HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0_DeCaro Residence_PA2020-072
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
January 21, 2021
Agenda Item No. 5
SUBJECT: DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
▪ Variance No. VA2020-002
▪ Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-021 SITE LOCATION: 5406 and 5408 Neptune Avenue APPLICANT: RA Jeheber Residential Design, Inc. OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Robert DeCaro PLANNER: Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner
pachis@newportbeachca.gov, 949-644-3237
PROJECT SUMMARY
A variance and coastal development permit to allow a 1,732-square-foot addition to an
existing 1,989-square-foot duplex. The addition would encroach 5 feet into the required
10-foot rear yard setback and 15-foot third floor rear stepback.
Implementation of the project would result in a 29-foot-tall, three-story, 3,137-square-foot duplex with an attached 584-square-foot, three-car garage and one tandem carport. Except for the requested rear setback and corresponding stepback deviations, the project
would comply with all other development standards such as floor area, height limits, and
setbacks.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Article 19, of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 3 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential
to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-003 approving Variance No. VA2020-002 and Coastal
Development Permit No. CD2020-021 (Attachment No. PC 1).
1
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 2
VICINITY MAP
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
ON-SITE Two-Unit Residential (RT) Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Duplex
NORTH Single-Unit Residential (RS-D) Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Single-unit dwellings
SOUTH RT R-2 Duplexes
EAST RT R-2 Duplexes
WEST Multiple-Unit Residential
(RM)
Multiple-Unit Residential
(RM)
24-Unit Condominium
Development
Subject
Property
3
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Project Location and Setting
The subject property and surrounding area were initially subdivided in 1905. In 1958, the
subject property and the two lots immediately east were re-subdivided. The re-subdivision
caused the lots to have two street frontages rather than having two rear yards abutting
one another. The subject parcel averages 34 feet in width and 107 feet in depth (3,668 square feet in area). Surrounding uses of the site are single-family residences to the north,
two-unit residences to the east and south, and a 24-unit condominium complex to the
west. See Figure 1 for a visual depiction of the re-subdivision and neighborhood context.
The property is currently developed with a 1,989-square-foot, two-story duplex and an attached one-story covered carport, first constructed in 1960. Most of the existing
structure is two stories, concentrated at the center of the lot. Site photos are provided in
Attachment No. PC 3.
Figure 1. Project Vicinity. View of the subject property (in red), facing south. Yellow indicates the block subject to the 1958 re-subdivision.
River Avenue
24-Unit
Condos
R-2
R-2
R-1 R-1
R-2
4
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 4
Project Description
Proposed is a variance and coastal development permit to allow a 1,732-square-foot
addition to an existing 1,989-square-foot duplex and reduce the Code-required rear yard
setback and third floor stepback. A stepback is an additional offset of a wall of building
feature beyond the minimum setback line and intended to reduce third-floor bulk. The
proposed project includes the following:
● Demolition of a two-car carport to construct a new Code-compliant three-car
garage and one covered tandem carport space on the first level;
● Construction of a new third floor with 280-square-feet of habitable area and an
unfinished attic;
● Addition of 868 square feet between the first and second floors;
● Construction of new patios and decks on the second and third floors; and
● A complete remodel of the existing duplex.
The variance request would allow two deviations: (1) encroachment of 5 feet into the
required 10-foot rear setback along River Avenue; and, (2) encroachment of 5 feet into
the required 15-foot third floor stepback along River Avenue. See Figures 2 and 3 for clarification on requested encroachments.
The applicant’s project description and justification are provided in Attachment No. PC 2.
Project plans are enclosed as Attachment No. PC 6 and include additional information on
the site, the location and height of the existing structures, and the proposed layout of the
three-story duplex.
Intentionally left blank
5
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 5
Figure 2. Site Plan and Setback Encroachment. Yellow area indicates 5-foot encroachment
into the rear setback. Apart from the requested rear setback and stepback deviations, the project
would comply with all remaining development standards as depicted in Table 1.
Figure 3. Third Floor Plan and Stepback Encroachment. Yellow area indicates 5-foot
encroachment of living area into the rear third floor stepback. Attics, stairs, and covered patios are not subject to stepbacks. Stepbacks are measured from the setback line.
20’ Front SB
6
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 6
Background
General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Code
The site is designated as Two-Unit Residential Detached (RT) by the General Plan Land
Use Element and Two Unit Residential Detached – 20.0 - 29.9 DU/AC (RT-D) by the
Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). It is also located within the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and Coastal Zoning Districts. The duplex is a permitted use under these
land use designations. As noted, except for the requested variance for rear setback
encroachment and rear third-floor stepback, the proposed duplex complies with all other
applicable development standards of the R-2 Zoning and Coastal Zoning Districts as
illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1: Zoning and Coastal Zoning Development Standards
Development Feature Required Existing Proposed
Setbacks (min.)
Front
Rear * Left Side (West) Right Side (East)
20’
10’
3’ 3’
20’
10’
3’ 3’
20’
5’**
3’ 3’
Height (max.) Flat
Sloped
24’
29’
21’
N/A
24’
29’
Open Space (min.) 326 sq. ft. Exceeded 767 sq. ft.
3rd Floor Area (max.) 326 sq. ft. No 3rd Floor 280 sq. ft.
3rd Floor Stepback (min)* Front Rear
Sides
15’ 15’
0’
No 3rd Floor 15’ 10’**
0’
Floor Area Limit (max.) 4,350 sq. ft. 1,989 sq. ft. 3,737 sq. ft.
Parking (min.) 3 spaces 2 spaces 3 spaces
**Indicates variance request.
Clarification of Front Setback Location
Each zoning district has a distinct set of development standards that control allowable
height, floor area, setbacks, and others, at a given site. The R-2 zoning district prescribes a front default setback of 20 feet unless the adopted setback maps identify a smaller
setback. Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.30.110 and
Implementation Plan (IP) Section 21.30.1110, all setback areas identified on setback
maps are regulated as front setback areas. However, as illustrated in Figure 4 below, the
subject property is only one of three through lots (bounded by streets on either end) not
7
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 7
identified with a reduced setback (less than the 20-foot default setback prescribed by the
Zoning Code text) on Setback Map S-1B.
Figure 4. Excerpt of Setback Map S-1B (West Newport). Note the subject property and the two neighbors east (in red circle) do not have a front setback called out. In turn, a default
R-2 setback of 20 feet is used. Unlike the 20-foot setback required for these three lots, all
other R-2-zoned lots between River and Neptune Avenues in the vicinity are identified by
the map that appoints reduced setbacks of 10 feet (orange).
Intentionally left blank
8
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 8
The two lots immediately east of the site (5403 River Avenue and 117 54th Street) are
nonconforming due to setbacks. Building permit records show development at these sites have not followed regular setback regulations as seen in the existing structure setbacks
of Figure 5:
Figure 5. Existing structure setbacks. Dimension call outs are the narrowest clearance from the structure to the property line).
The subject property’s 20-foot existing setback on Neptune Avenue suggests it would be regulated as the front setback. Structures on either street end at 5403 River Avenue and 117 54th Street only provide a 5- to 10-foot setback. In cases where the orientation of an
existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character
or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Community Development Director
may redefine the location of the front setback consistent with surrounding properties
9
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 9
(NBMC Section 20.30.110.C Setback Regulations and Exceptions). Based on the existing
setbacks of the neighboring structures and the orientation of the existing subject duplex,
Neptune Avenue will be considered the front setback location for the subject property, and River Avenue is regarded as the rear for the purposes of this variance.
DISCUSSION
Analysis
Variance Findings
The variance is requested to reduce the required rear yard setback and third floor
stepback of the Zoning Code and certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan. A variance is a request to waive or modify certain standards when, because of
special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size,
surroundings, topography, or other physical features, the strict application of the
development standards otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. A variance should be granted to maintain parity between the variance site and nearby
properties in the same zoning district to provide similar rights and avoid granting special
privileges to one property.
According to NBMC Section 20.52.090.F (Variances – Findings and Decision), the Planning Commission must make specific findings to approve a variance. Staff believes
sufficient facts exist to support the variance requests, and they are outlined in the draft
resolution for project approval (Attachment No. PC 1). In this case, the combination of the
front and rear setbacks applicable to the subject lot is not proportional to the lot
dimensions and setbacks applicable to other lots in the vicinity, depriving the property owner of development privileges enjoyed by the other lots. Below is a summary of facts
in support of the required findings:
1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification.
The subject property’s is uniquely disadvantaged with an oversized front setback
compared to neighboring lots in the vicinity. Both the Zoning Code and Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Program establish a default front setback requirement of 20
feet, unless a reduced setback is shown on an official setback map. The purpose of a
setback map is to refine the default setbacks appropriately within the context of a
neighborhood’s character and general orientation. Of the 86 R-2-zoned parcels to the north and south of Neptune Avenue, the subject property is only one of three lots not identified on the S-1B Setback Map (West Newport) with reduced setbacks (as shown in
10
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 10
Figure 4). The S-1B Setback Map in its entirety is included as Attachment No. PC 4. As
mentioned, the subject property and the other two lots unacknowledged by the setback
map were part of a re-subdivision that produced a unique lot configuration.
Because the setback map does not establish a reduced front yard setback similar to other
lots in the area, the more restrictive default front setback of 20 feet applies to the property.
In addition to the 20-foot default front setback, a rear yard setback of 10-feet is required
on River Avenue. In this way, the property dedicates a considerable setback depth of 30-feet (front plus rear setback), which is unusual for the area. Other lots would have a 10-
foot front yard and a 10-foot rear yard setback (20 feet combined). Compared to other
properties in the area under the same zoning classification, the combined setback depth
for the property is 50 percent larger.
Most properties surrounding the subject site enjoy much shorter front setbacks, ranging
from 5 to 10 feet for other R-2-zoned properties along both sides of Neptune Avenue and
0 to 5 feet for the larger R-1 zoned properties north of River Avenue. The lots also are
required to provide rear setbacks of 10 feet, resulting in combined front and rear setbacks
ranging from only 15 feet to 20 feet. The third-floor rear stepback is measured from the rear setback line. Since the proposal would encroach 5 feet into the rear setback, the
proposal would correspondingly also encroach 5 feet into the third-floor rear stepback.
2.Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an
identical zoning classification.
The subject property’s unusually large setbacks reduce the area where a structure can
be located on the site (also known as the buildable area). Out of all the R-2-zoned lots
north of Neptune Avenue, the subject lot dedicates the highest percentage of lot area to setbacks at 58 percent, resulting in only 42 percent of the lot as buildable area. See
Attachment No. PC 5 illustrating the buildable area percentage of lots in the vicinity. .
On average, the subject property has 7 to 11 percent more lot area dedicated to setbacks
than the other lots on Neptune Avenue. Typical setback dedications along Neptune
Avenue are 31 to 39 percent (or 61 to 69 percent in buildable area). Figure 6 below shows a study area of R-2-zoned lots most similar in depth to the subject site, which
occurs at the 4900 block on Neptune Avenue’s north side. On this block, lots
measure a depth of 109 feet, but only 35 percent of the lot area is dedicated to
setbacks. At a similar lot depth of 107 feet, the subject lot is deprived of 7 percent of
buildable area compared to the 4900 block. With the proposed 5-foot rear setback, the subject lot’s area dedicated to setbacks would be roughly 2 percent higher (or total
setback dedication of 60%) than others along Neptune Avenue. The property’s
combined setback depth is higher than other similarly zoned lots in the area and may
warrant relief through a variance.
11
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 11
Figure 6. Study Area located on 4900 block of Neptune Avenue to show impact of setbacks on similar sized lots. Percentages are of buildable area and, thus, these lots dedicate an area 35% to setbacks.
Although the two neighboring lots on the block share the same default 20-foot front setback, neither property complies. The structure at 5403 River Avenue is legal
nonconforming under an approved modification permit request (PA2002-055) from 2002
that allowed both a 5-foot front setback off River Avenue and a 10-foot rear setback on
Neptune Avenue. River Avenue’s designation as the front setback for the 5403 site was
only for the purposes of the modification permit request that allowed an encroachment to be 5 feet away from the property line off River Avenue. This allowance was granted based
on the setbacks maintained by the structures and carports along River Avenue, including
consistency with the subject site. The modification permit did not change the setbacks for
the subject block. As explained previously, development at the subject property and the
two neighbors east have not followed regular setbacks. The 5403 River Avenue site provides an approximate combined setback depth of 15 feet (front setback plus rear
setback). While City records for 117 54th Street are limited, GIS analysis of the
nonconforming structure approximates existing setbacks of 10 feet for River Avenue and
8.5 feet for Neptune Avenue frontages (combined 18.5-foot setback depth). Setback
depths for 5403 River Avenue and 117 54th Street are more consistent with the allowable setbacks elsewhere along Neptune Avenue than the subject site.
12
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 12
3.Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
Granting of the variance would bring the property into greater parity with existing
development allowances of the two neighbors on the same block (5403 River Avenue
and 117 54th Street) and the allowed development standards of other R-2 lots in the
vicinity. Without approval of the proposed variance for the reduced rear setback, the subject property is unduly penalized, and required to provide more yard space than is
required than the surrounding lots.
Combined, the default front and rear setbacks for the property constrain redevelopment
at the site an additional 10 to 15 feet beyond what other properties in the vicinity enjoy. Whereas nearly all other R-2-zoned sites along Neptune Avenue use a combined
setback depth of 15 to 20 feet (front setback plus rear setback), the subject property of
similar size is disadvantaged with a total setback depth of 30 feet. Granting a 5-foot rear
yard setback and associated 5-foot third floor rear stepback would achieve a scope of
work that ensures the preservation of the applicant’s property rights. The goal of the proposed development and variance encroachment requests are to achieve an equal
standing with similar properties along Neptune Avenue, including the two neighboring
properties. The proposed project has design features typical of a duplex, such as
garages, decks and patios, and living area.
4.Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
The variance will not constitute a special privilege in that the requested 5-foot
encroachment results in a combined front and rear setback depth of 25 feet. This
combined setback depth is greater than the combined front setback depth of other R-2
lots in the vicinity ranging from 15 feet (5-foot front/10-foot rear) and 20 feet (10-foot front/10-foot rear). Although the two adjacent lots located at 5403 River Avenue and 117th
54th Street are similarly impacted with the same 20-foot front and 10-foot rear default
setbacks (30-depth combined), the two properties are nonconforming and provide
reduced combined front and rear setback depths of 15 feet and 18.5 feet respectively.
5.Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City,
nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health,
interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
The massing of the proposed variance encroachments is visually mitigated by the existing
right-of-way. An unusually wide sidewalk and planter right-of-way separates the River
Avenue curb face and the subject property (Figure 7). The typical sidewalk right-of-way
width in the area, including in front of R-2 lots north of Neptune Avenue, is approximately
6 feet (Figure 8). The sidewalk and planter right-of-way between the subject site and the River Avenue curb face is 17 feet. This right-of-way serves as an additional setback. It
13
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 13
creates the appearance that the building is positioned farther back, which reduces the
visual mass of the duplex as viewed from River Avenue.
Figure 7. Unusually wide right-of-way Figure 8. Typical 6-foot right-of-way
Subject Lot Example Neptune Drive
The design, including the proposed floor area, maintains a bulk and scale that is
consistent with other allowable development on lots immediately around the subject lot.
West of the site is a 26-unit multi-family development (Echo Beach) that averages almost
33 feet in height. Two structures of Echo Beach abut the site and are located within 10 to 14 feet of the subject structure. Directly east, the duplex next door at 5403 River Avenue is three stories, 29-feet tall, and developed with 4,656 square feet of gross floor area. To
the north, two single-family developments opposite of the site, across River Avenue, have
a 0-foot front setback with structures built to the lot line.
6.Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of thissection, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
The R-2 zoning designation of the subject site intends to preserve and protect the neighborhood’s residential character. Required setbacks and third-floor stepbacks ensure
appropriate scale and mass for construction, and they provide light and air to circulate.
Without reducing the required rear setback and stepback, the proposed project would
have a combined front/rear setback depth of 30 feet and is more extensive than other lots
in the area. Consequently, redevelopment at the site would not follow setbacks and stepbacks of the existing neighborhood development, in which a shorter setback depth of
only 15 to 20 feet is required. Per General Plan Land Use Policy LU 5.1.1 (Compatible
but Diverse Development), the variance request would afford the proposed project
amenities and features allowed by the R-2 zoning. In conformance with General Plan
Policy LU 5.1.5 (Character and Quality of Two-Family Residential Dwellings), the
14
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 14
proposed variance request would provide similar setbacks for the property consistent with
the others identically zoned along Neptune Avenue. The proposed variance request does
not increase the maximum floor area allowed and results in development consistent with neighboring lots of similar size, located within the same zoning designation.
Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
The property is located within the Coastal Zone. Since the project does not comply with
the setback and stepback standards, a coastal development permit is needed. If the design were to comply, the project would be excluded from obtaining a CDP. NBMC
Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standard) sets forth
the required additional findings and considerations for approving a variance within the
Coastal Zone. While many of the findings overlap with those in Title 20 Planning and
Zoning, there are distinct considerations primarily for the protection of coastal resources, public access, and public views.
The project site does not have any coastal resources on or adjacent to it. It also does not
provide any form of public access, nor does it provide any obstruction from any nearby
public viewpoints to the coast. The Coastal Land Use Plan identifies the closest public
coastal viewpoints are over 1,000 feet northwest and east of the site at Newport Shores Park and Sunset Ridge Park. Public views from Newport Shores Park do not orient toward
the site, and the property is not located within the direct viewshed of Sunset Ridge Park.
As such, the project will not impact public views. The subject site is located on an inland
lot north of the beach and is consistent with the current and future development pattern
in the area. The existing residential lot does not currently provide nor inhibit public coastal access. The property is more than 200 feet from the nearest public beach and the
proposed development will remain a private residential lot.
The requested 5-foot encroachment into the 10-foot rear setback accommodates the
addition of two additional Code-compliant parking spaces. The additional parking serves to reduce demand for on-street public parking in the area that is commonly utilized for
beach access, thereby improving access in the area.
As staff analyzed in this report, the required findings to approve the variance and coastal
development permit can be made in the affirmative and are detailed in the attached Draft Resolution (Attachment No. PC 1).
Third Floor Residential Design Considerations
On December 8, 2020, the City Council adopted a code amendment (Ordinance No. 2020-28) to update residential design standards related to regulating the bulk and
articulation of structures. The project is not subject to the amended residential design
standards based on the date the application was submitted and deemed complete.
15
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 15
Revisions to Reduce Bulk and Mass
Throughout the subject application process, staff provided several recommendations to the applicant to incorporate some articulation and modulation of third-floor mass to
minimize the visual bulk of the proposed third story façade facing River Avenue. In
response, the applicant made the following modifications to the plans:
•An over height, 33-foot-tall architectural tower was removed from the variance
request and replaced with a covered open deck area;
•The mansard roof on top of the unfinished attic was redesigned with a lower roof
slope to avoid the appearance of a wall; and
•The third-floor deck cover was pulled back approximately 2 feet from the edge of
deck to provide a slight vertical offset of the highest portion of the structure.
Other suggested changes to improve the design included transparent guardrails or opaque materials, such as wrought iron, where rails provide at least 40 percent open to
minimize visual bulk. Due to architectural integrity, the applicant was not willing to provide
said guardrail materials. Implementation of the recommended changes have improved
the project design since the initial submittal. As discussed, staff can make the required
findings supporting the requested variance and coastal development permit based on the final version of the proposed plans (Attachment No. PC 6).
Intentionally left blank
16
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 16
Summary
Staff finds the project is consistent with both the Newport Beach Zoning Code and certified Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan as discussed in the analyses above. Except
for the requested variance, the proposed development is consistent with the site’s land
use designations.
Ultimately, the reduced rear setback and third floor stepback are necessary to accommodate a reasonably sized addition to the existing duplex that includes providing
two additional Code-compliant parking spaces (four spaces total) and maintaining a
compliant front setback facing Neptune Avenue. Granting the variance will allow the
expansion of an existing duplex within the allowable floor area limit and will result in a
structure that equitably utilizes its lot area like other R-2 lots in the surrounding area.
Alternatives
Staff recommends approval based on the required findings for approval of a variance and
coastal development permit; however, the following alternative actions are available for the Commission:
1.Should the Planning Commission determine that there are insufficient facts to
support one or more of the findings for approval, the Planning Commission must
tentatively deny the application and continue the meeting to allow staff to return witha draft resolution for denial.
2.The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes to the project design that
are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any requested changes are substantial, the
Planning Commission should continue the item to a future meeting to allow aredesign or additional analysis. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so,
staff would return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or
conditions.
Environmental Review
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because
it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small structures, including a
1,732 square foot addition to an existing duplex located within the R-2 (Two-Unit
Residential) Zoning District.
The exceptions to this categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15300.2 are not
applicable. The project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or
17
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Planning Commission, January 21, 2021 Page 17
critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on
the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within
a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property and residential occupants within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding
intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the
subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the
provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this
meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions PC 2 Applicant’s Project Justification
PC 3 Applicant’s Photos and Exhibits
PC 4 Setback Map No. S-1B
PC 5 Buildable Areas in the Vicinity PC 6 Project Plans
18
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions
19
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE20
RESOLUTION NO. PC2021-003
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING VARIANCE
NO. VA2020-002 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
CD2020-021 TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISITING
DUPLEX LOCATED AT 5406 AND 5408 NEPTUNE AVENUE
(PA2020-072)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1.An application was filed by RA Jeheber Residential Design, Inc. (“Applicant”) on behalf of
Robert E. DeCaro and Lenora DeCaro, husband and wife as Community Property Owners
(“Owner”) with respect to property located at 5406 and 5408 Neptune Avenue, in the City
of Newport Beach, and legally described as Lots 7 and 8, Block 54, River Section, as per
map recorded in Book 4, Page 25 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the Counter
Recorder, as more specifically described on Exhibit “A,” attached (“Property”).
2.A variance and coastal development permit to allow a 1,732-square-foot addition to an
existing 1,989-square-foot duplex. The addition would encroach 5 feet into the required
10-foot rear yard setback and 15-foot third floor rear stepback. Implementation of the
project would result in a 29-foot-tall, three-story, 3,137-square-foot duplex with an
attached 584-square-foot, three-car garage and one tandem carport. Except for the
requested rear setback and corresponding stepback deviations, the project would
comply with all other development standards such as floor area, height limits, and
setbacks.
3.The Property is designated Two Unit Residential (RT) by the City of Newport Beach
General Plan (“General Plan”) Land Use Element and is located within the Two Unit
Residential (R-2) Zoning District.
4.The Property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is
Two Unit Residential (RT-D) - (20.0 - 29.9 DU/AC) and it is located within the Two Unit
Residential (R-2) Coastal Zone District.
5.A public hearing was held online on January 21, 2021, due to the Declaration of a State
Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with California Government
Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapters 20.62 and 21.62
(Public Hearings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”). Evidence, both
written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this
hearing.
21
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 2 of 16
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1.This Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 15303, Article 19, of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion
of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a
significant effect on the environment.
2.Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small structures, including
an addition to a residential duplex. The proposed project is a 1,732 square foot addition
to an existing duplex located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District.
3.The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not applicable.
The Project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical
concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the
environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within
a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical
resource.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
Variance
In accordance with NBMC Subsection 20.52.090(F) (Variances – Findings and Decision), the
following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A.There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical
zoning classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1.The subject property is uniquely disadvantaged with an oversized front setback
compared to neighboring lots in the vicinity. Both the Zoning Code and Implementation
Plan of the Local Coastal Program establish a default front setback requirement of 20
feet, unless a reduced setback is shown on an official setback map. Of the 86 R-2-zoned
parcels to the north and south of Neptune Avenue, the subject property is only one of
three lots not identified on the S-1B Setback Map (West Newport) with reduced
setbacks. The subject property and the other two lots unacknowledged by the setback
map were part of a re-subdivision that produced a unique lot configuration.
2.Because the setback map does not establish a reduced front yard setback similar to
other lots in the area, the more restrictive default front setback of 20 feet applies to the
property. In addition to the 20-foot default front setback, a rear yard setback of 10-feet
22
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 3 of 16
is required on River Avenue. In this way, the property dedicates a considerable setback
depth of 30-feet (front plus rear setback), which is unusual for the area. Other lots would
have a 10-foot front yard and a 10-foot rear yard setback (20 feet combined). Compared
to other properties in the area under the same zoning classification, the combined
setback depth for the property is 50 percent larger.
3.Most properties surrounding the subject site enjoy much shorter front setbacks, ranging
from 5 to 10 feet for other R-2-zoned properties along both sides of Neptune Avenue
and 0 to 5 feet for the larger R-1 zoned properties north of River Avenue. The lots also
are required to provide rear setbacks of 10 feet, resulting in combined front and rear
setbacks ranging from only 15 feet to 20 feet. The third-floor rear stepback is measured
from the rear setback line. Since the proposal would encroach 5 feet into the rear
setback, the proposal would correspondingly also encroach 5 feet into the third-floor
rear stepback.
4.Considering the lot is similarly sized and oriented to other R-2-zoned lots along Neptune
Avenue and River Avenue, the default setbacks of the Property are disproportionate and
constitutes substantial deprivation and unnecessary hardship for improvements to the
property.
Finding:
B.Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning
classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1.See Facts in Support of Findings A.1 to A.4.
2.Without the requested setback and third floor stepback relief, application of the default20-foot front setback and 10-foot rear setback would constitute an impingement on the
Applicant’s right to develop the Property.
3.The subject property’s unusually large setbacks reduce the area where a structure can
be located on the site (also known as the buildable area). Out of all the R-2-zoned lots north of Neptune Avenue, the subject lot dedicates the highest percentage of lot
area to setbacks at 58 percent, resulting in only 42 percent of the lot as buildable area.
On average, the subject property has 7 to 11 percent more lot area dedicated to
setbacks than the other lots on Neptune Avenue. Typical setback dedications along
Neptune Avenue are 31 to 39 percent (or 61 to 69 percent in buildable area).
On the 4900 block of Neptune Avenue’s north side, lots measure a depth of 109
feet, but only 35 percent of the lot area is dedicated to setbacks. At a similar lot depth of
107 feet, the subject lot is deprived of 7 percent of buildable area compared to the
4900 block. With the proposed 5-foot rear setback, the subject lot’s area dedicated to
setbacks would be roughly 2 percent higher (or total setback dedication of 60%) than
others along Neptune Avenue. The property’s combined setback depth is higher
than other similarly zoned lots in the area and may warrant relief through a
variance.
23
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 4 of 16
4.Although the two neighboring lots on the block share the same default 20-foot front
setback, neither property complies. The structure at 5403 River Avenue is legal
nonconforming under an approved modification permit request (PA2002-055) from 2002
that allowed both a 5-foot front setback off River Avenue and a 10-foot rear setback on
Neptune Avenue. River Avenue’s designation as the front setback for the 5403 site was
only for the purposes of the modification permit request that allowed an encroachment
to be 5 feet away from the property line off River Avenue. This allowance was granted
based on the setbacks maintained by the structures and carports along River Avenue,
including consistency with the subject site. The modification permit did not change the
setbacks for the subject block. As explained previously, development at the subject
property and the two neighbors east have not followed regular setbacks. The 5403 River
Avenue site provides an approximate combined setback depth of 15 feet (front setback
plus rear setback). While City records for 117 54th Street are limited, GIS analysis of the
nonconforming structure approximates existing setbacks of 10 feet for River Avenue and
8.5 feet for Neptune Avenue frontages (combined 18.5-foot setback depth). Setback
depths for 5403 River Avenue and 117 54th Street are more consistent with the allowable
setbacks elsewhere along Neptune Avenue than the subject site.
Finding:
C.Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights of the applicant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1.Without the requested setback and third floor stepback relief, application of the default
20-foot front setback and 10-foot rear setback would constitute an impingement on the
Applicant’s right to develop the Property. As mentioned, the subject site is among three
(3)out of 86 R-2-zoned properties along Neptune Avenue not identified on the S-1B
Setback Map with reduced setbacks. Granting of the variance would bring the property
into greater parity with existing development allowances of the two (2) neighbors on the
same block (5403 River Avenue and 117 54th Street) and with the allowed development
standards of other R-2 lots in the vicinity.
2.Combined, the default front and rear setbacks for the property constrain redevelopment
at the site an additional 10 to 15 feet beyond what other properties in the vicinity enjoy.
Whereas nearly all other R-2-zoned sites along Neptune Avenue use a combined
setback depth of 15 to 20 feet (front setback plus rear setback), the subject property of
similar size is disadvantaged with a total setback depth of 30 feet. Granting a 5-foot rear
yard setback and associated 5-foot third floor rear stepback would achieve a scope of
work that ensures the preservation of the applicant’s property rights. The goal of the
proposed development and variance encroachment requests are to achieve an equal
standing with similar properties along Neptune Avenue, including the two neighboring
properties. The proposed project has design features typical of a duplex, such as
garages, decks and patios, and living area. Without approval of the proposed variance
for the reduced rear setback, the subject property is unduly penalized, and required to
provide more yard space than is required for other lots on Neptune Avenue.
24
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 5 of 16
Finding:
D. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege in that the requested 5-foot
encroachment results in combined front and rear setback depth of 25 feet. This
combined setback depth is greater than the combined front setback depth of other R-2
lots in the vicinity ranging from 15 feet (5-foot front/10-foot rear) and 20 feet (10-foot
front/10-foot rear).
2. Although the two (2) adjacent lots located at 5403 River Avenue and 117 54th Street are
similarly impacted with the same 20-foot front and 10-foot rear default setbacks (30-
depth combined), the two (2) properties are nonconforming and enjoy reduced
combined front and rear setback depths of 15 feet and 18.5 feet respectively.
3. See Facts in Support of Finding A.1 to A.4.
4. See Facts in Support of Finding C.1 and C.2.
Finding:
E. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of
the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public
convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Project would result in a 29-foot-tall, three (3)-story, 3,153-square-foot duplex with
an attached 584-square-foot, three (3)-car garage and one (1) tandem carport. With the
exception of the requested rear setback and third floor stepback deviations, the Project
would comply with all other development standards such as floor area, height limits, and
setbacks for the front and side yards.
2. Maximum allowed floor area for the Property is calculated based on the lot’s buildable
area; that is, the lot’s size minus the setback areas. Maximum allowed third floor area
(habitable) is calculated from buildable area as well using a percentage. Although the
variance requests a modification to the rear setback and third floor stepback, the formula
for calculating maximum allowed floor area would remain unchanged and neither
maximum gross floor area nor third floor area would be exceeded.
3. The massing of the proposed variance encroachments is visually mitigated by the
existing right-of-way. An unusually wide sidewalk and planter right-of-way separates the
25
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 6 of 16
River Avenue curb face and the subject property. The typical sidewalk right-of-way width
in the area, including in front of R-2 lots north of Neptune Avenue, is approximately 6
feet. The sidewalk and planter right-of-way between the subject site and the River
Avenue curb face is 17 feet. This right-of-way serves as an additional setback. It creates
the appearance that the building is positioned farther back, which reduces the visual
mass of the duplex as viewed from River Avenue.
4. The design, including the proposed floor area, maintains a bulk and scale that is
consistent with other allowable development on lots immediately around the subject lot.
West of the site is a 26-unit multi-family development (Echo Beach) that averages almost
33 feet in height. Two structures of Echo Beach abut the site and are located within 10
to 14 feet of the subject structure. Directly east, the duplex next door at 5403 River
Avenue is three stories, 29-feet tall, and developed with 4,656 square feet of gross floor
area. To the north, two single-family developments opposite of the site, across River
Avenue, have a 0-foot front setback with structures built to the lot line.
Finding:
F. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section,
this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Granting the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the
area, and will not result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services.
2. The R-2 zoning designation of the subject site intends to preserve and protect the
neighborhood’s residential character. Required setbacks and third-floor stepbacks
ensure appropriate scale and mass for construction, and they provide light and air to
circulate. Without reducing the required rear setback and stepback, the proposed project
would have a combined front/rear setback depth of 30 feet and is more extensive than
other lots in the area. Consequently, redevelopment at the site would not follow setbacks
and stepbacks of the existing neighborhood development, in which a shorter setback
depth of only 15 to 20 feet is required.
3. Per General Plan Land Use Policy LU 5.1.1 (Compatible but Diverse Development), the
variance request would afford the proposed project amenities and features allowed by
the R-2 zoning.
4. In conformance with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.5 (Character and Quality of Two-Family
Residential Dwellings), the proposed variance request would provide similar setbacks
for the property consistent with the others identically zoned along Neptune Avenue.
3. The Property is not located within a specific plan area.
26
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 7 of 16
Coastal Development Permit
In accordance with NBMC Subsection 21.52.015(F) (Coastal Development Permits - Findings
and Decision), the following findings and facts in support of such findings as set forth:
Finding:
G. Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. With the exception of the variance request, the proposed development complies with
applicable residential development standards including, but not limited to, front and side
setbacks, height, and parking as follows:
a. The proposed addition to the duplex complies with the height limitations of the
Zoning Code, which allows a maximum of 24 feet for flat roofs and 29 feet for
sloped roofs, measured from existing grade.
b. The existing duplex is currently nonconforming due to type and number of parking
spaces. A duplex requires four (4) parking spaces (two [2] per dwelling unit), of
which two (2) must be provided in a garage. The proposed project would bring the
site’s nonconforming parking into conformance by demolishing the existing carport
to construct a new three (3)-car garage and single covered carport.
c. The proposed 767 square feet of open volume area is over double the minimum
required of 326 square feet.
2. The Property is located in an area known for the potential of seismic activity and
liquefaction and is required to comply with the California Building Code (“CBC”) and
City’s Building Division standards and policies. Geotechnical investigations specifically
addressing liquefaction are required to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance
of building permits. Permit issuance is also contingent on the inclusion of design
mitigation identified in the investigations. Construction plans are reviewed for
compliance with approved investigations and CBC prior to building permit issuance.
3. The development is set back more than 300 feet from the mean high tide water line. Due
to the distance from coastal waters, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and a
Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP) are not required. A post-construction
drainage system will be installed that includes drainage and percolation features designed
to retain dry weather and minor rain run-off on-site to ensure the project does not impact
water quality. Any water not retained on-site is directed to the City’s storm drain system.
4. Proposed landscaping will comply with NBMC Section 21.30.075 (Landscaping). A
condition of approval is included that requires drought-tolerant, and prohibits invasive,
species. Prior to issuance of building permits, the final landscape plans will be reviewed
to verify invasive species are not planted.
27
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 8 of 16
5. The Property is not between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any
body of water located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan identifies the
closest public coastal viewpoints are over 1,000 feet northwest and east of the site at
Newport Shores Park and Sunset Ridge Park. Public views from Newport Shores Park
do not orient toward the site, and the property is not located within the direct viewshed
of Sunset Ridge Park. As such, the project will not impact public views. The subject site
is located on an inland lot north of the beach and is consistent with the current and future
pattern of development in the area. The existing residential lot does not currently provide
nor inhibit public coastal access. The Property is more than 200 feet from the nearest
public beach and the proposed development will remain a private residential lot.
Finding:
H. Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act if the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea or
shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The existing residential lot does not currently provide nor inhibit public coastal access.
The property is more than 200 feet from the nearest public beach and the proposed
development will remain a residential lot. The development will not impact public access
to local coastal resources and is not located between the sea or shoreline and the
nearest public road.
Coastal Variance
In accordance with NBMC Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development
Standards), the following findings for a variance and facts in support of such findings as set
forth:
Finding:
I. The Planning Commission has considered the following:
i. Whether or not the development is consistent with the certified Local Coastal
Program to the maximum extent feasible; and
ii. Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater consistency
with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more protective of coastal
resources.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Granting of a variance will allow the expansion of an existing duplex within the allowable
floor area limit and will result in a structure that equitably utilizes its lot area similar to
28
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 9 of 16
other R-2 lots in the surrounding area. The proposed bulk and mass will be to scale with
other structures on adjacent lots.
2. The reduced rear setback and third floor stepback is necessary in order to accommodate
a reasonably sized addition to the existing duplex that includes providing two (2)
additional Code-compliant parking spaces (four [4] spaces total) and that maintains a
compliant front setback facing Neptune Avenue.
3. While the Project is requesting variances to rear setback and third floor stepback, it
complies with all other applicable residential development standards including, but not
limited to, setbacks, open volume area, height limitation, and parking requirements.
4. Disapproval of the variance could result in the inability to redevelop the property
consistent with the allowances of the R-2 zoning designation and that other properties
of the same zoning enjoy. Disapproval would also result in the inability to provide the
two (2) additional Code-compliant parking spaces that serve to reduce demand for on-
street public parking in the area.
5. There are no coastal resources to protect on the Property.
Finding:
J. The granting of the variance is necessary due to the practical difficulties associated with
the property and that the strict application of the Implementation Plan results in physical
hardships.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. See Facts in Support of Findings A.1 to A1.4.
Finding:
K. The granting of the variance is necessary due to special circumstances applicable to the
property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, and/or other
physical features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise
applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property
owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. See Facts in Support of Findings B.1 through B.4.
Finding:
L. The variance complies with the findings required to approval a coastal development
permit in NBMC Section 21.52.015(F) (Coastal Development Permits - Findings and
Decision).
29
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 10 of 16
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. See Facts in Support of Findings G and I in entirety.
Finding:
M. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impedes public
access to and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. See Facts in Support of Findings G.5 and H.1.
2. The requested 5-foot encroachment into the 10-foot rear setback accommodates the
addition of two (2) additional Code-compliant parking spaces. The additional parking
serves to reduce demand for on-street public parking in the area that is commonly
utilized for beach access.
Finding:
N. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impairs public
views to and along the sea or shoreline or to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal
areas.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. See Facts in Support of Findings G.5 and H.1.
Finding:
O. The variance will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually
or cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands, sensitive habitat, vegetation
or wildlife species.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. There are no coastal resources on the subject property nor are there any in the
immediate area that could be affected by its redevelopment.
Finding:
P. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to, or in conflict with, the purpose of this
Implementation Plan, nor to the applicable policies of the Local Coastal Program.
Fact in Support of Finding:
30
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 11 of 16
1. See Facts in Support of Finding I in entirety.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds this project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has
no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Variance No.
VA2020-002 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-021, subject to the conditions
set forth in Exhibit “B,” which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
3. The Variance action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days following the
date this Resolution was adopted, unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City
Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code.
4. The Coastal Development Permit action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days
following the date this resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for
review is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 Local Coastal
Implementation Plan of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Final action taken by the City
may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with NBMC Section 21.64.035
(Appeals to the Coastal Commission) and Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Sections
13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 21th DAY OF JANUARY 2021.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Erik Weigand, Chairman
BY:_________________________
Lauren Kleiman, Secretary
31
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 12 of 16
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description
32
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 13 of 16
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Project-specific conditions are in italics)
Planning Division
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor
plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as
modified by applicable conditions of approval).
2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this
Variance and Coastal Development Permit.
4. Variance No. VA2020-002 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-021 shall expire
unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section
20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Section 21.54.060 of the
Implementation Plan unless an extension is otherwise granted.
5. The duplex may encroach a maximum of 5 feet into the rear 10-foot setback on River
Avenue as shown on the approved site plan, floor plans, and building elevations
stamped and dated with the date of this approval. An additional 6-inch maximum
projection shall be allowed for minor architectural enhancements such as the proposed
cornices and trim elements.
6. Eaves and overhang may encroach a maximum of 6 feet into the rear 10-foot setback
on River Avenue as shown on the approved roof plan stamped and dated with the date
of this approval.
7. Enclosed third floor area may encroach a maximum of 5 feet into the rear 15-foot
stepback on River Avenue as shown on the approved site plan, floor plans, and building
elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval.
8. The proposed project shall maintain all decks and patios as open and unenclosed at all
times as shown on the approved site plan, floor plans, and building elevations stamped
and dated with the date of this approval.
9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a final landscape
and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall
33
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 14 of 16
incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the
plans shall be approved by the City’s Planning Division.
10.All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with
the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and
growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All
landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be
kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of
regular maintenance.
11.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid
administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the City’s
Planning Division.
12.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the City’s Planning
Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the
application file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments
for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only
and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict
the elements approved by this Variance and Coastal Development Permit application.
13.The discharge of any hazardous materials into storm sewer systems or receiving waters
shall be prohibited. Machinery and equipment shall be maintained and washed in
confined areas specifically designed to control runoff. A designated fueling and vehicle
maintenance area with appropriate berms and protection to prevent spillage shall be
provided as far away from storm drain systems or receiving waters as possible.
14.Debris from demolition shall be removed from work areas each day and removed from
the project site within 24 hours of the completion of the project. Stock piles and
construction materials shall be covered, enclosed on all sites, not stored in contact with
the soil, and located as far away as possible from drain inlets and any waterway.
15.Demolition beyond the approved scope of work requires planning division approval prior
to commencement of work. Approval of revisions to project plans are not guaranteed. Any
changes in the current scope of work may require the entire structure to be demolished
and redeveloped in conformance with the current Zoning Code Development Standards.
16.After demolition and prior to framing, the architect of record shall certify that less than 50
percent of exterior walls have been removed and will require replacement. The architect
of record shall provide the applicable documentation to the Community Development
Director for review. If it is determined that 50 percent or more of exterior walls have been
removed during construction, all project work shall cease and the project shall be subject
to applicable requirements of the Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program Implementation
Plan, which may include, but are not limited to, a Coastal Development Permit and/or other
discretionary application. The applicant understands that this may result in project delays
or denial, and possible economic hardship.
34
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 15 of 16
17.A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “B” shall be
incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the
building permits.
18.Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the
current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent.
19.Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity –
Noise Regulations) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of
noise-generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Noise-generating construction activities are
not allowed on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays.
20.This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the
actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in
compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
21.To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents
from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of
action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including
without limitation, attorney’s fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature
whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s
approval of DeCaro Residence including, but not limited to, Variance No. VA2020-002 and
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-021 (PA2020-072). This indemnification shall
include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit,
attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes
of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by Applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating
or bringing such proceeding. The Applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs,
attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions
set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount
owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
Fire Department
22.Automatic Fire Sprinklers are required in existing homes if any of the following conditions
exists:
a.When an addition is 50 percent or more of the existing building area and the
resulting building area exceeds 5,000 square feet;
b.When an additional story is added above the second floor regardless of fire areas
on allowable area;
c.When an addition is added and the existing building is already provided with an
automatic fire sprinkler system.
35
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-003
Page 16 of 16
d.More restrictive requirements are required by other provisions of the Code.
Building Division
23.Plans shall be prepared by a licensed design professional.
24.Existing footings of entire building shall be retrofitted to mitigate liquefaction if the
construction valuation exceeds 50 percent of replacement cost of the existing building.
25.Common garage and carport shall be separated from living area of dwelling units with
1-hour fire-rated assemblies and with 45-minute fire-rated protective openings.
26.Emergency egress and rescue openings shall be provided for all rooms used for
sleeping.
Public Works Department
27.All damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the River Avenue and Neptune Avenue
frontages shall be reconstructed.
28.Each unit shall be served by an individual water meter and sewer lateral and clean out.
29.Each water meter and sewer clean out shall be installed with a traffic-grade box and
cover.
36
Attachment No. PC 2
Applicant’s Project Justification
37
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE38
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 1
Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. DeCaro (949)562-3432 Contact: Rod Jeheber (949)723-4393
Project name: DeCaro Residence September 24, 2020
Address: 5406 Neptune Ave (zoned R-2)
APPLICATION NO. Variance No. VA2020-002
Coastal Development Permit No. CD 2020-021
(PA2020-072)
APPLICATION REQUESTS
An application requesting approval of a coastal development permit and a variance was filed by
Rod Jeheber on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. DeCaro (Applicant) with respect to property located at
5406 Neptune Ave and legally described as lots 7 and 8, block 54, River Section, as per map
recorded in Book 4, page 25 of miscellaneous maps, in the office of the county recorder of said
county,(“Property”) together with that portion of section 29, township 6 south, range 10 west,
S.B.B. & M., in City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California. APN: 424-501-01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION:
The applicant requests a coastal development permit to allow the demolition of an existing 2 car
carport/accessory storage shed and the construction of a new 584 square-foot, 3-car garage/1-
car tandem carport to comply with legal conforming parking for a duplex. There is 104 square
feet of living space on the first floor, 764 square feet of living space on the second floor and 280
square feet of living space on the third floor. Total square footage of the addition/ garage has
been reduced to 1,732 square feet (“project”) to comply with recommended project revisions.
As part of the development, Applicant requests approval of a variance:
Request encroachment of five feet into the 10 foot Rear yard setback. With the approved 5-
foot encroachment into the 10-foot default rear yard setback,(facing River Ave.) being
applied to all three floors, the habitable space on the third floor would comply with the
additional 15’ step-back, (20 feet from property line). This encroachment is necessary in
order to build a legal- conforming, 4 parking space garage with additional living space for
the smaller two bedroom duplex unit. There are no other modifications or exceptions
requested as the project conforms to all MC requirements. Approval of this project would
provide parity with surrounding property setbacks and would be consistent with the
abutting R-2 duplex (5403 River) that has an equivalent 5’ setback facing River Ave.
Justification:
Applicants accepted the suggested project revisions and eliminated the 30’ square foot
spiral staircase enclosure (although allowed per code) in order to reduce mass.
Suggestions were addressed to minimize third floor bulk as viewed from the street. The
unfinished attic has also reduced the appearance of mass by accepting the revision to indent
the Mansard roof by two feet. The attic serves as the mechanical room (water heater, AC
ducting, steam unit plumbing above 2nd floor bathroom, house water conditioner, etc.) and
contains the stairs for the rooftop access. The mechanical room is less than 150 square feet
and cannot be placed further back or over the existing duplex. To move this structure at all
can’t be done as it is necessary in this location to serve the new addition mechanical needs.
Any change of location would remove the ability to have the internal stair case transition
39
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 2
from 2nd floor to third. Structural engineer and designer confirmed there is no way to place
the attic over the existing rental unit either.
Applicant’s “artist rendering” shows consistency with the pattern of development with the
abutting lots, the reduced appearance of mass and has agreed to further reduce the third
floor patio cover roof (if necessary) by pulling a portion of the Rear facing covered patio roof
back by approximately 3’ and has incorporated this into the design plans.
Subject building design is unique in that it abuts the (MFR) Echo beach 33’ high condo
project that has no required third floor restrictions. On the other side of subject property is
a well-designed three story duplex (no 3rd floor restrictions) that used unique articulation
through accessory storage on both sides. Subject design serves as an excellent example of
transitioning from duplexes to the MFR Echo project through a skillful, architecturally
interesting design. Artist rendering illustrates this.
The third floor railing was designed to be consistent with existing building. The railing
matches the existing second floor railing at the front of the existing house. Applicant
accepted suggested revisions to reduce mass through a superlative design that incorporates
relief, articulation, arches, columns, arched windows, and Tuscan style banding, that created
a design that is consistent with the existing Tuscan/Mediterranean front facing view.
Parking was reviewed and approved, as it provides legal conforming parking per R-2
standards. (3-car garage with 1 tandem carport). Most properties are currently unable to
meet the 4 car parking standard for duplexes. Absent the requested 5’ rear encroachment,
applicant would be unable to provide legal- conforming parking for four cars. Compliance
with providing adequate parking is one of the most important City and Coastal Commission
goals.
Applicant paid particular attention to having the new rear- yard facing design enhance the
neighborhood by complementing the abutting three-story properties. The
Tuscan/Mediterranean Design provides a well- balanced, architecturally interesting duplex
to fit seamlessly between the abutting lots but also to match the existing front of the
structure that faces Neptune Ave.
The request for the 5’ encroachment is justified as without it there would be no parity for
applicant property compared to other properties in the same zoning. An attached original
building permit for the abutting property showed setbacks as:
10 foot Neptune Avenue (Front) and 5 foot River Avenue (Rear). Extremely significant as
subject lot was originally part of the Echo Beach lot 104, then re-subdivided into the current
three lots facing River and Neptune. The other three comparable R-2 lots that are in front of
the applicant’s existing duplex, face Seashore and Neptune and have a 5 foot front setback
with a zero rear setback. The six lots that were used for comparables, are in the same
zoning, are all “through-lots” with similar lot widths.
The adjacent MFR property isn’t used as a comparable as it an MFR lot, subdivided as
condominiums, but treated as a single lot that has a 5 foot front setback(facing Seashore)
and ten foot rear setback(facing River). The adjacent MFR lot has a few condos that are side-
facing River Avenue with a four foot setback, but condos facing River are generally
considered their front or sides. The properties across the street (front facing River) are also
not applicable for comparables as they are in the SFR zoning. However, these properties,
directly across from subject property also have zero foot front setbacks.
The 5 foot requested encroachment into the 10 foot default rear setback is the equivalent
of a 5 foot setback. Granting this variance would be consistent with municipal code purpose
of setbacks. The property line is at least 17’ from the street, far greater than almost every
40
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 3
property on the setback map. The property driveway is currently set back so far that it is
constantly being used as a turn- around for large trucks.
Subject project only requires this variance due to the City’s omission of the front setback on
the setback map. This omission caused the application of default setbacks of 20’/10’. No
property in the area is subjected to these most restrictive setbacks.
41
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 4
TITLE 20 PLANNING AND ZONING REQUIRED FINDINGS:
VARIANCE
In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.090(f) (Findings and Decision), the following findings and facts
in support of such findings are set forth:
The 6 Findings required by MC20.52.090F:
A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g.,
location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply
generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A-1. Subject property is the only R-2 lot subjected to the most restrictive default setbacks due to
omission of a lot specific setback illustrated on Setback Map S-1B. Any property that does not have a
setback shown on this map is required to use the default setbacks of 20’ front and 10’ rear setbacks, per
code. The other two lots that were part of the original A, B, C parcel were able to build using one of the
two prevalent setbacks of 10 feet and 5 feet. Subject property and the immediate neighboring R-2 lots
were part of a unique orientation and re-subdivision that was originally part of the abutting MFR lot
(owned by Pacific Electric Railway). In 1958, the Railway deeded a portion of their lot to the City as
surplus property.
A-2. Subject lot was then re-subdivided into three parcels A, B, and C where each new lot was able to
develop their properties with a different front orientation as parcels A & B fronted two streets and
parcel C, fronted a third street. Subject, “parcel A”, is 5406 Neptune Ave., “parcel B” is 5403 River Ave.
and “parcel C” is 117 54th street. Parcels B & C are legal lots (now, non-conforming per code changes).
Parcel B (most like subject property) had a permit from 1971 to add an apartment over the existing
garage/carport. Their permit showed Neptune Avenue with a front setback of 10 feet and River Avenue
with a rear setback of 5 feet. The City had setbacks for these unique lots, as evidenced by the permit,
but never transferred the allowed setbacks to the setback map S-1B. This omission on the setback map
negatively impacts only the subject property as the other two properties were legally developed using
10 and 5’s for their setbacks. However, when Parcel B initiated a development in 2001, it appeared they
were also negatively impacted by the lack of a setback on the setback map as Parcel B was also
subjected to the 20’/10 default setbacks. At that time, code allowed a use permit and a modification
permit to be utilized as the lot was approved for a front encroachment of 16 feet into the 20 foot
setback, representing the current existing building/carport encroachment into their front (River). Parcel
B was also granted a 5’ encroachment for a subterranean garage into 10’ Rear setback facing Neptune
(MD2001-043 & UP2001-016). Parcel B project was revised in 2002 and found to be in substantial
conformance with the prior modification permit, and the River Ave setback remained at approximately 5
feet and their Neptune side without the subterranean parking is 10 feet. Granting the variance request
would give subject property the same development setbacks.
A-3. Subject property is required to use default setbacks of 20ft for the front and 10 feet for the rear.
Unfortunately, modifications and use permits can no longer rectify the more onerous default setbacks.
The solution in the code was to use the “alternative setback determination”. However, as a result of
some residents confusion as to its application or complaints over “mansionization” in other parts of
Newport, the prior “alternative setback determination” that had been used specifically for cases such as
42
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 5
this variance addresses, is no longer available to use. Therefore, a variance is the only timely alternative
to try to correct this extremely negative impact for development of the property.
A-4. The A,B, C parcels are irregular shaped lots within the definition of MC20.30.110.5.b. which also
allows for Rear yards that are irregular to gain back some buildable space that would be lost when
building parallel to the street. Property is the only one in the area that would fit the irregular Rear lot
definition. Since the City does not use the irregular measurement, the result is that a portion of the rear
lot is not useable, as the setbacks must follow the property line for setback purposes. For this reason as
well, it is imperative that variance is granted in order to receive parity with surrounding properties in the
same zoning.
Finding:
B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
B-1. To be clear, strict compliance with the Zoning Code application of default setbacks deprives the
Property of a buildable area that is comparable to typical R-2 lots with similar lot sizes. The comparable
lots with nearly exact lot sizes are the aforementioned lots that were part of the re-subdivision (Parcel
A,B,C).The other three R-2 properties that are similar in size and have through streets on both sides are
directly in front of Subject Property, having setbacks of 5’ front facing Seashore and 0’ rear setback
facing Neptune. Surrounding R-2 properties on Seashore Drive are also similar in size and the setbacks
are typically 5 foot front with a zero foot rear. The setbacks for the Seashore lots were in place long
before Seashore became a one-way street in 1979, so this adds to the fact that subject property is
significantly deprived of privileges enjoyed by the majority of all R-2 lots in the surrounding area if
variance is not granted.
B-2. This variance approval request is strictly for obtaining the ability to develop the property, using the
same setbacks that are utilized by virtually all the residential R-2 properties on Setback Map S-1B. The
setbacks are typically 5-foot front with 0-foot rear setbacks, or they are a combination of 5-foot/10-foot
setbacks. No property in this area has been required to go through the variance process to correct the
20-foot front and 10-foot rear default setbacks to gain parity with neighboring development. The much-
reduced setback that permeates the entire S-1B map is found not only in the R-2 zoning, but in all
residential zoning classifications on the setback map. The much-reduced setbacks in the neighborhood
also include an MFR lot that has 24 condos with a 5-foot front/10-foot rear setback, reduced side
setbacks and different orientations to the rear. The surrounding R-1 lots are typically a mixture of 5/0 or
10/5, but again, in no case are any of the lots, regardless of zoning, faced with having to go through the
expense and uncertainty of obtaining a variance that this property is subjected to as a result of not
having the setback map properly marked.
B-3. Subject property is the only R-2 parcel in the entire surrounding West Newport neighborhood that
is negatively impacted by not having the setbacks listed on the setback map S-1B and is therefore
subject to the more restrictive 20/10 default setbacks. All three properties were the only properties on
the entire S-1B setback map that did not show the setback, and were then faced with extreme non-
parity of development rights by having to use the most restrictive of setbacks, the default 20’ front &
default 10’ Rear setback. No other property has more restrictive setbacks than 10’ and 5’.
B-4. The 10-foot default rear setback (facing River Ave.) makes the possibility of building the required
parking for a duplex impossible. Further, it has the effect of people demolishing their entire R-2 building
43
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 6
and building an R-1 property to comply with lesser parking standards for single family residences. The
local coastal plan encourages ample parking on the property to not impact street parking for the public.
44
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 7
Finding:
C. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights of the applicant.
Facts in Support of finding:
C-1. Without granting a variance to allow the setback encroachment to be 5’, it would preclude the
possibility of any third floor at all due to the additional 15’ step back plus the 10’ default setback
(25’ to P.L.). The step back with the variance approval would still be 20 feet from the property line,
but without the variance, applicant would be unable to build a third floor at all as it would take out
the interior stairwell. The stairwell is fixed to the first and second floor. The development addition is
being placed at the rear of the property (facing River Ave.) that is currently the carport/accessory
storage. The development is to be part of the lower level existing duplex unit (5406). Both units
were remodeled in the past seven years with a new roof. Pushing back the building to be directly
over the existing duplex was investigated but was quickly declined for the following reasons:
The additional step back of 15’ from the setback of 10’ would take out the interior stairwell.
Structural engineer determined both existing units would have to have portions of both sides of
the interiors demolished to accommodate large footings.
Both units would be un-rentable for at least one year, which would be an unnecessary fiscal
burden.
Upstairs light source includes rooftop skylights that would be covered by any pushing back of
the addition. A new roof would be needed, and windows would need to be installed, interfering
with neighbor privacy.
structural footings would have walls broken into that would destroy the main plumbing lines,
walls, flooring, kitchen, and bathroom
C-2. Properties on both sides have third floors that had no restrictions as to 3rd floor square
footage or step backs. The adjacent MFR property has two condos alongside of subject property
with both condos having full 3 story buildings 33 feet high. Existing building is only 19 feet with a
9-foot carport area. A granting of the variance is not only necessary for a modicum of parity, but
the new addition will bring property into the diminution of the abrupt change in scale that
currently exists due to the adjacent properties.
Finding:
D. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D-1. The request to reduce the setbacks to match the setbacks in the entire area is not a special
privilege and is consistent with setbacks on other R-2 properties in the vicinity.
D-2. Approval of the variance request to increase total square footage including the garage by 1,660
square feet will allow property to have adequate parking for four cars and will become comparable in
height when viewed from River Avenue. Property will remain one of the few properties that have a 28’
front patio (Neptune).
45
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 8
Finding:
E. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City,
nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest,
safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and
Facts in Support of Finding:
E-1. Due to the unusually large setback from the property line to the street, the application of the five
foot rear setback will result in the structure being approximately 22 feet to the curb, which is set back
further than nearly all of the properties on the S1-B map.
E-2. Reduced setback will not appear out of character for the neighborhood nor will create any unsafe
conditions. In fact, as it stands today, the distance from the curb to the existing building is so deep that
it has become a safety issue to the applicant in that large trucks use the carport area to do turn arounds.
The new garage/addition will help ameliorate the frequency of trucks using this large opening for their
turn arounds.
E-3. The proposed addition will be a benefit to the public as there will be parking for 4 vehicles and this
will not be detrimental to on-street parking in the area.
E-4. After the addition, the property will still have lower or equal F.A.R. as compared to the R-2
properties in the same general area.
E-5 Development is only asking for the equivalent setback of other R-2 properties in the vicinity and to
obtain full staff support, has gone with only asking for 5’ rear.
Finding:
F. Granting of the variance will not conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning
Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
F-1. Granting of the Variance request would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the
area and will not result in additional traffic, parking demand or demand for other services.
F-2. The requested variance for the reduced setback application will still provide larger setbacks
compared to most R-2 properties in the area.
F-3. The project will comply with all other requirements and will be consistent with neighboring lots of
similar size, located within the same R-2 zoning designation.
F-4. The Property is not located within a specific plan area.
46
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 9
TITLE 21 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REQUIRED FINDINGS
Coastal Development Permit
The property is located within the City’s Coastal Zone and within the Coastal Zone Categorical Exclusion
Area. Since the project is within the Coastal Zone Categorical Exclusion Area, the demo and construction
of an addition to a duplex would not typically require a CDP since the project is consistent with the land
use plan and classification of the property is in an area that is already developed with similar property
classifications and there is existing infrastructure to serve the property. However, since this project
includes a variance request, it is believed that Development requires approval of a Coastal Development
Permit by the City.
In accordance with NBMC Subsection 21.52.015(F) (Coastal Development Permits-Findings and
Decision), the following findings and facts in support of such findings as set forth:
Finding:
A. Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed rear setback encroachment will allow for a development that is similar and
compatible in design, bulk, and scale of the existing neighborhood pattern of development
and expected future development.
2. Except for the variance request, the proposed development complies with applicable
residential development standards, including, but not limited to, side setbacks, height, and
parking as follows:
a. Project design maintains the required 3 feet side setbacks.
b. Proposed addition complies with the height limitations of the zoning code which allows a
maximum of 24 feet for flat roofs and 29 feet for sloped roofs.
c. Project is an addition to an R-2 duplex requiring one covered parking space and one enclosed
parking space for each unit. Proposed development provides a three-car garage with tandem
carport and is therefore compliant.
3. The Property is located in an area known for the potential of seismic activity and liquefaction
and is required to comply with the California Building Code (“CBC”) and the City’s Building
Division standards and policies. Geotechnical investigations specifically addressing liquefaction
are required to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Permit
issuance is also contingent on the inclusion of design mitigation in the investigations.
Construction plans are reviewed for compliance with the approved investigations and CBC prior
to building permit issuance.
4. With the granting of the requested variance, the proposed development complies with
applicable R-2 development standards including, but not limited to, floor area limitation,
setbacks, height, and parking.
47
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 10
a. The proposed Development complies with the required setbacks, (referred to as an
encroachment into the default setback)as approved by this variance, using a 5 feet
encroachment into the rear property default setback of 10 feet on River Avenue; and 3 feet along
the north and south side property lines.
b. A minimum of 326 square feet of open volume area is required, based on the code required
buildable area of 4,350 square feet and the proposed addition easily is in compliance.
Finding:
B. Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act if the
project is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of water located
within the coastal zone.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Development will not impact public access to local coastal resources and is not located
between the sea or shoreline and the nearest public road. Lot is in the Categorical exclusion
zone. Property is more than 200 feet from nearest public beach and proposed. Development
will remain an R-2 lot.
2. Development on the Property will not impair any unidentified public coastal views, as there is
substantial intervening residential development between it and the shoreline.
48
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 11
Variance
In accordance with NBMC Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standard),
the following findings for a variance and facts in support of such findings as set forth:
Finding:
C. The planning Commission considers the following:
i. Whether or not their development is consistent with the Certified Local Coastal Program to
the maximum extent feasible; and
ii. Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater consistency with
the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more protective of coastal resources.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Granting of a variance will allow an addition to an existing duplex lot and will result in a
structure that is equitable in size to those in the surrounding area. Proposed bulk and mass will
be in scale with other structures on adjacent lot in the same classification.
2. The reduced rear setback (5’ foot encroachment into the default rear 10’ setback is necessary in
order to accommodate a three-car garage with a tandem carport in order to provide legal
parking requirements. This would be a benefit to the public in that adequate site parking
relieves public for additional on street parking access. The reduced rear setback is also required
as the third floor has an additional 15’ step-back. Without the reduction of the rear setback, the
third floor would not be able to be constructed as the setback coupled with the 15’ setback
would intersect with the interior stairs, thus precluding the ability to have a third floor.
3. The Project Development is only requesting a variance to encroach 5’ into the 10’ default rear
setback. Project complies with all other applicable residential development standards including,
but not limited to, side setbacks, open volume area, height limitation and parking requirements.
4. Disapproval of the variance could result in the inability to construct an addition that complies
with the required parking standards for providing parking for four cars.
5. There are no coastal resources to protect on the Property.
49
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 12
Finding:
D The granting of the variance is necessary due to the practical difficulties associated with the
property and that the strict application of the Implementation Plan results in physical hardships.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Property currently has a legal non-conforming 60-year-old carport that could not be
approved with anything other than what is proposed for the 3-car garage and tandem carport,
providing parking for four vehicles instead of the current 2 vehicles. There is no security with a
carport as compared to a garage with tandem covered carport. The garage will have an entry
into existing duplex that has an immediate elevator that services the addition. The elevator is a
necessary feature as it provides service to those with disabilities or are elderly. The inability to
provide for security and a feature for elderly/disabled would result in a true physical hardship.
2. The current carport has a depth that is so large that it has become a turn-around for large
trucks, thus endangering occupants. Providing the ability to place a structure consistent with
adjacent structures will curtail the trucks as the new building addition would discourage further
use as a turn-around.
Finding:
E. The granting of the variance is necessary due to special circumstances applicable to the
property, including location shape, size, surroundings, topography, and/or physical features, the
strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the property denies the
property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same
coastal zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Strict compliance with the zoning code deprives the Property of a buildable addition that is
comparable to typical lot with similar lot sizes
2. Without granting the variance project could not build an addition that would comply with
current R-2 parking standards. Additionally, a third floor could not be built as the additional
step-back that is in current code did not affect adjacent properties. Due to code amendments
and more restrictive development standards, one could already assert that new project owners
are already subject to being denied privileges that are enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district.
3. Applicant is simply asking to have consistent setbacks as surrounding properties in the same
zoning classification. Applicant is also unable to obtain setback parity through the alternative
setback determination found in the code as it is no longer available, nor is there a possibility of
using a modification permit as these permits are now limited to only a 10% deviation. The
applicant wishes to make aware that when code amendments or updating of GIS is done, that
revising all Setback Maps to show the setbacks should be a priority as the omission of setback
50
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 13
map notations causes just a handful of applicants to have to go through a very lengthy,
expensive process through no fault of their own.
4. Applicant is required to obtain a variance to obtain setbacks that are consistent with the most
restrictive in the vicinity as the default setbacks of 20 feet for the front and 10 feet for the rear
are not required on any other properties in the vicinity or S-1B map. The required default
setback does constitute an impingement of Applicant’s right to develop their property
consistent with neighboring properties. Granting a 5-foot rear setback (or a 5’ encroachment
into the 10’ default setback) would bring parity between the Property and the surrounding
neighborhood in the same zoning classification.
Finding:
F. The variance complies with the findings required for approval of a coastal development permit
in NBMC Section 21.52.015 (F)
Fact in Support of Finding:
Facts in Support of Findings A and S above are hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
F. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impedes public access to
and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The property does not currently provide access to the sea or shoreline, nor does it provide access to any
coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
Finding:
G. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impairs public views to
and along the sea or shoreline or to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Facts in Support of Finding B above are hereby incorporated by reference
Finding:
H. The variance will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands, sensitive habitat, vegetation, or wildlife
species.
51
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 14
Fact in Support of Finding:
There are no coastal resources on the Property nor are there any in the immediate area that could be
affected by its development.
Finding:
I. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with, the purpose of this
Implementation Plan, nor to the applicable policies of the Local Coastal Program.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Facts in Support of Finding C. above are hereby incorporated by reference.
OPTIONAL MATERIALS:
1. Photos of existing Rear Yard (River Ave.)
2. Existing Front View (Neptune Ave)
3. Rear View (River Ave.) artist rendering
4. Sample of similar property size, located nearby. Rear View of a 3- story duplex w/ 3rd floor front
setback facing Seashore. This was a legal building as the rear area housed their mechanical room.
5. Aerial view
6. 1971 Building Permit
7-12. additional views and maps
52
Attachment No. PC 3
Applicant’s Photos and Exhibits
53
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE54
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 15
55
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 16
56
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 17
EXAMPLE OF NEIGHBORING DUPLEX. Rear yard view, 5308 Seashore during construction,
Mechanical Room on rear, no articulation or setback/stepback on rear
(Project 930-61-601-602)
Post Construction, same house. 3-Stories.
57
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 18
SUBJECT PROPERTY, AERIAL VIEW
Note the addition is only where the existing carport is, facing River Ave.
58
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 19
Abutting Property Original Building Permit Showing Setbacks of Neptune, 10 ft front; River, 5 ft rear
59
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 20
Excerpt from S-1B-West Newport Setback Map
60
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 21
61
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 22
LOTS 2 through 6 are most similar to Subject property (Lot 1)
All Have Through Streets
All Are Similar Size
All Were Part Of Original Parcel
Adjacent Property: 5403 River Has 5’ & 10’ setbacks
* 5400, 5404 & 5408 Seashore have 5’ & 0’ setbacks
\
62
Project Review Request Response
FINAL CORRECTED VERSION
Page | 23
Subject Property plus 5 comparables shown, plus location of
similar referenced duplex located between Neptune Ave and
Seashore (Proj. 930-61-601-602)
63
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE64
Attachment No. PC 4
Setback Map No. S-1B
65
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE66
333330
0
0
0
5
5 50
010
5
5510
10
105 10
0
10
5
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
10
5
0
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
10
5
5
5
10
5
10
5
0
1010
10
555
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 5555WALNUT ST 61ST60TH ST53RD54THLIDO
AVE
N
U
E
AVENU
E
52ND STREET(PVT
)WES
T
LIDO SANDS DR(PVT)(PVT
)61ST ST60TH STSTREETNEPT
U
N
E
47TH46THAVE
N
U
E 46TH STSUMMERWINDCOURT
DRIV
E CEDAR STREETWES
T
RIVER
JO ANNE WAYST(PVT)AVENUE
STREETIMA LO
ACOURT
ODYSSEYCOURT
COAST
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
W
E
S
T
SEAS
H
O
R
E
OCE
A
N
58TH ST62NDFRON
T (PVT)STREETFRO
N
T
DRIVE 62ND ST59TH STPROSPECT STREETSTREETSTREETCOAST
57TH STDRIV
E
50THSEAS
H
O
R
E
STREETHIGHW
A
Y
SANDS
STREET(PVT)COA
S
T
B
L
V
D
52ND51ST STREETSTREET49THRIVE
R
DRIVECEDAR STPROSPECT STOCE
A
N
NEPT
U
N
E
48THSTREETWES
T
NEW
P
O
R
T
S
H
O
R
E
S
D
R
I
V
E
56TH ST55TH ST51STLIDO SANDS COURT(PVT)
6407
63086307
61101066308222
213
58075805570760015909235
214
218
231
235
220
5601209
5301520951095200510751015009500311753085319520452155301521652015204511547094911500250014820481248045105451111
9
12
5
11
94815470313
0 13396104203
205
58015800
5705600360006030
59015930
227
246
560756055511550954085515
5406205
520551055112501650125010530553165304530953005315530452205119520047054701470446095006490150054908480948074908480248094824470651005020501650235004451
0
12
11234812224471964026100105601162046007610059032076001223
231 251
5503540153115400201
52115116510651065408531553095223530552055212521951235101470346055004502349164905480548164916490048054831482047085000490546014612460412
1
12
3
111480913
4
14
6464086302620421857105905230
227
22055205516540352015100530753235316521653015105461146075004501547144828481651045008490945094507 114450
0482313
8
6401
6304620262016310 226
580958036005222
220
540954055404215
5303511151045108500153045306530553085208511247004907491249004804490121847045012501550014915470047154805480114
2640065006303
6211
6480
214
215
205
219
243
247
56095603550154115600
5208520451035100510453125302520852065202522352055201511547074710490950194808480049044832480011
5 126480848004709470012
96502641010463066300621062086209610261106306210215620857035811206
215
234
219
238
223
242
239
561155055403551252035310540454095212531952105300520052095110520947114603490348014814491248354827231510150195005460011512
6
11
7470248194804 13
1640664046310620662006106600963025709570159115907210226530950115102500550085008530854005405530054015312521952155109500050005009490448114812471850094919
4616460811211
6
11
8
12
0
12
7
12
2
12
41334701490849154810482711
8 48502755810
49104906491949094905483548194923483112
2
114
6111
4902482349044900480648150 250125Feet S-1B - West Newport Setback MapName: S-1B / October 26, 2010 67
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE68
Attachment No. PC 5
Buildable Areas in the Vicinity
69
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE70
PA2020-072_Variance_Buidable.mxd
PA2020-0725406 & 5408 Neptune Ave City of Newport BeachGIS DivisionJanuary 14, 2021
20'20'20'
10'5'8.5'
Non-conforming Setbacks
WestNewportPark
SunsetRidge Park
BALBO
A
B
LVD
NEPT
U
N
E
A
V
E
SEA
S
H
O
R
E
D
R57TH STRIVE
R
A
V
E
51ST ST52ND ST53RD ST50TH ST54TH ST55TH ST56TH ST49TH ST46TH ST47TH ST48TH STOCE
A
N
F
R
O
N
T
W
45TH STCOASTHWYW54TH STJOANNEPL53RD STSUPERIORAVE52ND ST50TH STLIDO SANDS CT49TH ST48TH STLIDO
S
A
N
D
S
D
R
65%69%68%68%68%65%64%69%59%62%65%69%69%69%69%69%68%69%69%65%65%68%61%64%64%65%69%69%69%69%69%69%66%69%69%69%69%69%69%68%60%64%69%68%69%69%68%68%68%65%66%69%69%65%65%65%65%59%69%69%57%69%69%69%65%66%66%69%56%65%69%64%65%69%69%69%68%65%65%65%66%58%51%55%56%0 230115
FeetI
71
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE72
Attachment No. PC 6
Project Plans
73
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE74
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
75
5 ft11 ftPA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
76
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
77
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
78
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
79
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
80
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
81
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
82
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
83
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
84
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
85
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
86
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
87
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
88
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
89
PA2020-072 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
90
From:Bob
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:RE: PA2020-072
Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:09:24 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
From: Bob
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:08 PM
To: planningcommissioners@newportbeach.gov
Subject: PA2020-072
Hello,
I just received a public notice about the Decaro residence on Neptune Ave. I would like to get
clarification on both encroachments. There is a sidewalk along River that is very busy with people
walking animals or to and from the beach. Could this encroachment have a negative impact on
sidewalk access. Please explain the 15 foot easement for 3rd story.
Thank you,
Bob Porteous
Please note that we have changed our email domain, my new email is Bob@porteousrealty.com.
My old email will forward, but please make the change in your contacts.
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Received
DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
DeCaro
Residence
Variance & CDP
5406 & 5408 Neptune Avenue
Planning
Commission
Public Hearing
January 21, 2021
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Aerial
Community Development Department -Planning Division 2
Cliff Haven
Single-Family Zone
Balboa Bay Club
Planned Community
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Existing
Development
3
Front
(Neptune Avenue)
Rear
(River Avenue)
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Project Details
Community Development Department -Planning Division 4
•Add 1,732 sf to a duplex•New 3-car garage and one
covered tandem car port•New third floor
Rear Elevation
(River Avenue)
East Side Elevation
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Project Details
Community Development Department -Planning Division 5
•Add 1,732 sf to a duplex•New 3-car garage and one
covered tandem car port•New third floor
Front Elevation
(Neptune Avenue)
West Side Elevation
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Applicant’s
Requests
Variance
Encroach 5 feet into the 10-foot rear
setback (River Avenue)
Encroach 5 feet into the 15-foot
third floor rear stepback
CDP
Project in Coastal Zone
Community Development Department -Planning Division 6
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Encroach 5
feet into the
10-foot rear
setback (River
Avenue)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 7
5 Feet
10 Feet
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Encroach 5
feet into the
15-foot rear
third floor
stepback
(River Avenue)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 8
5’
15’
15’
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Variance
Findings
Special or unique circumstances
Preservation and enjoyment of
property rights
Not a special privilege
Not detrimental
Community Development Department -Planning Division 9
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Setback
Comparison
Community Development Department -Planning Division 10
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Existing
Setbacks
Community Development Department -Planning Division 11
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Development
Constraints
Community Development Department -Planning Division 12
Subject SiteTypical R-2 Lot
10’ RYSB 10’ RYSB
20’ FYSB
10’ FYSB
58% buildable65% buildable
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Neighborhood
Compatibility
Community Development Department -Planning Division 13
South of River Avenue North of Neptune Avenue
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Coastal
Variance
Considerations
Community Development Department -Planning Division 14
Maximum consistency with the certified LCP
No feasible alternatives would be more protective
of coastal resources
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Coastal
Development
Permit
No impact on
public views.
Does not
provide nor
inhibit coastal
access
Community Development Department -Planning Division 15
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
Recommended
Action
Conduct a public hearing
Find project exempt from CEQA (Class 3
New Construction)
Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-015
approving Variance No. VA2019-002 and
Coastal Development Permit No.
CD2020-021
Community Development Department -Planning Division 16
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)
For more
information
Contact Questions?Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner
949-644-3237
pachis@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportbeachca.gov
Community Development Department -Planning Division 17
Planning Commission - January 21, 2021 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Presented by Staff DeCaro Residence (PA2020-072)