucker asked about the three intersections that are expected to perform in 2008 at a level of service E or F during the peak hours and those are Balboa Blvd. /Superior Avenue /PCH, Riverside Ave. /PCH, and then Jamboree /PCH. None of those intersections became worse as a result of this project. The ICU increased by .01 at Bayshores Drive, Dover Drive at West Coast Highway but yet the intersections that are closer to Hoag, which are performing at a higher ICU level now so the mathematics will be slightly different didn't show any increase of .01. How do Balboa and Superior intersections not increase but the other ones did increase in the P.M. peak hours? Mr. Edmonston stated that the answer is the rounding. In carrying out the calculations to three decimal places and then round to two and then report that. Very often it can take only 45 cars at one intersection to cause it to round up and you may have 20 cars at another intersection and with the base number low enough, the rounding does not cause the increase. Trissa Allen, of Linscott, Law and Greenspan stated she agreed with the comments about the intersections rounding up. The methodology behind the ICU values is critical movement. It could take as much as 5 cars to 16 cars to make any difference. The increment of .01 if applied to standard intersection capacity of 1600 then a 16 car volume could make that much of a difference. Because of the rounding to the second decimal place, it gets triggered at 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 certain locations and can get invisible at other intersections. Chairperson Tucker stated and Ms. Allen agreed it is possible that an ICU for A.M. peak hours at .83 could have been .834 and then at cumulative plus project it could have been .836 and therefore would have increased from .01 even though it really only increased .002 because of the rounding? Mr. Edmonston added that the numbers are actually in the report without the project it is .833 and goes to .838. Commissioner McDaniel noted that based on his experience as an EQAC member he understands that the assumptions are critical as we extrapolate what may happen 2008. Are you comfortable with assumptions that have been made? Mr. Edmonston answered yes. They have looked at various key assumptions in the study. The primary ones being how trips are generated from the different uses and then how they are distributed onto the street network and where they are destined to and from as they service the hospital. Chairperson Tucker asked that you believe that when they come in for Phase III we will have the actual proper traffic generating features that we thought • through now that we have the benefit of seeing Phase I so it won't change? It seems odd when things seem to shift in terms of this use is more trips, this use is less trips. Mr. Edmonston answered that they looked long and hard in the trip generation before they started looking at what the impacts of that would be. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley for approval of Traffic Study No. 2001 -002 and adoption of Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Approving Traffic Study No. 2001 -002 for Property Located at One Hoag Drive," with the following amendment: The unused traffic generation approved in the Phase I Traffic Study is relinquished by Hoag Hospital through incorporation of that traffic into the Phase 2 Traffic Study. hip credits in the daily amount of 4,973 total trips were included in the Phase 11 Traffic Study based upon the unbufti amount of 241,000 square feet from Phase 1 as Hoag Hospital has acknowledged that Phase I is now complete. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Absent: None i 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 _187) 215 Carnation Avenue (Called for review by Commissioner Sellch 10- 18 -01) Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with a portion of the basement level encroaching 10 -feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback adjacent to Carnation Avenue and 4.8 -feet into the required 4.8 -foot side yard setback. All above ground structures will maintain the required 10 -foot front and 4.8 -foot side yard setbacks, with, the exception of a portion of the proposed subterranean garage that may extend approximately 3 feet high within the front and a portion of the side yard setback. Chairperson Tucker noted that this item was called up by the Planning Commission and had been approved by the Modifications Committee. Commissioner Selich stated his primary reason for calling this matter up was that the Corona del Mar Residents Association representatives went to the Modifications Committee and asked that this item be referred to the Planning Commission. Apparently there was some misunderstanding between the Committee and the Resident Association on understanding what they were really asking for that day. The secondary reason why is I have a concern about the height of the structure since it is in the MFR District and there was direction a • number of years ago by the Council to lower that to be consistent with R -1 and R -2 height limits. That is the next item on our agenda. I was reminded that back in 1998 just about the some time the Council took this action, we did have the residence next door to this up before the Planning Commisison and there was concern over the height of that structure. We resolved it at a lower height limit based on some mutual agreement between the owner of the property and the neighbors in the area. After looking at the plans, I can say that I don't have a problem with the height of the structure because most of the structure is within the R -1 height limit anyway and only maybe a 5 square foot of the tallest portion of the building exceeds the R -1 height limit. The City Attorney has expressed some concerns as to whether there is a nexus there between that and the Modification, which is probably subject for another meeting. After reviewing the plans submitted by the architect, my concerns on the height limit have been alleviated. Commissioner Kiser stated that since the project as originally proposed asked for a 10 -foot variance on the front yard setback and staff, working with the applicant, made it 5 feet within the setback, why was that decision made? Mr. Campbell answered that there is a sewer line that runs basically at the front property line and the Public Works Department representative on the Modifications Committee indicated their concern of having construction that close to the sewer line. They indicated that a 5 -foot reduction in the encroachment would be more advisable to protect and preserve the sewer line. 40 20 INDEX Item 5 PA2001 -187 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 • Commisisoner Kiser asked it the applicant could move the sewer line if they wanted? Mr. Edmonston answered yes, the sewer line could be relocated out to the center of the street and then lateral connections for all those properties would have to be re -done on both sides of the street. It would be fairly expensive, but it could be an alternative. The sewer line serves a large portion of the lower half of Corona del Mar and is quite deep and aged in this area. The concern of getting 5 feet back is that it would greatly reduce the likelihood that the excavation and shoring that would have to take place for the parking basement would result in impacts where this might crack and have to be repaired by the applicant. It is in his favor to hold it back and hopefully minimize any likelihood that damage to the sewer line would occur during the construction. The sewer line is at the property line. Public comment was opened. Bud Rosner, 2500 Ocean Blvd. noted that he is not totally against the project. All of the bluff construction on Ocean Boulevard use to be at curb height years ago. It has been told to us by past Mayors and Councilmembers that they really meant to do the whole bluff but Carnation wasn't named. Now with MFR capable of going to 34 feet across the street from R -1 and R -2 properties, we realize it is very difficult to think about public views. We are asking for slot views if nothing else because coming down Ocean and turning up Carnation we envision this potential wall. We admire the architect however, prior to the one that was mentioned earlier there wasn't anything that was over R -1. We keep hearing one part of the staff says it has to go to Coastal and in the report it says it does not have to go to the Coastal Commission. I am not so sure that it is categorically excluded from Commission review. Chairperson Tucker stated this was a modification and for whatever reason the zone it is in is still the MFR zone. This particular applicant, as Commisisoner Selich indicated, is not building to the max, it is just one portion of the property. I tend to agree with the City Attorney, I do not see the nexus between the complaint about a modification and the height in the MFR zone. I am having a problem seeing why we shouldn't affirm the Modifications Committee decision. Mr. Rosner said that when somebody asks for extra effort on their property, we think maybe they could make some adjustment for the neighborhood. Kent Moore, 210 Carnation stated he is concerned with the coastal bluff as is the Corona del Mar Community Association. I agree with Mr. Rosner, it is a beautiful project and have no objection to the subterranean issues. I was told that to get a building permit, it must go to Coastal. Then I heard that someone else on the staff stated that the project does not have to go to Coastal. I need to know if it does or not? He stated his concern of view corridors, sidewalks and slot views. 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 Mr. Campbell stated that this project would not require a Coastal Commisison review because the project complies with the conditions as part of the Categorical Exclusion order which excludes it from their review. Commissioner Agajanian noted that there is mention of view corridor, there are 4 foot setbacks on both sides of the house, is that not enough? Mr. Moore answered that the next door neighbor built gates between the walls. I would like to see that if there is going to be a build up along the bluff down the hill there is a lot of foot traffic going to happen. There should be some areas where the pedestrians can look through to the bay. I did a condo conversion directly across the street from this particular project, and I had to get Coastal permits, etc. Why does this project not have to? Ms. Temple answered that any project that involves any type of subdivision plan, which a condominium map does, requires Coastal Commisison approval specifically. It was the fact that it was a condo conversion. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to uphold the decision of the Modifications Committee. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple stated that the staff report included a copy of the approval letter of the Modifications Committee. The letters are a much simpler format than used for Planning Commisison approvals. Anything that is required by ordinance or city policy is still applicable and they are not necessary. The plans have changed and are more detail and reflect the understanding that the Modifications Committee had when they approved the project. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajonion, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: MFR District Height Limits in Corona del Mar Initiation of an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise the height limits for Multiple Family Residential (MFR) District properties in Corona del Mar Ms. Temple noted that this is the initiation step so it does not constitute approval of anything, however, should the Commission choose to initiate this amendment there are a few options discussed in the report. If the Commission does have any direction in terms of the preferred method to approach this question with, staff would appreciate that direction. 40 22 Hem 6 PA2001 -209 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 Commissioner Selich noted that this emanated from a request of the Corona del Mar Residents Association and may have been prompted by the San Miguel project. The intent from the Residents Association perspective was that along the bluffs along Carnation and as it wraps around Bayside Drive, that those height limits be consistent with the R -1 and R -2, which would be the 24/28 foot height limit, that would be my preference. In terms of how far this goes, the map that shows all the different areas to apply the zoning, I am not sure about. I know that I was at the association meetings when it was talked about and it was primarily the Carnation area that was a concern, although there has been some discussion and concern on Marguerite. I don't recall any concern over the Shores Apartment site or the apartments down in front of Corona Highlands. Maybe one of the things you might think about doing is passing the Resolution of Intention before we hold our public hearing and sending it back up to the Council and have them reaffirm that this is really what they want to do. It has been three and a half years and there are only two active members who were present at that time. We need to have them reaffirm the Resolution of Intention before we actually hear the public hearing. Chairperson Tucker noted there are only two Councilmembers from 1998 and I would like to get a sense as to where they might be on this issue first before having something formal. There is history here and I am hesitant. The Council left a couple of options and that it would come back to the Planning • Commission to try and figure out what to direct staff to do at some point. Ms. Temple noted that when the Council took their action in 1998, they didn't specify a preference. Staff did indicate the same range of options and the Council requested that the Commission study the question. There is no firm guidance one -way or the other. In terms of requesting input from the City Council there are two ways the Commission could approach it: Adopt the resolution with direction to staff to also take it to the City Council and request an affirmation or a concurrence. Direct staff to prepare a report indicating the Commission's renewed interest in pursuing this but request them to adopt a Resolution that would include the specific direction involved. Chairperson Tucker stated his feeling is to continue the item so that I can figure out at least what I would like to do about it. I just don't feel I am informed enough. Commissioner Kranzley concurred with the comments. This is coming to us from a long past City Council so I would like to get some guidance from them before we go on. Commissioner Gifford stated that if all we have going is this statement from July 1998, 1 don't think any of us want to step in front of the Coastal Bluffs Preservation train again. I would like to have something that indicates there is a more current interest by the City Council. • 23 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November B, 2001 _ Public comment was opened. Levina Hayden, a 50 -year resident of Corona del Mar stated she remembers a lot of this. She then read a letter from the Corona del Mar Association and passed a copy out to the Commission. In conclusion she noted that the Association is opposed to the construction of homes along Carnation Ave. that exceed the standard single - family height limit of 24/28 feet. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to January 3, 2002. Commissioner Kiser stated he would like more detailed information about the trade offs requirements as noted in the current staff report. Ms. Temple stated that more in depth information would be included in the staff report as well as perhaps some graphics. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Absent: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood stated that at the last Council meeting of October 23rd the General Plan Amendment was initiated for 205 Orange Street, and Council heard a report on the agenda of October 9th. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - there was no meeting. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - there was no meeting. d) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Gifford asked about the provision of the Balboa Sign Ordinance to be able to use funds to buy out signs and what signs have been identified. Ms. Wood answered that the ordinance adopting the overlay for the peninsula does provide an amortization program where the earlier the property owner is willing to change out a non - conforming sign, the more the City will contribute. Staff • has been working on a survey verification and the development of the 24 INDEX Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 guidelines for the program is underway. The City will in some instances pay for the design of a new sign and we are soliciting proposals from sign design consultants so that there will be a group listing to send these property owners to. We have done a pilot project: 'The Portofino' has a new sign that the City helped to pay for. As soon as these guidelines and the survey are done, we will send that information out to everyone who has a non - conforming sign so they will know that this program is available for them. Discussion then centered on the agenda for December 6"h and the potential of some items to be heard at another time. It was decided to place the Newport Fish Company item to January 3b rather than schedule an additional meeting during the month of November. f) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted the changes: • Item #4, Removal of ficus trees on Main Street - Phase one of the construction project is happening now, the removal of the trees is part of the next phase. • Item #8, Realty signs - the telephone number has been removed. • Item #9, Jiffy Lube sign - has been removed. • Marquis Signs at Malarkey's - Code Enforcement noted no permit for either signs and a notice of violation has been issued. • Crabby Kenny's mural is being reviewed - portions of the mural • are signs; the configuration of Crabby Kenny's does conform with the Balboa Sign Regulations, however it has not received a sign permit because the process is the issuance of a building permit. We are talking to the Building Department Director to implement a new procedure to require a permit that would invoke a zoning review of these painted signs. The Burr White mural is also being reviewed. The sign at El Ranchito in Corona del Mar was installed without a building permit and a notice of violation has been issued. g) Project status - none. h) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Kranzley will be unavailable December 6th. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m. EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 25 INDEX Adjournment