HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/2007"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2007
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Page 1 of 16
" file:// N:1 AppsIWEBDATAI Intemet \PlnAgendas120071mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and
Hillgren:
All present
STAFF PRESENT:
David Lepo, Planning Director
aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney
Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer
Patrick Alford, Senior Planner
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
None
None
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on April 27, 2007.
HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of April 19, 2007.
Approved
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by
Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected.
Ayes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren
Noes:
None
Abstain :
Peotter and Toer e
SUBJECT: Environmental Nature Center (PA2007 -030)
ITEM NO.2
1601 16th Street
PA2007 -030
Use Permit request to demolish the existing 1,894 square foot modular
Approved
building and replace it with two buildings comprising 6,641 square feet o
Poor area. The existing 1,860 square -foot butterfly enclosure will remain in
place.
Page 1 of 16
" file:// N:1 AppsIWEBDATAI Intemet \PlnAgendas120071mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 2 of 16
imissioner Eaton recused himself from deliberation on this matter, L
ce of City Counsel, as he is a member of and contributor to
ronmental Nature Center.
Ung gave an overview of the staff report. She introduced two
itions addressing the overnight camping and shower provision.
ioner Hawkins asked about condition 19. He asked how
came about.
Ung answered that this condition came about after an inspection of
lerty where it was noted that the existing butterfly enclosure v
led across a portion of the School District property. In order
immodate the applicant's request that this structure stay at the sa
Lion, the City added a condition requiring the applicant and Sch
•ict to include this provision in their lease agreement requiring
3val of the butterfly enclosure upon the expiration of the lei
ement. The City Attorney's office has agreed to the language of
e agreement. This condition assures that the lease will be in pl,c
n the applicant applies for building permits for the new building.
;d that this is an amendment to the Master Lease already in place.
mmissioner Hawkins asked about a liability or indemnity
arding the overnight camping.
nt City Attorney Harp answered this is not something that would
Wirick, representing LPA Architects, gave an overview of the
citing:
Aerial view of the project;
Location of current trailer;
Parking with two points of access, and parking for two school bus
on site;
Butterfly house and fire pit location;
Concept allows for north light into the facility and taking advantage
breezes from the shore;
Floor plan with office and support areas as well as public exhi
areas, restrooms and classrooms;
Structure with operable windows, photovoltaic panels, roof overha
and heat chimney;
Evening events will be accommodated on the outdoor deck tf
surrounds the existing fire pit.
Landscaping of indigenous and drought tolerant materials;
Waterless urinals, storm water management, day - lighting dimmi
system, and on -site retention basin;
This will be the first Platinum LEED building in Orange County and
an investment by the Environmental Nature Center (ENC).
Hawkins asked about the hours of operation.
Bo Glover, Executive Director, answered that the hours of operation
"file:HN:1Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 3 of 16
he public are 8 to 5 Monday through Friday and 8 to 4 on Saturday. There)I
ill be some evening programs of lectures (two to three times a month) asI
ell as overnight camping, perhaps once a month. II
ublic comment was opened.
y Petros, Building Committee Chairman of the ENC, noted this is tl
Platinum LEED building in the County, they have supporters througho
nge County and a Grant for this project. The butterfly enclosure was
to the ENC from the Balboa Rotary Club as well as the Sister City
izaki South Rotary Club. The enclosure is a tent facility that is
feable and temporary. He agreed to all the conditions included in tF
F report as well as the two new proposed conditions. He then gave
rview and highlights of the Environmental Nature Center.
imissioner Hawkins asked if this was a non - profit organization and
vered that it is operated by a Board of Directors with the manages
administration of an Executive Director.
Hillgren asked about the funds and when the building will
Petros answered that they have the funds to erect the building
to have it opened in the summer of 2008.
comment was closed.
was made by Commissioner McDaniel, and seconded
;inner Toerge, to adopt resolution approving Use Permit No. 2
;ommissioner Peotter noted word changes in proposed added
2 and 13. The maker of the motion agreed.
Ayes: Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
Noes: None
Recused: Eaton
SUBJECT: Appeal of Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2007 -002 (PA2007 -039) ITEM NO. 3
1499 and 1505 Monrovia Ave. PA2007 -039
March 5, 2007, the Zoning Administrator approved a Lot Line Decision of
stment request to allow the adjustment of lot line between two existing Zoning
and to combine portions of an abandoned right -of -way into the existing Administrator
heriv lot. was upheld
don Nichols, Associate Planner, distributed aerial maps showing
station of the involved lots. He noted this appeal was called
missioner Hawkins and proceeded to give an overview of the
rt. He noted:
Project qualified for a Categorical Exemption of Class 5 under the
California Environmental Quality Act;
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 4 of 16
Noticing of the approval contained an attached map that incorn
depicted the location of the project; map was included with
approval letter that was sent to the applicant and subsegw
provided to the Commissioners in their staff action packets; this
was not included in the public notice and the addresses
properly listed on the notice and on the approval letter.
issioner Toerge asked about the right -of -way and if it is wider
A in the exhibits.
Ir. Nichols answered yes, the right -of -way shown on the map is the 60-
ght -of -way that was abandoned by the County prior to the property bE
nnexed to the City of Newport Beach. The property line is currently in
fiddle of the 60 -foot right -of -way and the 104 -foot future right -of -way
re on top of each other, so the center line is the exact same.
Cole asked the Assistant City Attorney to discuss the
Harp answered that the notice of approval cited Title 20, which provii
sixty days to have the hearing on the call for review. The appropr
lysis should have been under Title 19, (Section 19.12.060) wt
vides for a 30-day time period to hold a hearing. The question becor
:they or not the failure to hold that hearing within the 30 -days divests
nning Commission of jurisdiction over this matter. The case law mal
distinction whether or not the ordinance is jurisdictional or directory.
ence, if it is jurisdictional it would divest the Planning Commission of,
ter to hear this matter. Similar cases analyzed with similar langw
I that those timelines are directory and that the governmental b:
ring the matter is not divested of jurisdiction over the matter. T
ns from the due process rights the people have to have the mater he
just because the matter wasn't calendared appropriately by staff di
divest the Commission of jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Commission inquiry, he added that a remedy for the applicant would
seek a writ to force a decision to be made on the matter. If it was held
a Planning Department for a year, the applicant could go to court to fo
it it be heard by the Planning Commission.
irman Cole asked for a consensus from the Commission regarding the
:al issue and whether we agree with the Assistant City Attorney, or wE
that this could be construed as a reason for approval of the appeal.
Commission agreed to go ahead with hearing the appeal. Chairma:
then asked for an opinion on the notice issue.
stant City Attorney Harp answered that the notice issue stems from the
;e of the approval and the Section that was cited was Title 20, a:
:sed to Title 19. The call for review was done in the appropriate time.
notice for this hearing was appropriate.
Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern that the public does not receive
a notice of the approval, yet has a 14 -day appeal period, but no notice o
he decision. Is it posted?
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA% Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007
r. Harp answered they receive notice of the original hearing. The notice
approval is not re- noticed to all people who receive notice of the hearing.
ie requirement stems from the Government Code which requires a notice
the hearing, not the decision made.
Lepo added that the Planning Commissioners and City Cc
bers have the right to appeal a Planning Director's or Zc
Council
edge of
s decision. For that reason, the Planning Commission
receive notice of that particular approval. The p
the decision comes from the original notice of the Zc
for review of this matter. The presumption is that the on
:e of the public hearing is the basis for anybody who has an inten
who may also later appeal. An interested member of the public woi
id the hearing and hear the decision or inquire the following day as
I the decision was in order to exercise their right to appeal. There is
e requirement to notice the decision.
ian Cole noted there appears no reason to re- notice this hearing
to continue.
Nichols noted the questions sent by Commission Eaton:
Is this a "de nova" hearing? Mr. Harp answered, "yes ".
The action listed on the agenda? The agenda listed the staff action, '
hold the decision of the Zoning Administrator, or deny the approval of t
t Line Adjustment ". That was listed in error. Staffs recommendation
uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
mmissioner Hawkins noted it is a de nova hearing and asked
>lanation of the import and the administrative record for a de
Harp answered that a de nova hearing is basically hearing it anew
administrative record is everything that was considered by the Zo
plus anything else you consider relevant.
ner Hawkins noted the Commission is required to consider t
action, the appeal and then anything else we may consider,
E*
Harp answered yes with some standard applied as to relevancy.
Nichols continued:
Is consideration by the Planning Commission quasi - judicial in capacity?
Harp answered this is a quasi-judicial proceeding; however, the scop<
review of the lot line adjustment is very narrow as opposed to a typica
permit where it is a lot broader.
Hawkins, referring to Section 19.76.030, required findings for a
stment noting there are general findings. He then read the
Page 5 of 16
"file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 6 of 16
findings from Page 4 of the staff report that should be addressed by the
(Planning Commission.
r. Harp clarified that the Subdivision Map Act, which basically exempts to
ie adjustments and gives direction on what is supposed to be considered.
says a local agency or advisory agency shall limit the review and approva
id the determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the to
ie adjustment will conform to the local General Plan, any applicable
oastal Plan, and Zoning and Building Ordinances. To the extent tha
ose general findings apply and are taken in that context, they need to be
ad in context of what the Government Code says. Title 19 at the
)ginning says the Subdivision Map Act overcomes any difference:
)tween Title 19 and the Government Code but you need to know the
dent general health and welfare are related to the General Plan.
mmissioner Hawkins noted that in the past, the City Attorney has opined
Development Agreement law that some of those requirements may not
)ly because we are a Charter City. Does the fact that we are a Charter
y provide us any escape in connection with the Subdivision Map Act
juirements?
Harp answered, "no ".
Nichols continued:
Can the Planning Commission act outside of this hearing? This is a "de
to" hearing and everything is on the table as long as the Planning
mmission wants to hear it.
i) Can the Planning Commission take judicial notice of the fact that the
vas an application before it? Mr. Harp answered you would not be taki
udicial notice. You can consider it, but you are not judges and will not
aking judicial notice.
If the Planning Commission can take notice of prior projects, does
-lude the possibility of considering design items that were part of
✓ious project? The answer is that the project this refers to has b
idrawn; however, you can consider anything that you find relevant.
Exhibits attached to the staff report were part of the lot line. application.
:re appears to be discrepancies in the square footage on resultan
cels. The exhibit staff distributed at the beginning of the hearing depict:
correct square footage so there are some changes that will need to be
1e to the exhibits.
Regarding a "nexus" test and requirement of a dedication a
ovement of a major portion of the 15th Street right -of -way, Mr. H,
vered it is premature to be doing a "nexus" analysis on some poten
)ct that may be developed on the northerly parcel. It is infeasible
luct that analysis at this time.
Commissioner Hawkins noted it may have bearing on consideration o
consistency with the General Plan, health, safety and welfare of th
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 7 of 16
munity. That consideration, the issue of burdening a particular pa
have some impact on the analysis and decision.
r. Harp noted you cannot impose anything more onto the northerly pai
an that for which you could establish a nexus. If you move the lot line,
.ing proposed, a dedication would no longer be an available option. 1
in still require an exaction based on the proportionate impact.
oner Eaton noted his concern of the substantial shift of
right -of -way to the southerly parcel.
r. Harp answered, regarding the southerly parcel, you could not im
ore of a dedication requirement on it than is appropriate in
rcumstances when you analyze whatever is re- developed on the nort
liscussion continued on future City needs if 15th Street was developed
rith Banning Ranch, nexus test, and development impacts.
ir. Nichols continued:
) When was property annexed to the City? 1980.
0) When did the City's Subdivision Ordinance first start requiring City
pproval for the division of less than 4 parcels? Staff unable to obtain that
1) Assessor's Map of area dated 1990 shows no delineation of parcels.
/hen was the single parcel divided into two parcels? Assessor's Map:
how boundary lines for the purpose of assessing taxes and do no
stablish lot lines. Any information on that map does not necessarily givt
roof of where the lot line exists, which is another reason for the exhibi
istributed earlier as well as the Title Report.
mmissioner Hawkins asked for documentation of Lot 1016.
Nichols answered it has never been subdivided. At some point in
A that portion of the lot was deeded to someone else. Exchanges s
this often happened without any other legal instrument.
mmissioner Hawkins discussed common ownership with an appl
a lot line adjustment, is the signature or the consent of the
,perty owner not necessary?
Or. Nichols answered that the applicant has said that he owned that
n September of last year. Therefore, the entire lot belongs to the apl
mmissioner Hawkins asked about the Zoning
;umentation of ownership.
Nichols answered the Title Report is required.
" file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2007 \mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 8 of 16
)mmissioner Hawkins noted the documentation of the lot line
not complete.
Harp answered that the property had the applicant owned be
)erties when the application was submitted. Both properties adjacent
right -of- way were part of the application.
)iscussion continued on the Title Report, lot line application, property
wners, and Zoning Administrator requirements.
1r. Nichols continued:
2) Did subdivision occur prior to the City annexation?
J Commission inquiry, Mr. Harp noted that parcels 1016 and 1017 were
stablished by the 1915 recording of the parcel map. The street was
ubsequently vacated; there is a presumption in the Civil Code that the
roperty line runs to the middle of the street and half goes to each parcel.
'he applicant has submitted some evidence, and we are still in the process
f reviewing it, arguing that the whole street vacation went to the souther)
arcel and that, in fact, the lot line was established at the edge of the right -
f -way on the northerly side. According to the Preliminary Title Report, the
)t line does run down the middle of the vacated right -of -way.
missioner Eaton noted the abandonment occurred when it was in the
ity, Wasn't the line set when the County made the abandonment?
did the applicant say it was a City error?
Harp answered the applicant could answer that. The Civil
imption is it runs down the middle of the street. It is a rebu
imption, but that is the presumption. At the time the street
ted there was joint ownership of the two parcels.
imissioner Hawkins noted the Title Report says the lot line goes
middle of the abandoned right -of -way. Why are we requiring a
ort if somehow the lot line depicted here does not mean anything?
i Cole noted this is a legal lot line. There is no record of a
indicating that this might not be a legal lot line.
Harp answered that there is likely a lot line there.
Stanley Lamport, representing the applicant, gave a PowerPoint out
history of the Lot Line Adjustment appeal. He commented that they
waiving, by presenting tonight, any jurisdictional issues that v
ussed with respect to whether the hearing occurred and
emission does or does not have jurisdiction.
Lot line adjustment is viewed as a ministerial act.
Subdivision Map Act governs and supersedes ordinances to
extent that ordinances are inconsistent for Charter Cities as well
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 9 of 16
General Law Cities. He continued to discuss the Map Act.
This application deals with two existing legal lots.
The County vacated 15th Street right -of -way in 1967. The
building was built with improvements across the vacated rig
way.
His client was told that the City considered the boundary to be 1
centerline of the abandoned right -of -way. A Title Report w
provided to show this, consistent with Public Work determination
where the lot line exists.
)ner Hawkins noted Exception 8 of the Title Report dealing with
parking agreement. Discussion continued on:
• The reason and purpose for this reciprocal parking agreement that
was dated in 1974;
• Common ownership and rights;
• A potential sale of the southerly parcel;
• Burden on northern parcel;
• No single ownership of all the improvements on the southern parcel;
• Adjustment of boundaries so that all the improvements associated
with the office building would be on one parcel;
• Loss of land on the northerly parcel;
• Possible configuration of the parking lot.
r. Lamport continued with his PowerPoint outline:
The building improvements would be on 2 lots if the lot line is at th
centerline resulting in the improvements encroaching on the norther
parcel.
The lot line adjustment would ensure that the building im
are on a single parcel and would eliminate the en
problem;
The original subdivision plot was referenced where two lots
created with the 15th Street right -of -way; two lots were
common ownership when the right -of -way was vacated;
Chronology of vacation and legal description with 60' right -of -way
abandoned 15th Street;
County allowed landowner to include the right -of -way within
" file:// N:\A ppsI WEBDATA1lnternetlPlnAgendas 120071mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
'Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 10 of 16
southern parcel;
City recognizes that the boundary is at the centerline of the vac
right -of -way; hence, office building improvements now encroach
northerly parcel creating a problem when the properties are sold;
Lot line adjustment solution would restore the boundary to
description in the building site plan and place all of the buil
improvements on the same parcel, and eliminate the encroachr
problem;
Lot line adjustment is not inconsistent with the General Plan and
consistent with required findings;
Lot line adjustment does not violate CEQA; the decision of relo
a lot line inherently has no physical impact on the environment;
The applicant has withdrawn the subdivision application due to ai
existing five -year lease on the southern parcel. There was no way t
proceed with a subdivision of that property without breaking a lease;
Their plan is to pursue an exit strategy and dispose of the property;
The lot line adjustment would not necessarily result in
development;
The City would still have the ability to require a dedication of th;
right -of -way; who owns it is not relevant to the question of whether
is required to reasonably develop the property on either side;
We are trying to clean up this situation and ask that this lot
adjustment be approved.
mmissioner Eaton noted his concern of authenticity of description
plans.
Lamport answered no jurisdiction will allow someone to take prope
is on another parcel and include it in a development because y
A have encroachment issues. When the County approved t
elopment the access was located on the vacated right -of -way. It w
erstood at that time that the right -of -way would be included as part
property; this is the legal description that accompanies the site plan tl
submitted to the City as part of the process to get building approval.
iissioner Eaton noted this was the County, not the City. He
his concern about this legal description.
on continued on the chronology and how the property
d on the documents submitted for approval; improvements on
current and continued use of access for both parcels, and pos;
i related to this access.
"file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas12007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 11 of 16
missioner Hillgren asked about the timeline of the Reciproca
:ment Agreement (REA), which was in 1974. He noted it seems the
ing might have been built out of compliance if the REA wasn't in place.
Ir. Lamport answered that what was intended at the time was that the
)ht -of -way was part of the property, otherwise, you would have an issue.
would be an odd state if the City or County would allow construction of of
fice building and say it is okay to have your required access for the:
gilding off -site. It seems obvious what was going through the minds then.
Harp noted for clarification, issues regarding the location of the lot line
e generally discussed prior to the applicant coming into the Zoninc
iinistrator for the lot line adjustment. Detailed information such as the
ling plan and things of that nature were not submitted until after the
ing Administrator had made his decision. The applicant's argument is
the lot line adjustment is already up at the top of the northerly parcel.
t hasn't been fully analyzed and to some extent is irrelevant because
f are here to move the lot line because they acknowledge that there is
ie ambiguity about where the lot line is. This is an interesting subjec
.it hasn't been fully analyzed by our office and we are still waiting fo
itional documentation.
Lamport noted this has become an issue and we are trying to solve it.
imissioner Peotter questioned why this issue was in front of
emission at all, as it seems a reasonable request and meets
litions of the Code. Outside of the technicalities of the noticing or
ication, I don't understand why it is being appealed.
ion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded
nmissioner Toerge, to uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval
Line Adjustment LA2007 -002 and deny the appeal.
nmissioner McDaniel noted his concern about a real legal description
i some identification of where the line is. There should be real data to
ompany this approval with a real legal description.
maker of the Motion agreed to make this part of the motion.
)lic comment was opened.
)lic comment was closed.
nmissioner Hawkins noted:
. The reason for my appeal had nothing to do with the documentation
that has been provided.
. The appeal occurred because, from my perspective, the appli
was trying to do an end -run around the Planning Department and
planning processes of the City.
" file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet\PlnAgendas \2007 \mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 1 Page 12 of 16
. The concern in connection with the development of the overall
was a concern by the applicant over dedication requirements.
. The applicant was told to revise the project and Mr. Lamport
they decided to withdraw the southerly parcel. We don't have
documentation.
• We have a letter from the applicant that purports to withdraw the
entire application which covers both the northerly and southerly
portion of the project.
• That withdrawal occurred after the appeal.
• From my perspective, nothing is relevant after the appeal.
• We are back in the "shoes" of the Zoning Administrator.
• Mr. Lamport has said that the lot line project is exempt, but on th
other hand argues that it is not even a project. I think the secon
position is erroneous.
. It is clear it is a project and it is clear that it is not exempt.
. He distributed copes of a description of "Project" under the CE(
Guidelines and the McQueen Court of Appeal case. He proceeded
read and refer to the exhibit on "Project" and relayed how t
application was pending when the Zoning Administrator made I
decision.
He then relayed how the McQueen case would apply if looking at tt
issue and the withdrawal of the project and how it would relate to
reasonably foreseeable project on the development of the northei
parcel.
. He then referred to the specific findings and noted this would interk
with the development of 15th Street as it would transfer the burden
the southerly parcel. He noted this conflicts with the General PI
and Circulation Element.
The noticing issues raised in the appeal need to be addressed by
Planning Department. The timing of the mailing, the erroneous r
and the notice of this decision under Title 20 was misleading.
asked how these issues were going to be addressed, if at all.
staff report notes that these are inconsequential.
Ir. Lepo noted that Commissioner Hawkins raised some good points.
rocedural changes will be made as to the mailing process under the
oning Administrator. As far as the erroneous map, we will probably delete
iat because it is redundant and serves no purpose. An update of Title 2(
going on now and a lot of that update includes administrative procedura
ems. The only noticing that is different are decisions on Parcel anc
entative Tract Maps Lot Line Adjustments are not mentioned. This is m)
"file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2007\mnO5-03-07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 13 of 16
i concern, the procedural administrative items and how issues such
are addressed.
nmissioner Hawkins noted the deletion of the map is not acceptable.
many of the parcels in subdivisions it is essential to have that map t(
ite where you are. Rather than deleting it, I would require that the mar
in and be accurate, and I will push for this as part of the update
;edure. I find those maps helpful.
imissioner Toerge noted that as to the CEQA discussion, on
herly parcel it appears that under any circumstance the taking of
-of -way would render the southerly parcel non - conforming
orkable as the 104 foot right -of -way runs through the building. Mop
property line north and putting all the right -of -way on this prop
;n't change anything. Even with the property line the way it is with
al use of that right -of -way the southerly property is rendered r
orming or not even able to be there. The fact that it is all on
erty changes nothing.
ioner Eaton reiterated his concern of the access of the
sioner Toerge noted that there is plenty of land for the owner of
1 property to take access off Monrovia anywhere he wants to.
s a property issue. This property is not landlocked and can hs
It can be handled by cutting a driveway or working out a recipro
easement, but the Planning Commission should not dictate t
)mmissioner Peotter noted that we could say a City approved access
List be maintained, then give the property owner the flexibility of how to
thieve that. This would have to meet building ordinances.
iairman Cole asked if this would be an amendment to the motion.
)mmissioner Peotter answered we should ask staff how to achieve this.
r. Harp noted that for a condition like this that you need to find a link to tie
into the Zoning Code or General Plan. He asked for a fifteen minute
:hairman Cole asked the Commission if they wanted a break and
nswered. "no ".
Lepo suggested that the language needs to be linked to the
e that supports the need to maintain that access.
Cole noted there doesn't seem to be a majority on
n to go down that path.
nissioner Hillgren noted whatever future development will be
will be reviewed by staff. Any access issue will need to be n
"file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007
time as well as the use going in there.
Harp noted that staff has come up with the opinion that moving this
: does nothing to impact zoning related to either property. When so
are project comes in for development it will have to comply with
neral Plan and the Zoning.
imissioner Hawkins asked about the landscaping on the site plan and
loss of landscaping with the adjusted lot line location would I
:facial to parcel 1017?
Lamport answered there was landscaping shown. The line was dra
that the driveway would be part of the property. Are you asking us if
nt to move the line further northward?
nmissioner Hawkins stated that is the question. If we are cleaning th
and you are excluding landscaping that is required on the site pla
ybe you are creating more problems for yourself. I believe what shou
ipen is that you should either provide additional information or withdra
application and re-draw the line.
imissioner McDaniel noted that as long as the same person owns
els, it doesn't make a difference. If there is a new project on eit
el, there will be a new site plan and new landscaping, etc., as long
property isn't sold, there is no way to track it. If you ever go to sell ti
eone will be watching to say you better watch what your are doing
those pieces of properties. You are going to have to come up v
plans, etc.
Lamport stated they drew the line at the same point the line was c
the site plan. Whatever exists on one side or the other and wha
evolved since 1967 is whatever it is. We really want to get a fixed,
)ated boundary where we know where the sides of the line are.
nmissioner Toerge noted the site plan does not show landscape on tl
)erty line nor on the westerly property line that abuts the Banning Rar
)erty. So, that issue about including landscape doesn't really matter.
0 required at the time and is on the other property and it doesn't sei
southerly parcel according to this plan. I am ready to vote.
is to deny the appeal and uphold the decision 'of the Zo
rator with appropriate legal descriptions.
Lepo noted the conditions of the original approval require that the I
cription go to the public surveyor in Public Works to validate that
uments are leqal and to be recorded.
yes: Peotter, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
Noes: Eaton and Hawkins
Excused: None
BUSINESS
Page 14 of 16
" file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas \2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 15 of 16
City-Council Follow -up
Mr. Lepo noted that at the last meeting, the City Council updat
establishing a new Quimby or park in -lie fee that is assesse
against each new residential unit was continued because th
Building Industry Association submitted comments on our origina
appraisal and staff needed time for analysis. It is slated to be hear
on May 8th; the moratorium dealing with all forms of transito
housing was put in place. Staff will be back on May 22nd with a
ordinance to address these uses and problems.
Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Committee
Commissioner Hawkins noted they will have a presentation on the
economic development study in June, a discussion on the budget will
by in May.
Rep
-ort from the Planning Commission's representative to the
General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee
Commissioner Eaton noted that the Committee talked about coastal
bluffs at the last meeting. It was determined the work that the prior
LCP Implementation Committee regarding predominant line o
development had done was still valid. This committee asked staff t
draw lines in all areas where the predominant line of developmen
would apply, including canyons and bluff faces. Grades and buildin
heights will be discussed at the next meeting.
Report from-, the Planning Commission's representative_to _ th
Intensive Residential Occu aanncy Committee
Commissioner Toerge reported no meeting.
Matters which a Planning. Commissioner would like Staff to report or
at subsequent meeting
Commissioner Toerge noted he had been contacted by resident
(Deans) who had a complaint about the operation of the Albertson'
in Corona del Mar. The question of employee parking and truc
access are the issues, and Albertson's may not be operating withi
their conditions of approval. He asked for an update an
confirmation on whether or not the 24 employee parking passes tha
Albertson's is obligated to purchase annually since the approval in
1999. Mr. Lepo answered that the permit issue will be addressed at
the next meeting and the following meeting will have an assessment
of the other issues that the Deans have raised.
Matters which a Planning_ Commissioner may wish to place on
future agenda for action and staff report
None
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn05- 03- 07.htm 0612012008
'Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 16 of 16
Project status
None.
Requests for. excused absences
Following a brief discussion, the Commission determined that th
week of July 2nd will be dark for the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:50 P.M.
ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/20/2008